Sitting of 20 November 2000

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

  Police Resources
  Mrs. Betty Williams: What resources will be invested in the police service in the financial years 2001–02 to 2003–04. [137444]
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Spending for the police will rise from £7.7 billion this year to £9.3 billion in 2003–04, which is a 12 per cent. increase in real terms over the three years. The real increase for next year is the largest for almost two decades.
  Mrs. Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that north Wales police are very grateful for their share of the £15 million that has been made available in the current financial year to improve policing in rural areas? Will he confirm that an additional £30 million, which is the equivalent of a full year's
  2
  funding for this purpose, will be made available next year? What conditions will apply to the extra funding, and will the funding continue in future years?
  Mr. Straw: I am very glad to know that the funding was well received in north Wales, as I believe it has been in other areas. I can confirm that £30 million of such funding will be made available for next year and the following year, and that the normal conditions for allocation under the standard spending assessment will apply, as will be made clear when the police SSAs are published very shortly. The funding emphasises our commitment to rural policing. It is also in very stark contrast with what happened under the previous Administration, when, for example, in the space of three years, 50 rural police stations in north Wales were closed.
  Mr. David Davis: Last year, Humberside police force sought funding of £7.5 million to increase policing, but its request was turned down. Fortunately, the privatisation of the Kingston upon Hull communications company allowed the local authority to make up some of the shortfall. The result of that was a 12 per cent. reduction in crime in Hull. There was not, however, such a good result in rural areas, because that is not where the extra police were. Does the Home Secretary agree that the example demonstrates that extra policing has an effect on reducing crime, and will he take that into account when deciding on funding for Humberside next year?
  Mr. Straw: We certainly take into account Humberside's needs. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, funding is distributed partly in accordance with the standard spending assessment, but also under specific provision that is made to cover, for example, the new police radio system. Under the crime fighting fund, Humberside has been allocated 137 officers in addition to its normal recruitment.
  On the central part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, on whether there is a direct relationship between inputs—in this case, police numbers—and outputs, as he

  3
  knows better than anyone else, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the answer is no. However, when police services are operating at optimum efficiency, additional numbers certainly make a difference. That is why we are operating both to increase police efficiency and to increase investment in the police service by record amounts.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The Home Secretary may recall that, a little while ago, I was told in a parliamentary reply that no figures were available on the duration of suspension and total cost of police officers who are suspended from duty. There are now a significant number of suspensions not only in the Metropolitan police area but in other areas. Can he say whether such figures are now available, bearing in mind the very significant drain that such costs have on police resources?
  Mr. Straw: As you would expect, Mr. Speaker, the answer that my hon. Friend was given is correct. Although the figures are not collected centrally, I can certainly provide him with the figures for the Metropolitan police and the Essex police areas. However, I do not think there is any evidence that the number of suspensions is higher than it was. We are certainly reducing the numbers in respect of other matters, such as sickness and early retirement.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the Home Secretary agree that the special constabulary is one of the most effective ways of increasing police numbers on the street, especially in rural areas? Against that background, will he consider whether it might become possible to pay members of the special constabulary along the model of the Territorial Army?
  Mr. Straw: Yes is the answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. I agree with him, first, that special constables can make a big difference, not least in rural areas. Secondly, although I know that it has been considered before, and people have always found difficulties, I think that we should continue examining ways of providing some recompense to special constables in the same way as recompense is provided to members of the Territorial Army.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Home Secretary for making resources available to ensure that police in my part of Berkshire can receive £2,000 extra in their pay. I wonder, however, whether he is certain that that will be enough, because I am not. Slough is an area of high crime and high cost, and we are finding that, although we have been given resources for more police officers, we cannot recruit them. If it turns out that the extra sum is not enough, will he increase it?
  Mr. Straw: I cannot guarantee that. My main concern at the moment is to try to get the money paid. As I shall explain when I answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), an offer has been made to increase the allowances for those in the home counties police forces, initially up to a 30-mile band and then in a 30 to 40-mile band, by £2,000 and £1,000 respectively.
  That offer is on the table. However, I was concerned to learn that it might take until February or later to reach an agreement on it because of the byzantine procedures of
  4
  the Police Negotiating Board. I asked this morning for those negotiations to be brought forward, and I hope—although it is outside my control—that an agreement can be reached before Christmas, because that money could be paid with effect from 1 September 2000.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I remind the Home Secretary of a document that found its way into the public domain not long ago, following a meeting between the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Minister of State, Home Office, the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), and others, at which the Home Secretary mentioned
  a new agenda for reform
  of the police. He stated that it was not to be brought forward now because it risked alienating the police at a crucial time.
  Given the right hon. Gentleman's commitment—or, at any rate, his alleged commitment—to open government and freedom of information, will he tell us what this reform is that the police might so dislike?
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady did not need to refer to an allegedly leaked document. We have been perfectly open about this matter. All the proposals under discussion about police reform have been openly discussed with representatives of all the police associations, not least at a major one-day seminar that took place at Lancaster house four weeks ago.
  Miss Widdecombe: We have just heard the Home Secretary refuse to tell the House what the reform is. If the reform is so openly in the public domain, why does its revelation risk alienating the police at this crucial time? Why will the reform not please the police? Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us what the reform is? He is looking through his documents to see if he can find it. He looks rather tired, but it is his duty to come here and to answer questions. If he is tired at the beginning of Question Time, I wonder what he will look like at the end of it.
  The Home Secretary is promising resources to the police, but should he not instead concentrate on ensuring that he has some police to whom to give those resources? Will he admit that between 1997 and today, the number of regular officers in the police has fallen by 2,740, the number of specials by 5,527 and the number of civilians by 442? Will he then tell the House why he finds this so funny?
  Mr. Straw: If I were not such a generous man, I might reply that the right hon. Lady had gone to pot. The document for which I was looking—and which, happily, I have now found—contains a quotation from Mr. Fred Broughton of the Police Federation, speaking on 26 September 2000. He said:
  From the mid-90s onwards, the police service found itself facing a rapidly declining manpower situation … The principle reason, without any doubt, is the damage that was done by the decision of the last Government to take housing allowance away from new recruits.
  That was the mother and father of the recruitment difficulties. The previous Government produced the problem; we are producing the solution.

  5
  Spending in real terms on the police next year will rise at twice the rate at which the Conservative Government's spending rose over a four-year period. I will take requests for increased spending on the police from anyone except the right hon. Lady and the shadow Cabinet. They are committed not to increasing spending on the police and other essential services but to cutting it by £16 billion. That is £24 million for each constituency, and could result in a cut of 60 police officers in Preston, and 60 in West Bromwich, West for example.

  Crime Trends
  Mr. Piara S. Khabra: If he will make a statement on trends in the level of crime in England and Wales since 1997. [137445]
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The British crime survey published last month shows that there was an overall fall of 10 per cent. in crime levels between 1997 and 1999. It showed that there had been a 4 per cent. reduction in violent crime, a 15 per cent. reduction in vehicle-related thefts and a 21 per cent. reduction in domestic burglary.
  Mr. Khabra: I am not going to pot like the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, both for his answer and for the granting of up to £33 million for schemes to install closed circuit television in various parts of the country, which has benefited my constituency and helped to reduce the level of crime there. I am aware of the second annual report on the Government's anti-drugs strategy. How does my right hon. Friend intend to tackle the problem of drug dealers targeting younger people?
  Mr. Straw: We have put in place a range of schemes the better to tackle drug dealers and those who are associated with them, including street robbers. A lot of street robberies take place with a view to gaining cash to deal in drugs, as do many domestic and other burglaries. We have already implemented section 3 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, so that those who are convicted of second or subsequent offences of dealing in class A drugs will receive a minimum sentence of at least seven years. We are doing a great deal of other work under the crime reduction programme—for example, CCTV has been of major assistance in ensuring that the police are better able to detect and then gain convictions for drug offences, among others—and we are putting a huge amount of money into the police, the probation service and the Prison Service, to target better those who are addicted to drugs and consequently committing a great deal of crime.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: As so many of the crimes are committed by people who have already been through the prison system, and given its recent serious failures, as manifested in places such as Feltham, Brixton and Blantyre House, it cannot be possible for the Prison Service to concentrate on its stated objective of reducing reoffending. It is distracted by those serious failures of management and it is clear that there is something very rotten in parts of the Prison Service. Will the Home Secretary and his colleagues be as tough on the Prison Service and its failures as they are, rightly, on crime
  6
  and the causes of crime? Will he make it a target to try to increase the number of prisoners who are helped by the Prison Service to avoid reoffending, so that we can get down the figures that are so high now, because the Prison Service fails the offenders and lets society down?
  Mr. Straw: Where there are failures by individual staff of the Prison Service, be it in terms of maintaining a proper regime or because of their attitudes to issues of race or other matters, we take those seriously. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Commission for Racial Equality has established an independent investigation into aspects of the matters to which he referred. That was announced last Friday and has our full support and endorsement.
  Running a prison service is extremely difficult for people at every level, and I have every confidence in the director general and his staff. It is not true that prison overall is failing, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, and 97 or 98 per cent. of the people who go to prison are sent there by the courts because community sentences have failed to work and to prevent offending behaviour. We are toughening up community sentences, but also toughening up the way in which the prison system deals with offenders once they are in prison, with a view better to ensure that their offending behaviour is reduced when they come out. So we are toughening up community sentences, as well as the way in which prisons deal with offenders once they are in prison, with a view better to ensure that their offending behaviour is reduced when they come out.
  Gillian Merron: I welcome the continued reduction in crime in Lincolnshire, which makes it one of the safest places to live in the country, but is the Home Secretary aware of the excellent contribution made by Lincoln city council's urban rangers, who provide such a reassuring presence on the streets in my constituency? Does my right hon. Friend have plans to work with other Departments to promote and encourage innovative schemes such as this so that we may continue to tackle crime and the fear of crime?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, I would like to congratulate the Lincolnshire constabulary and the city of Lincoln on their excellent work in reducing crime. It is indeed one of the safest areas in the country. The imaginative city rangers scheme emphasises that the fight against crime and disorder cannot be dealt with by the police alone, as the police themselves recognise. The more that others are used and the more we use the resources of the local authorities as well as those of the police service, the better able we are, in partnership, to drive crime and disorder down.
  Mr. John Bercow: Given that the Home Secretary told the House on 24 July that the level of crime was for the criminals to determine, that violent crime in the year to March 2000 rose by 100,000 offences, that the British crime survey suggests that actual crime is approximately four and a half times the level of that which is recorded, and that the Government have chucked out of jail no fewer than 27,000 criminals early—typically after they have served only half their sentence—is it any wonder that the right hon. Gentleman is so widely

  7
  regarded as a lily-livered liberal, and that the criminal classes of this country are praying for a Labour election victory?
  Mr. Straw: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first performance at the Dispatch Box and look forward to many more. I am told by my friends that as to whether I am a liberal or not, I have no reputation to lose. However, it looks as though the hon. Gentleman will resurrect it and make me popular in Hampstead as well as in places such as Blackburn, where I hope that I am already popular.
  I am glad of the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of the British crime survey's accuracy. It shows overall crime levels significantly above those of the recorded crime statistics. The survey was established by the Conservatives in 1981 and its veracity has never been challenged until this year, when it showed crime going down under Labour.
  The British crime survey, which is the best study we have, shows that crime is too high. We are not in the least complacent about levels of crime. However, it showed that crime rose inexorably for almost the entire period of the previous Conservative Government and that it has fallen under Labour by 10 per cent.—the best record of any Administration for 40 years.

  Attacks (Elderly People)
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: What recent discussions he has had with chief constables concerning greater protection for elderly people against attacks; and if he will make a statement. [137446]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I have regular discussions with chief constables on all aspects of crime. We are working with the police and other agencies to reduce all violent crime, including the despicable offence of attacks on the elderly. We have provided up to £12 million for locks for pensioners—part of a two-year scheme that will allow low-income pensioners to be provided with proper locks for their homes. We are also taking action against the despicable crime of distraction burglary, when bogus callers deceive the vulnerable and elderly to gain entry to their homes. At present, 21 projects are working across the country to support older residents within their communities.
  Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. Does he share my concern about the number of elderly and disabled people who are attacked in their own homes with a view to robbery, and agree that we must do more to help these unfortunate people? In the areas which have police and public partnerships, because there is no significant increase in the number of attacks on old people, this is not regarded as an emergency cause. That must be reviewed, because one old or disabled person who is attacked at home merits further investigation. Will my hon. Friend assure me that his Department will review the situation to protect our old people, particularly in their own homes?
  Mr. Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The most serious crime in this regard is often called distraction burglary, and 16,500 cases of that were reported last year. In those cases, old people often let into
  8
  their homes strangers who purport to be from the utilities, local government or other agencies. A taskforce was set up a year ago to work with local authorities and utility companies—gas, water and electricity—to target this appalling crime, which hits the most vulnerable and oldest. I can give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks.
  Mr. Graham Brady: How many attacks on the elderly have been perpetrated by convicted criminals who are on early release under the Government's scheme?
  Mr. Clarke: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any figures, but can say that more prisoners were released under the previous Government, whom he supported.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree that when elderly people are attacked, the work done by Victim Support is vital? The victim's charter contains an obligation to make victim support available for those who require it, and there is a growing expectation that local victim support organisations will be involved in partnerships. Given those facts, is my hon. Friend willing to reconsider core funding for local groups? 1 know that the Government have made more money available for development work, but some groups are running on a shoestring.
  Mr. Clarke: I entirely commend the excellent work of Victim Support and other organisations. We have increased funding significantly and are currently reviewing ways to extend our support to a wide range of different victim organisations. Indeed, we intend that support for victims should be a much more central part of the criminal justice system, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced measures whereby the views of victims can be taken much more fully into account by the criminal justice system. Victims of crime are the greatest sufferers from the malfunctions of our current system, and they deserve and need more support. We are reviewing funding in the way my hon. Friend suggested.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Minister agree that the greatest reassurance for elderly people would come from an increase in the number of officers on the streets? The New Forest area, which has a high proportion of elderly people living in it, has suffered a reduction of 60 officers over the past four years, despite the fact that Hampshire police underspent their recruitment budget last year because insufficient officers of the proper quality could be found. When will the Minister do something about police morale so that we can recruit the officers we require?
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's force, Hampshire, predicts an increase in numbers that will meet the points that he has made. I must emphasise that for old people and others the question of local police presence—bobbies on the beat—relies both on police numbers and on how officers are deployed and the leadership shown in using them. I have seen a variety of projects—I am sure that there are some in Hampshire, and perhaps in New Forest, West—which suggest that using police well and targeting their deployment makes it possible to offer the kind of

  9
  reassurance that the hon. Gentleman rightly highlights. That target is at least as important as that of increasing police numbers, to which we have referred many times before.

  Parenting Orders
  Mr. Syd Rapson: How many parenting orders have been imposed under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; and how many are being processed. [137447]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): Information from the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales indicates that between 30 September 1998 and 31 March 2000, some 284 parenting orders were made in the pilot areas. Information on the number of parenting orders currently being considered is not available centrally, but the order became available nationally on 1 June 2000.
  Mr. Rapson: I recognise the success of the parenting orders in the pilot areas, but does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the reluctance—certainly in Portsmouth—of local authorities and police to take up anti-social behaviour orders? Can the Government do anything to encourage organisations to get together to use a facility that will reduce crime and the causes of crime?
  Mr. Boateng: Fortunately, reluctance is being overcome—some 130 ASBOs have been successfully obtained and are making a real difference. It is to be hoped that the same degree of perseverance and focus that was shown by my hon. Friend's local authority and by the police covering the Wessex youth offender team, if applied to anti-social behaviour, will have the same success. They were successful with the YOT and with parenting orders; they can do it with the ASBOs, and we look forward to their doing so.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: If only about 100 ASBOs have been obtained in a year and a half, can the Minister really say that Labour legislation is working properly?
  Mr. Boateng: Certainly that is the experience both of the police and of local authorities and also of those neighbours and fellow citizens who have seen peace and tranquillity return to their neighbourhoods as a result of the ASBOs.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: How many?
  Mr. Boateng: One hundred and thirty. It would help if Conservative Members, who constantly bewail the so-called failure of ASBOs, did not call for them to be torn up—their helpful contribution to the debate. The Conservatives let down honest, decent people who seek a quiet and tranquil life; ASBOs meet the needs of those people—it is time that the Opposition woke up to that fact.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: In the spring, the chief constable of Gloucester said that at last we had a Government who understand the causes of youth crime. We have put measures in place, but,
  10
  as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) pointed out, they need to be expanded rapidly. In my constituency, there are estates where elderly people in particular look forward to the early implementation of such orders. Will my right hon. Friend encourage chief constables to look again at the application of such orders?
  Mr. Boateng: I was in Gloucester yesterday; the measures certainly have made a difference there. Chief constables are responding positively to the most recent guidance issued by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. All the signs are that it is beginning to make a difference. Regional crime directors are now in place in order to get the message home. The difference is becoming apparent on the ground. We want, efforts to be redoubled to ensure that we take forward that important initiative.

  Metropolitan Police (Allowances)
  Mr. Simon Burns: If he will make a statement on the level of allowances made to Metropolitan police officers and the effect on recruitment of officers from other forces. [137449]
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I increased the London allowance for Metropolitan police officers who joined after 1 September 1994 by around £3,300, bringing it to £6,051, with effect from July 2000. That and other changes now appear to be easing that force' s recruitment.
  During the current financial year, 21 officers have transferred to the Metropolitan police service and 197 officers have transferred from the MPS to other forces. Because of the recruitment difficulties of home counties forces, as I have already mentioned to the House, the employers offered to increase the allowance for officers in those forces working within a 30-mile radius of London by £2,000, and in the 30 to 40-mile band by £1,000, with effect—if it is agreed—from 1 September 2000.
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that reply. Is he aware that in the county of Essex, the number of police officers is 129 below the funded establishment, and that part of the problem in the current recruitment campaign is the distorting effect of the London allowance? May I press the right hon. Gentleman on two points? First, is the 30-mile band realistic? A town such as Chelmsford—a major commuting area—will be outside that band; £1,000 will not be an attractive enough sum to stop people seeking a career in the Met rather than in Essex.
  Secondly, as the matter has dragged on for so long, what more can the Home Secretary do to ensure that a decision is reached before Christmas rather than in February? He urgently needs to address the recruitment problems experienced in Essex and other home counties.
  Mr. Straw: We think that the 30-mile band is realistic, but obviously we are open to argument about the overall amount of money that has been allocated.

  11
  On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I want to see progress made in the Police Negotiating Board. Under the constitution of that body I have no power even to order it to meet, but, because of his question, I have said that I want it to meet as quickly as possible. Not everybody will be happy with the final outcome, but I believe that that type of increase in that type of band will help to overcome the recruitment problems—which I recognise—of the home counties forces. We allocated quite a lot of extra money to Essex to ensure that if the police can attract the recruits, their numbers rise significantly above the March 1997 levels—hopefully rising to record levels after that. Even now, the MPS is a net exporter of officers, not a net importer.
  Mr. John McDonnell: Officers in my constituency have welcomed the increase in allowances, but recruitment is still affected by the supply of affordable housing. Will my right hon. Friend continue to liaise with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to promote the potential for local authorities to introduce a requirement for key worker housing in planning applications for housing developments above a certain scale? Will he report to the House on that as soon as possible?
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He has my support, and I shall report to the House and to him about it.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Home Secretary accept that, despite the very welcome increase in allowances, the monthly figures for recruitment suggest that they are insufficient to prevent a further decline in Metropolitan police numbers? What further measures does he have under consideration to alleviate a position that is no longer just a problem, but is becoming a critical emergency in many parts of London?
  Mr. Straw: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. All the evidence now suggests that overall police numbers—including, we hope, in the Metropolitan police area—are beginning to bottom out, although there are inevitably lags in terms of getting recruits into the system. He will have seen reports in the newspapers from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis showing the relative success of recruitment inside the Metropolitan police. In addition to improving recruitment and increasing the speed of getting recruits into the training schools, which has been a big problem in the past, the Commissioner of Police is putting much effort into dealing with the problem of retaining officers in the service. The combination of those measures and the additional funds that we have provided will ensure that police numbers start to rise.

  Police Numbers (Sussex)
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: What recent representations he has received about police numbers in Sussex.[137450]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I have received a number of representations in recent months from residents of Sussex about police
  12
  numbers, including a petition from the Memorial Square residents action group. The hon. Gentleman also wrote to me on 27 July about the petition and the policing of Eastbourne, and I replied fairly fully in August.
  Mr. Waterson: Does the Minister accept that the more than 15,000 people who signed the petition are angry? Despite pre-election promises, there are 150 fewer police officers in Sussex than there were at the time of the last election. Those people are sick and tired of excuses from the Home Office, so will he commit himself to ensuring that, by the time of the next election, we will have at least as many police officers on the beat in Sussex as we did in 1997?
  Mr. Clarke: I made three points clear in my letter to the hon. Gentleman. First, there has been a 3.7 per cent. increase in spending in Sussex in the past year; secondly, we have allocated through the crime fighting fund an extra 206 officers for Sussex over that period; and, thirdly, Sussex police anticipate an increase in police numbers of between 70 and 76 next year. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, it is a matter for the chief constable to decide where he allocates officers within his police authority area, and neither he nor I would want to second-guess him on that. The Government have a strong record of which we can be proud.

  Fire Services Community Programmes
  Helen Jones: What assessment he has made of the contribution of the fire services community programmes to crime reduction strategies; and if he will make a statement. [137451]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I welcome increasing fire service involvement in community programmes, crime reduction strategies, in the reduction of accidental fires and injury and in issues connected with arson, hoax calls and juvenile fire setting.
  Helen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I commend to him the project run by the Cheshire fire service at Blackbrook in my constituency where, working with the residents, it has trained young people to check smoke alarms? It also arranges to sell batteries for smoke alarms cheaply. As a result, there has been a reduction the number of fires and in the number of hoax calls and, according to the local school, a vast improvement in the behaviour of the young people with whom it worked. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the people involved in the project and will he undertake to consider how, as a matter of urgency, such good practice can be encouraged elsewhere?
  Mr. O'Brien: I shall indeed. The Government welcome the Blackbrook community safety initiative. Many brigades will wish to follow that model. The fire service as a whole is to be commended for the range of community-based initiatives that it undertakes across the country to address the twin problems of fire safety in the home and disaffected youth.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Although I welcome what the Minister said in praise of firemen at

  13
  every level in every part of the country, does he recognise that chief fire officers and chief executives are telling us that many of the problems with the strategies are caused by far too much bureaucracy before they are set in place? Does he recognise that the same problem of anti-social behaviour orders was raised earlier by his Back Benchers and has been repeatedly raised by Back Benchers of all parties to the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng)? People—including fire officers—want action; we do not want strategies that are bogged down in bureaucracy.
  Mr. O'Brien: It is a great surprise to hear the hon. Gentleman say that because, as I understood it, he has been calling for anti-social behaviour orders to be torn up. He has said that he does not accept that they are a good thing, but they are a key component of our fight to deal with a problem that the previous Government failed to address. We are tackling anti-social behaviour, which is what the people elected us to do.

  Press Office Staff
  Mr. David Tredinnick: How many people (a) are employed and (b) were employed in May 1997 in his Department's press office. [137453]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): A total of 27 people are employed in the press office–22 press officers, a chief immigration officer on attachment and four administrative grade staff. In May 1997, a total of 19 people were employed in the press office–15 press officers and four administrative grade staff.
  Mr. Tredinnick: My constituents want fewer spin doctors at Westminster and more police officers for Leicestershire. Does the hon. Lady agree that if we are to have a modern and efficient police service in Leicestershire in the new millennium, we need new police stations such as that proposed at Wood street in Hinckley? What benefits does she think are likely to accrue to the town of Hinckley if that modern police station, with its closed circuit television viewing area and special detention cells, is built in the near future?
  Mrs. Roche: I thank the hon. Gentleman for kindly faxing me today a copy of a letter from his local superintendent about Hinckley, which seems to be involved in a very good project. The chief superintendent says:
  Policing levels have seen a steady increase in Hinckley and are now over 45 per cent. higher than they were in 1995. I am also delighted to be able to say that the figure is set to grow even more.
  That is a better briefing than my own excellent officials have been able to provide.
  I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman tabled this question. Now that the Conservative party has admitted using public funds for its war room, perhaps he can ask how many extra press officers have been employed by Conservative central office as a result of the trebling of public money provided by the Short money increases two years ago.
  Ms Rosie Winterton: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many people who are employed
  14
  in her Department's press office will be spending their time dealing with inquiries about the activities of cowboy wheel-dampers and kerb crawling? Both activities have caused immense problems in my constituency. Will she confirm now, and through her press officers, that her Department intends to legislate to curb the cowboy dampers and to clamp down on the kerb crawlers?
  Mrs. Roche: May I reflect the sentiments of the whole House and congratulate my hon. Friend on the absolute dexterity with which she framed her question? On a more serious note, I understand very well her concern about the matter which has been of concern for some years. It is a serious issue and we intend to legislate on it as soon as possible.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Department's press officers—whose numbers have increased by more than 40 per cent.—spend some of their time preparing to explain the reforms that risk alienating the police at a critical time? Will the Minister help to relieve the burden on her press officers by explaining to Parliament what the reforms are?
  Mrs. Roche: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that this question has been asked before in Home Office questions, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary answered it.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: The hon. Lady should try answering it.
  Mrs. Roche: I should be grateful if the right hon. Lady restrained herself. I know that she has difficulties at the moment, but she should not exacerbate them.
  The expansion in the number of press officers came about after a review by external consultants, as a result of the great increase in demand from the media, which now operate 24 hours a day. Everything that we are doing with the police is in co-operation with them, and they very much welcome everything that we are discussing.

  Crime Fighting Fund
  Ms Oona King: What criteria he will use to allocate funding from the crime fighting fund in the next financial year. [137444]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Police forces that have recruited officers through the crime fighting fund in the current financial year will receive continuation funding to meet the cost of those officers next year. All forces have also received a provisional allocation of further CFF recruits for the next financial year. The continuation criteria link the provision of extra resources to improved performance, and cover whether the agreed additional numbers have been recruited and deployed to front-line policing and whether forces are meeting efficiency gain targets. The criteria also look at forces' progress on targets for crime reduction, police officers' sickness absence and ethnic minority recruitment.
  Ms King: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that, although Tower Hamlets had the

  15
  biggest increase in street crime in the Metropolitan police area, the CFF's criteria meant that it was excluded from receiving extra police on the street? I welcome the Government's commitment to a 20 per cent. increase in police spending over the next three years—which would be imperilled by Tory spending cuts—but may I urge my hon. Friend to review the CFF' s criteria so that an area such as Tower Hamlets can have extra police on the streets, which we desperately need?
  Mr. Clarke: We are in correspondence and discussion with my hon. Friend on this matter, which she has raised consistently and coherently. I do not accept that the CFF's criteria need to be reviewed in the way that she suggests. However, there is currently a misunderstanding between Tower Hamlets, the Metropolitan police and the Home Office, which we are now seeking to sort out, as my hon. Friend urged. The obligation to allocate extra officers is on the Metropolitan police, who are seeking to get more bobbies on the beat—more police on the streets in constituencies such as my hon. Friend's, where crime is very high.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: May I welcome the fact that the CFF has helped the police in Surrey, now that the whole of Surrey is under the Surrey constabulary. However, will the Minister take note of the fact that there is grave concern in Surrey that police who have been recruited or are even on the beat may be lost to the Metropolitan police because post-1994 officers effectively receive £6,000 less than those in the Metropolitan police? That serious problem may well undermine the CFF's objectives.
  Mr. Clarke: I am sure that the whole House wishes the hon. Gentleman all the best in his reselection battle against the mavericks of the Tory ultra-right—[Interruption.] I am referring to the Conservative Front Bench.
  In response to the specific matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, he is, characteristically, correct. Important issues are raised by the increase in pay for those in the Metropolitan police, which is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary responded to the justified points raised by a number of forces around London who are worried about losing officers to the Metropolitan police. As my right hon. Friend said, we have reached a provisional agreement, which is now a matter for the Police Negotiating Board, and I hope that we will get a settlement that meets some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Minister give money to the pub watch scheme? As he knows, one has been set up in Blyth Valley, with the involvement of the police, publicans and myself. There has been a dramatic decrease in violent crime in Blyth Valley. The only problem is that those who have been barred are now threatening me. However, will the Minister consider the matter?
  Mr. Clarke: I certainly shall consider that. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend: the Blyth Valley pub watch scheme is renowned for being an effective and good scheme—although my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary tells me that, just the other day, he visited one in Preston that is also an extremely strong example. Through our alcohol-crime seminar, we are addressing with national
  16
  pub watch and a variety of local organisations how to spread the practice of pub watch from such leading examples. We are, in principle, prepared to make funding available, but we must first establish the best framework for that purpose. The concept is a powerful one which brings the positive effects to which my hon. Friend refers.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that the best way in which to fight crime, especially in rural areas, is to have more police officers, and does he share my regret at the fact that North Yorkshire police force will be 43 officers down by the end of the year? Will he see fit to increase the crime fighting fund to ensure that there are more police officers on the streets and especially on the beat in rural areas?
  Mr. Clarke: I am sure that the hon. Lady shares my regret at the fact that, before 1997, North Yorkshire police authority closed 75 police stations in rural areas of North Yorkshire. I agree that the number of police officers in rural areas is important but, as I said earlier, a series of factors, of which police numbers is only one, can be adduced to strengthen rural policing. Mobile police stations, partnerships with local authorities and targeting patrols on areas of special difficulty can and do make a significant difference in many parts of the country. I shall be happy to discuss with the hon. Lady how policing might be made more effective in North Yorkshire.

  Double Jeopardy Rule
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What estimate he has made of the number of cases that resulted in an acquittal that would be the subject of a new trial were the double jeopardy rule relaxed in line with the Law Commission's current proposals; and how many of them would result from the application of DNA testing. [137455]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): It is not possible to make an informed estimate. That is because the existing doctrine of autre fois acquit means that the police do not generally seek fresh evidence in relation to someone acquitted of an offence.
  Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his attempt to answer my question. Does he agree that protection against being tried twice for the same crime is a fundamental protection in our law that has existed for many centuries, and that it exists to safeguard the individual against the power of the state? Before we tamper with such a safeguard, we ought to have answers to the sort of question that I have put today. Until we have detailed evidence, we should go no further in considering a change to our law.
  Mr. Boateng: I must resist the temptation either to agree or to disagree with my hon. Friend, bearing in mind that the matter is being considered by the Law Commission. We have promised to reflect on its final submissions; when we have done so, I shall be able to give my hon. Friend some satisfaction, one way or the other.
  Mr. Peter Lilley: Can the Minister confirm that the Government are not merely considering relaxing the protection against double jeopardy, but contemplating doing so retrospectively?

  17
  Given that the Government have now attacked most of the spheres in which people know there are protections in the law and care about them—the right to trial by jury, the presumption of innocence and now the relaxation of the rule against double jeopardy—is not justice being put in jeopardy and people's confidence in the law being undermined?
  Mr. Boateng: The criminal law, rightly, takes a dim view of retrospectivity. The Government will, of course, consider the recommendation of the Law Commission, when it comes, but I should be extremely surprised if the Law Commission recommended retrospectivity.
  Mr. David Winnick: Would it not be useful for the critics to study the recent publication by the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the subject? I recognise that the issue cannot be lightly decided, but let me illustrate the essence of the matter. If a person has been acquitted of murder, but DNA evidence later demonstrates that there can be hardly any doubt that that person was involved in that serious crime, what consideration are we giving the victim of that terrible crime if we proceed on the basis that, regardless of any evidence, an individual who has been acquitted should not be brought before a court again?
  Mr. Boateng: We had a good debate on the issue in Westminster Hall. The House has now heard the two sides of the argument. The recommendations and conclusions of the Home Affairs Committee, of which my hon. Friend is a member, were well argued and highly persuasive. No doubt the Law Commission will take them into account when reaching its final opinion.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister agree that the Lawrence report recommended that there should be a change in the law because in exceptional cases where there is overwhelming evidence—for example, from DNA testing—it is wrong that someone cannot be tried because of the current law on double jeopardy?
  Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman, like my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who sits on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, makes a powerful point on behalf of the victim, a point that the Government will surely take into account when reflecting on the Law Commission's final recommendations.

  Domestic Burglaries
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on recent trends in the incidence of domestic burglaries. [137457]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The reported crime figures published in July 2000 show a fall in the total numbers of domestic burglaries of 24 per cent. in the past three years—down from 582,000 in the year ending March 1997 to fewer than 443,000 in the year ending March 2000.
  18
  The British crime survey shows that the total number of domestic burglaries, including those that are not reported to, or recorded by, the police, has fallen from just over 1.6 million in 1997 to under 1.3 million in 1999—a 21 per cent. reduction.
  Mr. Cunningham: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. I welcome especially the Government's efforts to reduce crime, particularly that of burglary. May I suggest that Governments cannot act alone? We need the police and voluntary organisations such as neighbourhood watch and Hillfields watch in Coventry. More importantly, of the 150,000 pensioner households that may come within the new lock scheme, what proportion will be in the west midlands, and what proportion of that will be in Coventry?
  Mrs. Roche: I shall write to my hon. Friend about the precise breakdown. The schemes have been available and we have tried to target those who are in most need. I agree with my hon. Friend that the figures reflect a partnership approach, with the public, community groups and the police coming together to fight crime. Today's announcements on youth justice reform will also assist with the national roll-out of electronically monitored curfew orders for juvenile offenders.

  Liquor Licensing
  Mr. John Grogan: What assessment he has made of the responses to the liquor licensing reform White Paper. [137458]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We are considering responses to the White Paper. We hope to announce decisions on the way forward very soon. I am pleased by the level of support for the proposed modernisation of the system.
  Mr. Grogan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the responses to the White Paper indicate a widespread acceptance of the principle that more flexible opening hours for licensed premises would improve public order because no longer at closing time would many people, including some who had been drinking against the clock, spill out on to the streets at exactly the same time chasing fast food or transport home? Will he note the response of a Scottish publican who recently observed, rather pityingly, of the English and Welsh, "Even Cinderella was allowed to stay up until midnight"?
  Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right. There is strong support from the police for the way in which we are reforming our licensing system. The system that we inherited was out of date and bureaucratic. Our reforms will provide a streamlined and simplified system of licensing for the vast majority of premises that provide hospitality. We shall reduce the red tape that has constrained the industry and provide safeguards

  19
  against drunkenness, other anti-social behaviour and under-age drinking. We want to ensure that the police are given powers to deal with problems of anti-social behaviour that are associated with drunkenness. We have had support from landlords and community groups for our proposals.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Minister confirm press reports saying that the Government do not now intend to introduce early legislation to reform licensing hours? If that is true, does he accept that many members of the public and many in the industry will feel extremely let down? When will he publish the consultation responses and explain the Government's change of heart? The Minister has told us for four months that he will do so shortly. Will he promise to make his announcement to the House before telling the outside world his conclusions? Does he agree that it would be
  20
  monstrous if he made the announcement in his speech to the Local Government Association licensing conference tomorrow, without having told the House first?
  Mr. O'Brien: I was not proposing to make a big announcement tomorrow, so the hon. Gentleman need not fear. The White Paper is long overdue. His party failed to deal seriously with licensing. The Government have introduced serious proposals which have received widespread support from the industry and from the police. We are giving serious consideration to the 1,200 responses to the White Paper. I shall ensure that those are available in the House of Commons Library when we have had the chance—[Interruption.] There were 1,200 responses. The White Paper provoked considerable comment, which we shall examine with great care. We want to ensure that we have a licensing system that works—something that we did not inherit from the hon. Gentleman's Government.

Point of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that the Secretary of State for Defence is in Brussels today undertaking negotiations that will in effect undermine the coherence and success of the most successful military alliance that the world has ever seen. You will also understand that these actions on the part of the Secretary of State and the Government are being carried out without any consultation with the House at all. In view of the very serious nature of those talks and the events that may flow from them, may we look to you to ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence gives the House tomorrow an account of what has transpired today and of what is in store for British forces?
Mr. Paul Flynn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can answer the point of order from the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). I cannot guarantee that a statement will be made tomorrow, but I understand that a statement may be made on Wednesday which will reveal all. Does that help the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)?
Mr. Flynn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are hon. Members who are members of the Western European Union and of the NATO Assembly and who have been discussing these matters on behalf of the parties in the House for many months now. The matter has been thoroughly discussed and is well understood. It is a shame that a practical way to increase the chances of peace and stability in Europe should be used as a political football by the anti-European fanatics among the Opposition.
Mr. David Maclean: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, and your nod and a wink that a statement may be made. Would you be willing to consider a request for an emergency debate if such a statement were not forthcoming from the Government?
Mr. Speaker: Order. These matters are hypothetical. I cannot say more than that there will probably be a statement on Wednesday.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, and the comments of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). Is it in order for the prerogatives of the House to be usurped by the Western European Union, particularly when so many hon. Members have a great deal of knowledge and expertise in defence matters and know how dangerous the proposal is?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a good debating point.

House of Commons Modernisation
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Leader of the House to move the first motion, I should inform the House that I have selected amendments (b) to (e) and (h) to (k), in the names of the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), to the motion on sittings in Westminster Hall.
In line with recent practice, I propose that, for the convenience of the House, the debates on the three motions be taken together, as they are so clearly interrelated.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for your guidance. Can you confirm that there will, however, be an opportunity for my right hon. Friend and me to divide the House—if, having listened carefully to the debate, that was necessary in our view—on the amendments that you have kindly selected, as well as on the main motions?
Mr. Speaker: That is certainly possible if the debate is concluded in good time.
Mr. Forth: I do not know about that.
Mr. Speaker: Nor do 1.
3.35 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Third Report on Thursday Sittings (HC 954) and the Fourth Report on Sittings in Westminster Hall (HC 906) of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Motion relating to Thursday sittings and Standing Committees—
That, from the next Session of Parliament until the end of the first Session of the next Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:
A. (1) The House shall meet on Thursdays at half-past Eleven o'clock, and will first proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions;
(2) proceedings on business on Thursdays shall be interrupted at Seven o'clock; and
(3) in their application to Thursday sittings of the House, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time three hours before the time so specified, save that reference to half-past Ten o'clock shall be substituted for reference to Twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration).
B. Standing committees shall have leave to sit at any hour and notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, subject to the following provisions:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays when the House is sitting, no standing committee sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of One o'clock and half-past Three o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees); and

(b) on Thursdays when the House is sitting, no standing committees sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock and half-past Twelve o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of

23
standing committees) with the substitution in that paragraph of 'twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock' for 'One o'clock' and 'twenty minutes to Twelve o'clock' for 'a quarter past One o'clock'.

Motion relating to Westminster Hall—
That, from the next session of Parliament until the end of the first Session of the next Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:
(1) On days on which the House shall sit after an address has been agreed to in answer to Her Majesty's Speech there shall be a sitting in Westminster Hall—

(a) on Tuesdays and Wednesdays between half-past Nine o'clock and Two o'clock; and

(b) on Thursdays beginning at half-past Two o'clock and continuing for up to three hours (and in calculating that period no account shall be taken of any period during which the sitting may be suspended owing to a division being called in the House or a committee of the whole House).

(2) Any Member of the House may take part in a sitting in Westminster Hall.
(3) Subject to paragraph (13) below, the business taken at any sitting in Westminster Hall shall be such as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall appoint.
(4) The Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman shall take the chair in Westminster Hall as Deputy Speaker; and the House may appoint not more than four other members of the Chairmen's Panel to sit in Westminster Hall as Deputy Speaker.
(5) Any member of the Chairmen's Panel may also take the chair at a sitting in Westminster Hall when so requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means, with the duties and powers conferred on additional Deputy Speakers; and Members so appointed shall be addressed by name.
(6) Any order made or resolution come to at a sitting in Westminster Hall (other than a resolution to adjourn) shall be reported to the House by the Deputy Speaker and shall be deemed to be an order or resolution of the House.
(7) If a motion be made by a Minister of the Crown that an order of the day be proceeded with at a sitting in Westminster Hall, the question thereon shall be put forthwith, but such motion may be made only with the leave of the House and may not be made on a Friday.
(8) The quorum at a sitting in Westminster Hall shall be three.
(9) If at a sitting in Westminster Hall the opinion of the Deputy Speaker as to the decision of a question (other than a question for adjournment) is challenged, that question shall not be decided, and the Deputy Speaker shall report to the House accordingly; and any such question shall be put forthwith upon a motion being made in the House.
(10) If any business other than a motion for adjournment is under consideration at a sitting in Westminster Hall, and not fewer than six Members rise in their places and signify their objection to further proceedings, that business shall not be further proceeded with in Westminster Hall, and the Deputy Speaker shall report to the House accordingly, and any order under paragraph (7) above relating thereto shall be discharged.
(11) At the end of each sitting in Westminster Hall, unless a question for adjournment has previously been agreed to, the Deputy Speaker shall adjourn the sitting without putting any question; and proceedings on any business which has been entered upon but not disposed of shall lapse.
(12) The provisions of Standing Orders No. 29 (Powers of chair to propose question), No. 36 (Closure of debate), No. 37 (Majority for closure or proposal of question), No. 38 (Procedure on divisions), No. 39 (Voting), No. 40 (Division unnecessarily claimed), No. 41 (Quorum), No. 43 (Disorderly conduct), No. 44 (Order in debate), No. 45 (Members suspended, &c. to withdraw from precincts), No. 45A (Suspension of salary of Members suspended) and No. 163 (Motions to sit in private) shall not apply to sittings in Westminster Hall.
(13) In each Session, the Speaker shall appoint not more than six Thursdays on which the business to be taken in Westminster Hall should be debates on select committee reports chosen by the Liaison Committee.
(14) The House shall meet on Wednesdays at half-past Two o'clock, and paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) shall have effect on Wednesdays; and Standing Order No. 10 shall not have effect.
Amendments (b) to (e) and (h) to (k) to the above motion, which would substitute "Chairman" for "Deputy Speaker" throughout.
Mrs. Beckett: In my capacity as Chair of the Modernisation Committee, I invite the House to endorse the Committee's recommendations for the continuation of the experiment with Thursday sittings and sittings in Westminster Hall for a further, but more sustained, experimental period. I recognise, as does the Committee in its reports, that some Members still have reservations about the measures, but I believe that the majority of the House has found the reforms useful, and with the minor changes proposed—for example, to the Westminster Hall sittings—they could be more useful still.
Although we believe that the House has enough experience to wish the experiment to continue, we accept that we could identify further improvements. Accordingly, the Modernisation Committee has recommended that a final decision on such matters be left to the next Parliament. The motions before the House today would, if passed, enable that to happen. They envisage that the new Parliament should have the benefit of an experimental year before being invited to terminate, modify or confirm today's experiments.
I turn first to the issue of Thursday sittings. The Modernisation Committee notes:
there are some Members who for years have been used to a full traditional Parliamentary day until 10.00 pm on a Thursday and who find the experiment not to their liking.
Our first report listed the main arguments against bringing forward sittings on Thursdays: that changes on Thursday morning and afternoon would not be justified by the additional certainty on Thursday evening; that the House could still sit after 7 o'clock, so Members might still have to rearrange their diaries; that there were few votes after 7 pm on Thursday anyway; that devolution would reduce pressure on time on the Floor of the House; that the usual channels could make progress on increasing certainty without such a measure; and that the proposal would erode Thursday's status as a parliamentary day.
The Committee did not consider those objections insurmountable, and experience has borne that out. The move to bring forward Thursday sittings was a logical continuation of the Jopling reforms, which proposed an informal understanding that whipped business would normally be over by 7 pm on Thursday. Of course, under that proposal, Thursdays effectively became almost a half day, so long as the Government did not require more time, and it concluded with a period in the mid-1990s when the average hour at which the House rose reached its earliest at least since 1979.
The Jopling arrangement was intended to allow Members to make better provision for their constituency duties, but it could have continued under a new Government, with much new business, only if all parties had been willing to accept a reduction in opportunities for scrutiny, or if devolution had brought about a reduction

25
in business, which is not yet evident. A sustained reduction in scrutiny would be unacceptable to the Government—[Interruption]—and, no doubt, to the House, even if it had been available as a result of negotiations through the usual channels. [Interruption.] We have some mock mirth from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I simply tell him what I did not tell the House when we first considered the experiment: it was clear to many in Government that one reason why Opposition Members opposed the experiment on Thursday was that that would recreate a proper, full parliamentary day.
We think it far preferable to shift the parliamentary day so that the Jopling achievement of a 7 pm rise could be combined with a full day's business. Changing diaries at short notice can never be wholly excluded and is a fact of parliamentary life. Late sittings on Thursday cannot be completely ruled out, but they can be made very much the exception.
I believe that the experiment has been successful. As the Modernisation Committee report shows, the House has sat for longer hours on Thursdays under the new arrangements than under the previous ones. The report states that average sittings hours on Thursdays in the past two Sessions have been higher than in the previous Session under the old arrangements. Some Members complain that the House is thinly attended on Thursdays, yet the Modernisation Committee report shows clearly that there has been no reduction in the importance of business on Thursdays since the experiment began; nor has there been a reduction in the numbers taking part in Divisions.
Mr. David Winnick: I am sure that my right hon. Friend recalls the tremendous fuss and furore, especially on the Opposition Benches, about the House sitting from 11.30 am on Thursdays. We have, to a large extent, come to accept that as normal, although some Opposition Members may still disagree. [Interruption.] Clearly, some refuse to accept it. The general public are somewhat surprised that there has been so much fuss about our happening to meet at 11.30 am on one day a week and at 2.30 pm on other parliamentary days, with the exception of Fridays. What is wrong with that arrangement? Does not common sense dictate that we should continue with it? Perhaps there is a case for meeting early on other days as well, apart from Mondays.
Mrs. Beckett: There is much in my hon. Friend's argument. Looking back, people will be surprised at the amount of excitement and indignation at the proposal to have earlier sittings on Thursdays. Most hon. Members have adjusted well. There are two, alternative, points of view that make sense: we should maintain the traditional parliamentary day, which finishes at 10 pm, or maintain the parliamentary day with which we have been experimenting, which finishes at 7 pm. The position that is hardest to defend involves the notion of a so-called informal agreement about a parliamentary day that ends at 7 pm, because people would not know where they stood, one way or the other. There was an experiment with that arrangement, but it was difficult to sustain and the current system is certainly preferable to it.
There was originally also concern about the effect of the changes on the work of Standing Committees. They have made good use of the new flexibility allowed
26
to them, but we owe, and should place on record, a debt of gratitude to the Chairmen and, not least, the staff of Standing Committees, who had to adapt to the new hours, and have done so.
I hope that hon. Members agree that Thursday sittings have, on balance, been a success and should be continued. I take this opportunity to add a further, perhaps light-hearted, note. Concern has been expressed at the reduction in Refreshment Department takings. For those hon. Members who, for whatever reason, remain in London on a Thursday evening, I strongly recommend the excellent food and service that the department continues to supply. Moreover, the surroundings are a lot quieter than usual and the House is a very agreeable place in which to have dinner on a Thursday evening. There are other places to eat in London, but few that surpass our facilities.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I commend my right hon. Friend and her very excellent and talented husband, and point out how nice it is frequently to see them here on Thursday evenings.
Mrs. Beckett: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. She, like us, has learned of the advantages of using those facilities on Thursday evenings.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: The success of the Thursday arrangements could be judged by the large number of business questions that are asked. You, Mr. Speaker, do not always find it possible—I do not say this as criticism—to call all hon. Members who want to speak on such occasions. Last Thursday, the Deputy Prime Minister made an extremely important statement, so no one could argue that the Government have downgraded Thursdays through the system that applies on those days.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. He also rightly identifies the large number of Members, some of whom are in their place, who regularly attend business questions. In that sense, Thursday is a full parliamentary day.
I now turn to sittings in Westminster Hall. Although the Committee would not have recommended the Westminster Hall experiment unless we had hoped, and expected, that it would be successful, we were pleasantly surprised by the extent of its success. Westminster Hall is a more popular venue for half-hour Adjournment debates than the Chamber, and longer debates remain heavily over-subscribed, even though their number has increased. For that reason, the Committee recommends a rebalancing of the business in Westminster Hall to increase the number of general debates—including, perhaps, some hour-long debates—and we might give the Speaker the discretion to allow some three-hour debates rather than the debates of one and a half hours which were previously the norm.
The report states:
Flexibility is of the essence in Westminster Hall.
The arrangements are based on the report and are not contained in the Sessional Order. Within the continued experiment, the Speaker, whose Office supervises the ballot for Adjournment debates, may wish to experiment

27
with periods other than those specifically proposed at paragraph 36 of the report. I feel confident that the House will support such an approach.
Mr. John Bercow: Does the right hon. Lady know that, for many of us, the parallel sittings in Westminster Hall and the Chamber on a Thursday afternoon undermine this Chamber's scrutiny function, and give the impression of being a calculated insult to the supremacy of this place?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. I know that some hon. Members take that view, but the reports that the Modernisation Committee has received do not show that it is widely shared, any more than it is believed to detract from the Chamber when Committees or other arrangements are held at the same time.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the view of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is not held universally? Some technical subjects or others that affect only some hon. Membersf—for example a recent debate on park home owners, and another on electronic conveyancing in which I participated—should be discussed in the House. However, there is insufficient time to do that in the Chamber and it is therefore appropriate to use Westminster Hall.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Apart from the many hon. Members who have already obtained debates in Westminster Hall and found it a satisfactory outlet, I know from the remarks of those who take the Chair there that they have sat through some excellent debates. It is not likely that we would have been able to find time for them on the Floor, but they are nevertheless worth while.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: If my right hon. Friend listened to Home Office questions earlier, she will have heard me raise a subject that is important to me: proposals to relax the double jeopardy rule. We were able to debate that rule in great depth in Westminster Hall some weeks ago at an early stage of the proposals. We would not have been able to get involved at such an early stage of a consultation exercise without Westminster Hall and Thursday afternoon debates.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which all hon. Members should take seriously. He identifies the way in which our new flexibility enables the House to do more work. Surely that is helpful.
Some hon. Members continue to question the use of Adjournment debates, but the Government believe that they are a vital part of parliamentary scrutiny. The relevant Ministers and their officials must thoroughly consider the topics that will be raised in the debate and be sure of their ground. They are a valuable means of holding the Executive to account. Although they are sometimes regarded as routine and unglamorous, they can be searching.
Westminster Hall has already provided an extra 170 debates, or 120 hours of parliamentary time. In returning debates before the recess to the Floor of the House, it has also increased Back-Bench opportunities in the Chamber.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I have found Adjournment debates useful in focusing a Minister's attention on a specific problem. However, could not that be done on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and, indeed—
Mr. Forth: Friday.
Mr. Swayne: No, I would not go so far as Friday. As so many Labour Members are keen to have ordinary office hours, could not Adjournment debates be held on those mornings when the Chamber does not sit? Many Conservative Members resent the fact that Westminster Hall functions while the Chamber is working. Hon. Members cannot be in two places at once.
Mrs. Beckett: Westminster Hall will function on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings without clashing with the Chamber. As we said earlier, sometimes sittings in the Chamber clash with events elsewhere. However, the House is experienced at juggling different issues.
Select Committee reports have also benefited from Westminster Hall. To date, 15 extra debates have been held on Select Committee reports. The Modernisation Committee proposes that the allocation of debates on Select Committee reports should be increased. That will be done if the reports and motions that we are discussing are approved.
When this matter was discussed in the House, regrettably there was a misunderstanding when I referred to the possibility of those extra debates. It seems to have been assumed that I was threatening to reduce the time set aside for Committees. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Modernisation Committee felt that, of the experiments that have taken place in Westminster Hall so far, the Government Adjournment debates were the least successful part of the experiment, so those debates will be reduced to provide more time for consideration of Select Committee reports. I trust that that will be a welcome change.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: In considering the use of Westminster Hall for further debates, could the right hon. Lady examine the possibility of discussing reports coming through from the National Assembly for Wales—I shall not refer to Scotland—and the matters arising from those reports that need the House's attention, perhaps through legislative amendment? There needs to be a forum in which they can be debated by Members not just from Wales, as can be done in the Welsh Grand Committee, but from elsewhere.
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and he obviously has some ideas in mind. From the beginning, the Government have set their face against the use of Westminster Hall to extend legislative opportunity. We were anxious that it should be used to extend scrutiny and debate, rather than to add an extra channel for legislation. It depends on exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, but no doubt he and his colleagues will return to the matter.
Mr. Winnick: In order to disprove the view that fewer Members attend debates in this Chamber because of Westminster Hall, I should point out that no Westminster Hall debates are taking place at the moment but the

29
Opposition Benches are not full of Members. There are eight Conservative Members on the Back Benches, one of whom may be a Front-Bench spokesperson. Surely that shows that Westminster Hall does not take away attendance from this Chamber, as has been suggested.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is no evidence that Westminster Hall detracts from attendance in this Chamber.
As the report emphasises, this is an experiment and we are free to try different ways of working. The hemicycle arrangement in Westminster Hall has not been to everyone's liking, so as foreshadowed in the original proposals, the Committee recommends that we try a new seating arrangement in which, thanks to concerns drawn to the Committee's attention by the shadow Leader of the House, space in the Public Gallery will be reserved for associates of the initiator of the debate. The orders implement the changes proposed by the Modernisation Committee so that the House can not only continue with the experiment, but modify it to find the best possible way of doing things.
When Westminster Hall was introduced, there was concern that it would detract from this Chamber. I do not believe that that has happened, or that there is evidence to show that it has. It was suggested that Westminster Hall would not be worth while, and that no Members would be interested in taking part in debates there, yet almost as soon as those sittings began there were vociferous complaints about the lack of clean feed transmission from that Chamber, showing that there was already interest on the part of hon. Members.
Moreover, as the report makes it clear, Westminster Hall is now covered by the national, regional and specialist press, just as the Committee hoped it would be when it proposed those sittings.
Westminster Hall has enabled Back Benchers more fully to scrutinise Government. It has increased the amount of time for consideration of Select Committee reports, and it has provided more valuable opportunities for Members to hold the Government to account. It has not—as some alleged that it woulde—enabled the Government to expand their legislative programme, and it was not intended that it should.
I hope that all those who are so often vociferous in this Chamber in calling for further parliamentary scrutiny will join me in voting for a continuation of Westminster Hall, where the bulk of the business is initiated by Back Benchers and Select Committees.
3.54 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: With permission, Mr. Speaker, may I begin by correcting my speech on 7 November on the Modernisation Committee's proposals for the programming of Bills? Column 228 of Hansard shows that, in quoting Greg Power of the Hansard Society, I referred to the principal requirement of "back bench" MPs to vote with the party, and I inserted the words "New Labour" before "back bench". The words "New Labour" were my words. My intention is as in Hansard, but I would not wish people to believe that the words "New Labour" were written by the Hansard Society, which is not party political. I hope that that corrects my inadvertent error.
30
I regard the report as a curate's egg. In the main, I am able to support it, primarily because it proposes a continuation of an experiment. In that context, I am happy to support the proposals on Westminster Hall and Thursday sittings. 1 am pleased that those matters will be considered again after the end of the first Session of the next Parliament, when new Members to the Parliament will have had an opportunity to see both experiments in operation. I have no problem with that at all.
Many hon. Members who do not represent a Greater London seat believe that many of the Modernisation Committee's proposals on Thursday sittings are in the interests not so much of democracy in the House but of the needs of Members who represent seats not too far from the centre of the capital. The change that has been made since I have been a Member of Parliament of finishing business at 7 o'clock on a Thursday has allowed those of us who have quite a journey back to our constituencies and who regard our constituency work at the weekend as important—not least those of us with a large area to cover—to discharge our duties as constituency Members of Parliament and, I hope, to pay due and proper attention to the scrutiny of the business in the House. That change has enabled those of us who like to get back to base before it is too late on a Thursday to do so with some safety.
Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Browning: I will in a second.
After I was first elected in 1992, I used to find myself driving down the M4 or M5 at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. I do not think that that was in my interest or in the interests of my constituents. I therefore support the 7 o'clock finish. I shall now give way to my right hon. Friend, who I am sure would like to give me the benefit of his advice.
Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that Friday is still a parliamentary sitting day and that the House sits—as it did last Friday—to deliberate on important matters, or even to debate private Members' Bills? Presumably, she would not rush off to her constituency on a Thursday evening if the House were sitting on a Friday.
Mrs. Browning: Indeed. The record will show that, when I have felt that it was in my constituents' interests to be here on a Friday, I have been here. In the previous Parliament, I defied my party Whips when we debated a private Member's Bill on disability issues. I was here for a debate on hunting and for another debate on the ordination of women to the Church of England. There have been occasions when it was clearly appropriate for me to put the business of the House before my constituency engagements. Had last Friday's debate involved a vote on embryology, I would have cancelled my constituency engagements to be here.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I know the hon. Lady to be an assiduous and hard-working hon. Member. Indeed, I take a little credit for that as I was the first to teach her how to fight an election—by defeating her. Nevertheless, she makes an important point. On Fridays, more often than not the House has lost the right to vote on matters of

31
considerable importance. Therefore, there is a difference between the quality of the debates since the changes and the debates that were held before.
Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who has been a good tutor over the years.
Although I distinguish the House's regular business from that taken on sitting Fridays, I would be concerned if an early finish on Thursdays caused hon. Members to think that the business taken on Thursdays was less important or less relevant. I flag that as a note of caution.
As I said, I regard the proposals as a curate's egg. Although in principle I support a 7 o'clock finish on Thursdays, it should not diminish the quality or the importance of the business that the House considers. Equally, although as a result of Jopling we may now finish at 7 o'clock on Thursdays, if there is unfinished business in the House, especially unfinished business requiring a vote, it should be continued, even after 10 pm, and a vote should be held on the appropriate day.
Accordingly, last week I opposed the Modernisation Committee's proposals. I felt that we had got the balance right between allowing hon. Members to discharge their constituency duties at weekends and giving them the opportunity—which has been and is still being diminished—to scrutinise the Executive and to cast their vote when necessary.
I am happy for the Thursday sittings experiment to continue. We should, however, carefully monitor the nature of the business that the House considers on Thursdays.
I am a convert to allowing hon. Members to initiate Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall. It is very important to allow hon. Members to initiate debates on constituency matters and on matters of personal or general interest, and Westminster Hall is the ideal forum for such debates.
Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to invite my hon. Friend to press the rewind button, but given that the Leader of the House said that the changed nature of Thursday sittings had in no way diminished attendance at them, does my hon. Friend agree that if, as seems likely, votes that would otherwise have been taken on a Thursday are taken the following Wednesday, a dramatic and disastrous reduction in Thursday attendance is obvious?
Mrs. Browning: I think that that would happen. As my hon. Friend knows, I am totally opposed to any type of deferred vote.
Mrs. Beckett: I take the hon. Lady's point, and I am perfectly well aware of her views and of those of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). However, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is not likely to be borne out because deferred business will be stand-alone business that will usually be taken after 10 o'clock. We do not take such business on a Thursday because the House rises at 7 o'clock.
Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for clarifying that point. I hope that we can take some comfort from it.
32
I should like now to deal with the Government's beguiling argument on debating Select Committee reports in Westminster Hall. I have some concerns about such debates. It is all very well to say that Westminster Hall allows us to debate more Select Committee reports, but advocates of the establishment of Westminster Hall listed as one of its virtues the fact that
non-controversial business agreed through the usual channels which at present finds no place whatsoever in the time of the House
could be debated there.
Although it is good that Westminster Hall enables more Select Committee reports to be debated, by no means could any hon. Member say that Select Committee reports are not controversial. Indeed, many Select Committee reports, especially in this Parliament, have been extremely controversial simply because they have criticised the Government. Such reports deserve full debate and scrutiny on the Floor of the House, with the relevant Secretary of State answering for himself or herself from the Dispatch Box. The practice, under the guise of more is better, of shuffling some of the more controversial Select Committee reports into Westminster Hall—where, by general acknowledgement, the nature of the debate is non-controversial—does not allow the House to call a Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box to answer Select Committees, which are well respected beyond these walls. If that practice were to develop further, it would represent a worrying trend.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady has identified an important point, and suggests that the wording that the Modernisation Committee previously used might require some amendment. It was intended from the beginning—I appreciate that the hon. Lady was not present at those discussions because she was not in her present post at that time—that votes should not be held on business taken in Westminster Hall. For that reason, it was described as non-controversial.
The scheduling of Select Committee debates on the Floor of the House is a matter for the Liaison Committee. The Liaison Committee, not the Government, chooses which Select Committee reports will be debated in Westminster Hall or in the House. There is no bar on what the Liaison Committee can select. If the wording used by the Modernisation Committee to make it clear that votes would not be taken in Westminster Hall inadvertently does not do so, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting that fact.
Mrs. Browning: I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that on many occasions Opposition Front Benchers have felt it necessary to require a Secretary of State—either by raising points of order or by requests for private notice questions—to answer questions on particular issues. All too often, it has been suggested that the failure of a Secretary of State to account for himself or herself at the Dispatch Box could be accommodated by an application for an Adjournment debate.
I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the plight of an Opposition who increasingly find that accountability exists not in the Chamber, as it should do, but outside the House. There is also a worrying trend of controversial matters—which may not require a vote but for which a Secretary of State is required to account for himself or herself—being deferred to Westminster Hall. I said that I

33
supported the experiment for Westminster Hall. However, the Opposition will monitor the content as well as the quantity of the debates that are held.
Before I became shadow Leader of the House, I shadowed the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Trade and industry debates that were forced into Westminster Hall included the debate on the scandal of the Government's decision on the Ilisu dam—an issue of great importance to Members on both sides of the House, involving an important plank of Government policy, their so-called ethical foreign policy. However, instead of the Secretary of State—who had made commitments to the Select Committee—answering the debate in Westminster Hall, the task was left to a junior Minister.
Despite what the Leader of the House said about Ministers having to be sure of their ground when responding to such debates, it was clear that the Minister was unable to answer for what the Secretary of State, his boss, had said in interviews and to the Select Committee. Such matters get sidetracked into Westminster Hall, when they should clearly be dealt with on the Floor of the House by a Secretary of State who will answer on the record for his or her own decision making.
One could list many other examples within the Department of Trade and Industry brief alone, such as the Diamond synchrotron at Daresbury, a matter that annoyed many Labour Members of Parliament. However, they, too, were forced into Westminster Hall to ask questions of a junior Minister when the issue was clearly a matter for the House, in which the Secretary of State should have answered personally for a decision that he had made.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I endorse my hon. Friend's point by reference to defence and foreign policy, on which I have on several occasions heard in Westminster Hall some serious announcements, albeit of a non-legislative nature, that would have caused alarm if made in this Chamber, with more hon. Members present.
Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend has picked up on the range of our concerns about the nature of debate in Westminster Hall. We are worried not about the principle of Back Benchers raising constituency matters and matters for general, non-controversial discussion, but about its being used as a device to take things out of the spotlight that naturally falls on this Chamber.
For example, debates in Westminster Hall have included the annual debate that the Government promised on small firms—it was batted into Westminster Hall following a most damning Trade and Industry Committee report—and a debate on the construction industry, at a time when the industry faced many problems and it was very difficult to get Ministers to account for changes that they had made in the way in which the Inland Revenue taxed and required paperwork from it.
I accept that, as the Leader of the House said, these are often matters for the Liaison Committee, but if the success of Westminster Hall is to continue, the Committee must differentiate debates that can helpfully be held there—I openly admit that I have had very helpful constituency Adjournment debates there—and those that should take place here.
Mr. Pike: The hon. Lady should remember that the proposals involve the Government taking up less of the
34
time for debate in Westminster Hall than at present. The Liaison Committee will be able to allocate more time for Back Benchers.
Mrs. Browning: I appreciate that, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, by the very nature of the changes involved in creating Westminster Hall, it is important that the Liaison Committee should clearly defend the rights of Back Benchers and the Opposition to have some subjects dealt with at a higher level. I have given some examples of debates held there that I believe should have taken place in this Chamber. In supporting the extension of the experiment, I shall monitor the situation carefully to ensure that there is no continuation of that trend.
Mr. Pike: Several members of the Liaison Committee are present, including myself, and we fight very hard to ensure that the most important issues are debated here.
Mrs. Browning: I am sure that we are safe in the hon. Gentleman's hands, but he will appreciate that there is a need to monitor the way in which debates are distributed between this Chamber and Westminster Hall.
I hope that, when we return to this subject—that will obviously be in a new Parliament—we will have seen that some of the proposals have improved matters even further. I am grateful to the Leader of the House and the Committee for accepting the suggestion that those who have secured a debate be reserved two seats for constituents. The idea arose from the experience that I had of two constituents who came to Westminster Hall from Devon for an Adjournment debate and had difficulty in getting in.
I look forward to the reconfiguration of the layout of Westminster Hall. I hope that it will be more successful, because many of us have some concern about the current layout. I hope also that it will be achieved on budget. There is a modest cost attached to the changes, although I notice that desktops are being recycled, and I thoroughly approve of that. I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that there is no overspend on the changes made in Westminster Hall.
4.15 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I want to have a small whinge and make a plea for the Modernisation Committee to put in more work by the time we come to the end of the experiments.
When the Jopling Committee was being set up, there were arguments behind the scenes about whether it was needed or whether the work could be done via the Procedure Committee. It was argued that not only must we change procedures in the Chamber and in the Committees but we must consider the effects of those changes on the way in which the place operated. That seemed a good justification for setting up a special Committee, so I was pleased when it was suggested in this Parliament that the Modernisation Committee operated parallel to the Procedure Committee. The implication was that the Modernisation Committee would look carefully at the whole way in which Parliament works rather than just at what happens in the Chamber and the Committee Rooms—what I call the tip of the iceberg. We do not pay enough attention to the informal

35
working of the Palace, yet such working is affected by changes in procedure and ought to be analysed as carefully as those changes are.
The other day I heard a couple of journalists sneering at Prime Minister's Question Time and the slanging matches that take place then, but they laid emphasis only on what happened between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition at the Dispatch Box. They gave no thought to the work that goes into preparing the answers and the questions, or the informal lobbying that goes on around the building to find out what someone might ask. It is very important that when we change our procedures we consider the formal and informal practices.
My complaint is that too many changes have been made without considering what lies behind them. One example is Wednesday morning debates. I thought that those morning debates in the Chamber were very good, because on a few occasions—I admit that it was only a few—Cabinet Ministers answered them. It was an opportunity for the House to set the agenda, rather than Ministers, yet Cabinet Ministers answered the debates.
I should have thought that the same sort of thing, at least, should be happening in Westminster Hall. Those debates and the issues raised are important, yet it seems sad that over the period of the experiment, none has been answered by a Cabinet Minister. I strongly suggest that if the Government want the Westminster Hall experiment to be successful, they should at least on a few occasions—perhaps on Wednesday mornings—ensure that Cabinet Ministers answer the debates. That would give Westminster Hall more status and importance, and would improve the House's chances of scrutinising the Government effectively.
It is claimed that Westminster Hall provides more time for debate, but the danger is that there is more time but less thought. Again, what happens as a result of Adjournment debates should be carefully considered. A junior Minister, who certainly would not want me to quote him, has said that he spends all his time racing around answering Adjournment debates, either on the Floor of the House or in Westminster Hall, and does not have time to discuss with civil servants and ministerial colleagues the issues raised in those debates.
The point of an Adjournment debate is that it moves policy and argument on; it does not simply allow the person raising the Adjournment debate and the Minister responding to it to set out their entrenched positions. If the two sides are merely putting forward their entrenched points of view, we are just going through the motions. If we are interested in scrutinising Government, we should be considering the impact of an Adjournment debate. I realise that it would be difficult for the Modernisation Committee to carry out such work, but I suggest that it should be considering the impact of those debates. Are they merely an excuse to keep junior Ministers from asking awkward questions of civil servants? Or are they merely an opportunity to keep Members out of trouble? Or do they truly move political argument and debate forward?
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman suggested that having junior Ministers spend less time discussing policy with their officials was somehow a negative thing. As far
36
as many of us are concerned, the quality of junior Ministers in the Government is such that if they spend less time discussing or making policy and more time talking in the House or in Westminster Hall, so much the better.
Mr. Bennett: I do not think that that pretty stupid point of view deserves an answer.
The question is what we want from the House of Commons. A huge number of issues are definitely party political, but many Adjournment debates are on matters that do not divide the Chamber. They cover areas on which one would wish to persuade the Government to change their mind, and that seems to me a good reason for applying for an Adjournment debate. There would be many advantages if Ministers could spend a good deal of time talking to civil servants about why they cannot change policy.

It is claimed that Select Committees benefit from debates in Westminster Hall, but I have my suspicions about that. When those Committees were set up, the main hope was that they would help to inform Members about particular issues and put Departments under scrutiny. The danger of Westminster Hall is that the Select Committee ends up talking to itself, one junior Minister and one Member from the Opposition. My impression from at least two Select Committee report debates is that they do not lead to participation by other Members.
If we want Select Committee reports to help to inform the House, we must examine whether that is happening within the time given to them in Westminster Hall. Perhaps further experiments with procedure should be conducted, because by the time a Select Committee report comes to be debated, the Government have already given their response. We still have a situation in which the Committee develops its arguments and a Minister responds to them. At that point, however, the Minister can pick and choose responses to the points that Members have made rather than being pressed on areas of disagreement between the Select Committee and the Department.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I apologise to my fellow Select Committee Chairman, but has he not answered his own point? It is precisely because senior Ministers do not answer debates in Westminster Hall that Select Committee reports have been downgraded. They should be debated on the Floor of the House so that all sorts of people may understand the implications of the detailed work that those Committees have already done.
Mr. Bennett: I fully accept my hon. Friend's point. Part of my whinge is that we should consider that point with more care. Rather than simply saying that there is more opportunity for debate of Select Committee reports, we should examine the quality and impact of those debates.
Finally, I ask the Modernisation Committee to take a careful look at the ways in which Parliament has changed in recent years, a process that may be pushed much further with the opening of the new building. Parliament must be a place in which people talk, not just across the Chamber, but informally around the building. During my time in the House, talking to other Members—particularly to those to whom one is not naturally drawn—has steadily decreased because people have more office space and because of

37
how our procedures have changed. We must be careful not to destroy what used to be one of the most effective parts of Parliament—people talking to each other informally as well as participating in debate in the Chamber.
4.24 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I have much sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who is a distinguished and experienced Select Committee Chairman; and I shall return to them later in my speech.
I want to go back to first principles. The point of setting up the Modernisation Committee was not just to make this place more family friendly and easier for Members to operate in, or even to make life easier for our staff—although that is an important objective. All those aims may have merit, but the purpose of the exercise was to try to make Parliament a more effective institution, so that we—collectively—were able to do a better job. It was not merely so that we did not have to stay up so late or so that our staff could go home earlier, or even so that the media could have an easier time. That is why it is important to take stock each time that we take another, small incremental step forward in changing our procedures.
The reports are useful. I certainly support the general principle of evolution in this place—experimenting to see if changes work, pulling back a little but moving on if we can and trying to do so, as much as possible, by agreement and consensus. However, the general view on both sides of the House is that there is much unfinished business.
Mr. Forth: No.
Mr. Tyler: Many Members believe that, even within the criteria I set out, much more can be done to make this place more effective.
Mr. Forth: No.
Mr. Tyler: I understand the views held by some of the relics from the previous Conservative Government—that nothing could be better than what they used to impose on us in yesteryear.
Mr. Forth: Correct.
Mr. Tyler: I do not share that view—it is not a majority view. I agree with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)—rather than those of the putative Leaders of the House who sit behind her—that the proposals offer a sensible way forward and that we are proceeding by consensus and experimentation.
Mrs. Browning: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not take my comments on the reports as a blanket endorsement of the terms of reference of the Modernisation Committee as he has described them. I should like to debate that point further, but he should be aware that I have grave reservations about the Modernisation Committee per se.
Mr. Tyler: I know the hon. Lady well enough to realise that she would never give a blank cheque to anybody; I certainly accept the qualification she expresses.
38
Much important work remains to be done, although it may not be possible to complete it all during this Parliament. The ways in which we deal with private Members' legislation, and the way in which we have disposed of private Members' motions—referred to by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—need further attention. Those matters arose under the Jopling reforms—not in this Parliament.
We must do something about early-day motions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Abolish them."] If we can find a means whereby a debate can be triggered when an early-day motion has gathered a certain amount of support in the House—perhaps through a ballot—that would be most helpful. We could thus ensure that matters that had considerable Back-Bench support were included in the parliamentary agenda relatively quickly.
I confess that I had misgivings about the detailed arrangements for Thursday sittings and indeed voted against the timetabling of questions at 11.30 am. I thought that it would have been better to hold a half-day debate, breaking at 2 pm with questions for an hour at 2.30, followed by a further half-day debate. However, we have all discovered that the present arrangements work reasonably well; nothing is perfect, but they are as good as we can expect.
I fully endorse the view of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton that those of us whose constituencies are some distance from London sometimes now find it possible to return to them on Thursday night—although it is not always convenient to do so because of Friday business. Some of my colleagues in the wilds of Scotland and the far west—it should not be forgotten that we have managed to make Scotland, Wales and Cornwall Tory-free zones—believe that it is important to try to arrive back in our constituencies in a reasonable state of health and mind in order to deal with constituency business.
The Westminster Hall sittings are extremely important. I have attended many of the debates there and participated in a few of them. The responses of Ministers to debates in Westminster Hall are often more helpful than those that we would receive in this place, because there is a less confrontational attitude and a willingness to give more information than might be thought appropriate in a full debate in the Chamber.
On occasions, I have heard remarkable confessions in Westminster Hall. I remember when one of my colleagues said that he would read out a letter that he had received from the Treasury even though he believed it to be the most boring and complacent waffle. The Minister present on that occasion admitted that he would not refer to that advice, because he shared the view of my hon. Friend. The Minister did not quite put it that way—if he had, he would no longer be a Minister—but a degree of frankness between Members is possible in Westminster Hall because that chamber is not so confrontational. That is a positive factor in holding Ministers and ministries to account.
However, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton is right to say that, when the subject deserves it, we must insist that a Cabinet Minister replies to a debate in Westminster Hall. I was interested to hear two distinguished Select Committee Chairmen endorse that view. I attended a debate in Westminster Hall last week in which the Minister for the Environment responded to a

39
very important debate on The Hague talks, the follow-up to Kyoto and global warming. Although the right hon. Gentleman was allowed only 10 minutes to respond because of the considerable interest in the debate of Members from all parties, he made an important response. My complaint is not about the quality of the response that we hear in Westminster Hall, but that the quality of the reporting of that response is not, I fear, as adequate as it might be if the same speech were made in this Chamber.
Mr. Bercow: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's phrasing a few moments ago was merely infelicitous and nothing worse. Is he seriously suggesting that it is right and proper for Ministers, when answering debates, to be fuller and franker in their disclosures in Westminster Hall than they are in this Chamber? Does he not accept that it is always incumbent on Ministers to answer fully and frankly to Members of the House?
Mr. Tyler: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has intervened, because it reminds me that he commented on the quality of junior Ministers in the present Administration. He did not have the advantage of being a Member in the previous Parliament, so I can tell him that, if some junior Ministers in the previous Government had been asked to respond in Westminster Hall, they would have been in considerable difficulty.
Mr. Bercow: I am sure that that is true.
Mr. Tyler: I notice that the hon. Gentleman now agrees with me. The point is not whether it is right or wrong for Ministers to respond more fully and frankly in Westminster Hall—the fact is that they do. That is to the benefit of Parliament, Members of Parliament and, most important, our constituents. However, as has already been suggested, my only complaint is that it would help if—I dare not use the organ grinder and monkey analogy—senior Ministers were present in Westminster Hall. It would be useful to have it on record that junior Ministers speak with the full approval of their superiors and of the Cabinet. Certainly, the information that they have provided there has sometimes been very helpful.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am somewhat confused. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that junior Ministers speak with the approval of their Department—which they obviously do—but that, in Westminster Hall, they are able to be franker than they are when they speak on the Floor of the House? That is rather confusing.
Mr. Tyler: I know that the hon. Lady sometimes occupies the Chair in Westminster Hall and I was merely observing that Ministers are sometimes—particularly in response to interventions—prepared to go further than they normally would in this Chamber. That is a good thing. I entirely accept the view of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that the more that we exchange information and extract responses from Ministers, the better that we can do our job.
Mr. David Maclean: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler: No, I have given way enough and I want to make progress.
40
There is an interesting contrast between the real-life dialogue that takes place in Westminster Hall and in Select Committees and the set-piece mediaeval jousting that takes place in this Chamber at Prime Minister's Question Time. That is fun, it is good theatre and it is most entertaining—that is why Americans enjoy it—but it does not provide us with information that contributes to the better governance of the country. It produces more heat than light, and that means that the other opportunities that we have to hold Ministers to account should be used as much as possible. One hon. Member said that the spotlight is on the House, but I think that it is moving away. Since the removal of the charge on the television feed from Westminster Hall, regional television programmes have increasingly been using recorded exchanges because they get real, live information from Ministers about issues that concern us and our constituents. We will find that more and more helpful.
I am worried about the subjects tackled on Thursday afternoons in Westminster Hall. My duties usually mean that I am in the Chamber then, but colleagues tell me that it is a mixed bag of debates. We are all conscious of that. I should not like to say whether it is a matter of changing the time or of finding more appropriate subjects for debate.
The key issue is that Members of Opposition parties have all too few opportunities to put a Minister on the spot. I accept that the same is true for Labour Back Benchers. My experience of putting a Minister on the spot in Westminster Hall is that I have an opportunity to get real information. The Conservatives' idea that the only point of being in opposition is to vote is absurd. How many votes have they won in this Parliament?
Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman always vote with the Labour party.
Mr. Tyler: I led the only successful revolt against the Labour and Conservative Front Benches in this Parliament, so I take no lessons from the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).
It is absolutely true that when the Government have a large majority, the best chance of having an effective Opposition is to be a constructive one. It is noticeable that Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, who have practical experience of Westminster Hall, have been truly satisfied with Ministers' responses to debates held there. It is the Members who do not bother to use those opportunities to act as scrutineers of the Government—both of Executive action and of their long—term plans for legislation—who feel that they have not achieved anything. I do not believe that those Members who have been intervening and interrupting in the past few minutes have ever been there.
What is important, which we seem to lack in the House, is the long stop—the final way for an individual Member to raise an issue of principle. The statement that was often recited at the end of questions—"In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment"—was a pretty meaningless safety valve. There is a way in which we can improve further the procedures for Westminster Hall.
Mr. Forth: There are private notice questions.
Mr. Tyler: The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that option. A recent tendency is to advise the Member

41
concerned that there are other opportunities—including Westminster Hall—for hon. Members to raise an issue, so fewer private notice questions are tabled. Opposition Back Benchers should have a greater opportunity to raise urgent and important matters.
I prefer the present layout of Westminster Hall, which works quite well, but I accept that in the spirit of experimentation—trial and error—it is perfectly reasonable to see whether the alternative works as well, which it may do. I do not have strong views on the proposal, but I shall be happy to accept it.
I hope that all parties will commit themselves to continuing the modernisation agenda beyond the general election and into the next Parliament. A great deal of business remains to be done and many improvements need to be made, not to make life easier for the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) or anyone else, but to make this place more effective, in the interests of our constituents.
I am not making a personal reference to your good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it was interesting to note that, before the election for Speaker, all the candidates made devoted statements of support, encouragement and enthusiasm for the modernisation agenda, although not all have been quite so enthusiastic when the specifics of that agenda have arisen since. Clearly, there is a general mood for change in the House, but there is still a lot of work to do to bring this place into the 21st century.
Finally, both the changes that we have introduced have made it possible to ensure that the House holds the Executive to account for their day-to-day actions and for their legislative intentions. However, we have not achieved the ultimate goal, and we should certainly not stop where we are. I very much hope that we will continue with the agenda and that, beyond the next election, we shall have even more recruits to the cause of modernisation.
4.41 pm
Joan Ruddock: I should like to begin my congratulating my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in her role as Chair of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons on introducing these proposals today. The work of the Modernisation Committee has been of great service to the House. My right hon. Friend and others will know that I would like us to go much further, but I am delighted that progress is being made.
My right hon. Friend said that we would wait until the next Parliament for the opportunity to confirm, modify or terminate the proposals or experiments on Thursday sittings and Westminster Hall that are currently under way. I hope that we will seek to modify further those proposals and experiments and take modernisation forward in line with many of the speeches that were made in the previous modernisation debate in this Session.
On Thursday sittings, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) suggested that much of the modernisation agenda had been pushed by those of us with London seats. In no way is that self-interest, as we London Members can get home to our own beds every night at present. Because London Members are modernisers and believe that the whole House requires modernisation, we put forward the proposals and drove the agenda, as may be seen from the voting figures for
42
the previous debate. However, concern for our colleagues with seats outside London has resulted in support from London for the 7 o'clock finish on Thursday.
For the record, it is not a 7 o'clock finish, as very often it is a 7.30 or even a 7.45 finish. One should not exaggerate and say that we are getting away with a short day. I have as my partner my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), and it is impossible for him and his colleagues in the other Aberdeen seats to get to Aberdeen on a Thursday night if they are required to vote before they leave. Other Members, too, cannot get to their constituencies on a Thursday night. I, for one, want consideration to be given to those Members in future, as Members should be treated equally and should all have the same opportunities.
My experience as a London Member is that getting away at 7 pm or 7.30 pm means that I have a full evening of engagements so that has not shortened my working week in any way. On the contrary, it has enabled me to do even more. Of course, the Select Committee report shows that, overall, the whole House has sat for more hours and done more business in relation to time spent on scrutiny as a consequence of the early start on Thursday than we have done in the past. No one should therefore believe that the matter involves Members trying to suit their own convenience and purposes?quite the contrary.
I very much agree that the sittings in Westminster Hall are a successful experiment. I am not surprised that Westminster Hall is a more popular venue than the Chamber for short debates, as it is entirely predictable. If we are successful in securing a debate, we know when we will have it, meaning both the time at which we will start that debate and when we will finish. That is in complete contrast to starting one's Adjournment debate whenever the business of the main Chamber ends.
At that point, the hour is usually extremely late and no one, other than the hon. Member whose debate it is and the Minister or Opposition Front Benchers concerned, chooses to attend. In addition, constituents who are interested in the subject have no opportunity to engage with the Member of Parliament involved. Therefore, I welcome both the continuation of short debates in Westminster Hall and the variations that have been proposed today, which mean that it might be possible for a debate to last as long as three hours.
Mr. Forth: Does the hon. Lady not concede that, in the highly unlikely eventuality of those of her constituents who work during the day wanting to attend an Adjournment debate, they would, coming from her constituency, have more opportunity to do so late at night than during the working day?
Joan Ruddock: To someone who works the average working day, it is not convenient to arrive here at 1 o'clock in the morning. In addition, if the debate is truly important to constituents, they will make time to attend. Let me give an example: I participated in a Westminster Hall debate on Sierra Leone because many of my constituents are deeply concerned about the terrible conditions in that country and members of their family who have disappeared there; those constituents, even those who were in work, would have been prepared to take time off to be here for the debate. One cannot prejudge constituents' desires. I simply believe that Westminster Hall provides better

43
opportunities. I welcome the suggestion that two seats be made available to the proposer of a motion, so that constituents might have an opportunity to attend what is, to them, a special occasion.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House spoke of the importance of scrutiny and how the continuation of the Adjournment debates forms an essential element in that process. I echo her comments and those of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about the behaviour of Ministers in the Westminster Hall Chamber. This year, I have participated in five debates in Westminster Hall: in one, two Select Committees joined for a debate on genetically modified organisms and biotechnology; another debate focused on Government support for organic farming; and the most recent, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was about climate change. On all those occasions, Ministers came to that Chamber to hear the forceful comments of Members who have specialist interests—not only Select Committee members, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) suggested.
I am not a member of a Select Committee. I can read Select Committee reports, but the debates give me an opportunity to hear members of the Committees present their arguments and material, and be subjected to examination by people like me, who do not necessarily agree with everything they say. That is an important opportunity and one that we did not have in the past. I am no expert on these matters, but I do not recall all Select Committee reports being debated in the Chamber of the House of Commons, and I understand that the advent of Westminster Hall has given us greater opportunities to debate more Select Committee reports. I welcome that development. I have enjoyed participating in such debates and I am certain that the House will approve the extension of the time that will be given to Select Committees for debates in Westminster Hall.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish was highly critical on the matter, and I have to defer to his knowledge, but, surely, the Liaison Committee can be relied on—if not, it must be pressed—to ensure that the most important issues that the Select Committees have drawn into their reports are given time and an airing in Westminster Hall. If more work is needed to strengthen the involvement of the Liaison Committee and the Chairmen of the Select Committees in making such decisions, so be it.
I concur with those who say that on occasions it may be appropriate for a Cabinet Minister to respond to debates. It is important that that is on the record. We would not expect that attendance to be a routine matter, but occasionally it would be appropriate.
The physical arrangements in Westminster Hall should be experienced by all right hon. and hon. Members. In my view, the seating arrangements have made an immense difference to the way in which debates take place. We do not have the confrontational behaviour and attitudes in Westminster Hall that we see and hear in the Chamber. I suggest that there is much more deliberation of greater depth by Members who wish to air an issue which may be party political, but not in the partisan manner that is adopted in this Chamber.
Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Lady concede that it is at least possible that the reason for the outbreak of harmony
44
and mutual love is not necessarily the physical layout of the Chamber but, as the Leader of the House said earlier, the mechanism whereby matters are referred to Westminster Hall, which apparently is to do with the usual channels deciding between themselves what will not be subject to a vote or what is uncontroversial? That may lead to the outbreak of harmony rather than the ghastly shape of the ghastly place.
Joan Ruddock: As so often when dealing with these matters, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is entirely confused. If issues are debated in Westminster Hall and are not voted upon, that does not mean that they are uncontroversial. Controversial subjects are often discussed. There is often not sweetness, light, harmony or love between Members who assemble in Westminster Hall for a debate. There may be some areas of agreement. There is much more willingness to express where areas of agreement lie and to consider in rather more detail and with more subtlety the way in which disagreements have arisen than there would be in this Chamber.
I suggest that physical arrangements of the sort that can be seen in most other Parliaments have some effect on behaviour. I agree that they might not have any effect on the behaviour of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but they can produce a much more harmonious place for proper in-depth debate. I suggest that that is what we are about.
Mr. Bercow: I would exhort the hon. Lady not to overdo the line about subtlety and sophistication, of which there is not a great deal of evidence in Westminster Hall that I can discern. Does she accept that what she has said about the continuing controversial character of many of the matters debated in Westminster Hall flies in the face of what the Leader of the House said when she was seeking to justify the Westminster Hall experiment? The right hon. Lady said that Westminster Hall was the appropriate forum for debates on non-controversial matters. Does the hon. Lady accept that many of us do not recognise the notion of an uncontroversial political matter?
Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman has given his own explanation. Matters that may be considered in one sense uncontroversial because they are not leading to legislation, or are not a prelude to legislation, may still be party politically controversial. There are many other matters that are controversial, but not necessarily on a party political basis. The value of debate in Westminster Hall, and the way in which it is conducted, relates to the physical arrangements. I do not want to go on about them, but I think that they are significant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) once redesigned this Chamber on paper. By taking in the Lobbies, we could produce a circular forum in this Chamber. I would like to see the day when Parliament truly modernises itself and comes forward with such proposals. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) would be extremely uncomfortable because he and I might have to sit next to each other. That would be a great shock.
I end on a small point that is outwith the matters that we have discussed so far—I make a plea on behalf of the Hansard writers. Those of us who have spoken in Westminster Hall have often wanted to check the record

45
of the debate, and have been told that we could do so in three or four hours. The Hansard writers are under enormous pressure, and the reporting of Westminster Hall is an added burden to them. When I have gone to read the report, I have seen that they are housed in extremely crowded and uncomfortable conditions.
As other hon. Members have said, it is important that the debates in Westminster Hall are recorded and that the report is available the following day, so that those debates become part of our parliamentary day. I therefore make that small plea.
I hope that we will pass all the proposals today. As I said earlier, I hope that the process will be evolutionary, if not revolutionary, and that we will continue to modernise the House of Commons.
4.56 pm
Sir George Young: I shall make a brief contribution, which I begin by picking up a point made by each of the previous three speakers, who all observed that some of the debates in Westminster Hall could appropriately be replied to by a Secretary of State. The debate on Rover, for example, and some of the foreign affairs debates could usefully have been answered by a Cabinet Minister. That would help to change the perception of Westminster Hall. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, will reflect on that.
Although we are dealing simultaneously with two proposals from the Modernisation Committee, they are different in objective and character. The motion on Thursday sittings has as its objective a better balance between our time in the House and our time in the constituency. It seeks to achieve that by re-engineering Thursday sittings so that they start and end earlier, so that many, but not all, Members of Parliament are in poll position on Friday mornings in their constituency.
The other motion concerns Westminster Hall and is aimed at better enabling us to hold the Government to account, by increasing the length of the frontier that they have to patrol.
I welcome the fact that these are agreed reports. I am convinced that that is the best way to proceed on matters concerning the House, and not, as happened a fortnight ago, with a substantial part of the House in disagreement.
On Westminster Hall, I speak as a supporter of the original experiment, although I am sensitive to the anxieties of my colleagues. I start from the position that I am basically in favour of bringing Ministers to account as often as possible, and I welcome any opportunity that gives me the right to ask them to explain and justify what they have been doing. Westminster Hall has enabled that process to take place. We have been able to cover many more subjects, and Ministers have been pressed on many more sensitive issues than would have been the case if debates were confined to the Chamber.
When one looks at the Government's plans for the future of Westminster Hall, paragraph 13 in the report is slightly oblique. I was grateful to hear the Leader of the House say that it is not the Government's intention to use Westminster Hall to push through yet more legislation. Paragraph 13 is, as I said, somewhat oblique, but the reassurance given by the Leader of the House is welcome.
Like other hon. Members, I have attended debates in Westminster Hall on several occasions. At present, Westminster Hall lacks character. It is rather like moving

46
from one's room in the Palace of Westminster to a new room at Portcullis House. No doubt in the course of time, Westminster Hall will acquire atmosphere and character, and we will get more accustomed to it.
Westminster Hall may not get wide coverage in the national press, but it certainly receives substantial coverage in the local and regional press and on regional television. People watching regional television do not, for the most part, understand the difference between a debate in Westminster Hall and a debate in the Chamber. As far as they are concerned, it is a debate taking place in the House of Commons.
It would be helpful to know what progress is being made with disabled access to Westminster Hall. At present it is not good. Perhaps when the Minister winds up, he could bring us up to date.
I agree with a lot of anxieties of my right hon. and hon. Friends who think that this Chamber has been undermined, bypassed and marginalised. That is the case, but the reasons are far broader than the establishment of Westminster Hall and have more to do with how the Government treat Parliament.
I turn now to the report on Thursday sittings. At first sight, it might seem to be a rather thin report, but I suppose that the arguments have been rehearsed in earlier publications and debates. At first sight, £3.70 seems to be a lot of money for six rather short paragraphs and an essentially unexciting annexe. My view is that the Thursday change is probably irreversible now that the majority of Members has adjusted to the change in the week. There are some difficulties at the beginning of Thursdays, but it will be difficult to turn back the clock.
I know that several hon. Members want to extend the Thursday pattern to other week days. Indeed, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) raised that issue in an earlier intervention. It might be helpful to remind the House of what the then Leader of the House said about the proposals to extend to Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays the changes that we have made to Thursday sittings. That evidence was given in the Modernisation Committee's first report entitled "The Parliamentary Calendar: Initial Proposals". On page xxvi, the then Leader of the House said:
The Committee may also consider whether all sitting days should start in the morning and conclude by 5 pm or 6 pm. While this might suit those Members whose constituencies and homes are within easy distance of London, there are many Members who would not be able to get home each evening however early the House rose. In this respect the House is not like most other organisations. MPs have to work both in London and in their constituencies.
The conclusion of the then Leader of the House was:
It will be up to the Committee to balance these competing interests, but the Government is not persuaded that a change of sitting hours to normal office hours is in the best interests of the House, individual Members or the Government.
So it is not the case that the resistance to change Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday sittings simply comes from Conservative Members.
My concern about Thursday sittings is the knock-on effect of the changes, especially on the parliamentary week. I am concerned that business gets compacted into Tuesday and Wednesday. I happened to look at this week's all-party Whip. There are six meetings today, including the rehearsal of the Messiah by the Parliamentary Choir. There are 14 all-party meetings

47
on Tuesday, including that of the influential football group, and nine on Wednesday, but only one on Thursday—that of the British Russian group.
I think that I will give away no trade secrets if I say that the same pattern is followed with party committees. There are four meetings on Tuesday, five on Wednesday, but only one on Thursday—that of the Association of Conservative Peers, who are, of course, unaffected by our Thursday pattern of sittings. The reason why groups do not meet on Thursday is that Members of Parliament tend not be here. That has been reinforced by the business that the Government choose for Thursdays, which tends to be unwhipped. This Thursday, we will have an important debate on Europe, but it will arise on a motion for the Adjournment. Two Thursdays ago, we debated a Liaison Committee report. Last Thursday, we dealt with the remaining stages of a relatively uncontroversial Bill. I think that I am right in saying that there have been no serious votes on Thursdays since the recess.
The risk is that Thursdays will go the way of Fridays and everything will be crammed into sittings late on Monday and on Tuesday and Wednesday. I am concerned that that has been reinforced by the Prime Minister's unilateral decision not to hold Prime Minister's questions on Thursdays, because PMQs on Thursdays tended to stretch the week well into Thursday afternoons. Restoring Prime Minister's questions to twice a week would help us to have a better balanced parliamentary week.
I am conscious, as are other Members, that there are many other calendar issues to which the Committee will no doubt return. Some of my hon. Friends who serve on the Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is here—have an interest in what happens in Canada, where the shape of the parliamentary calendar is known several years in advance. Many other Members want to review the very long summer recess. I hope that the issue of tabling written questions during the recess will not go away. I am happy to go along with the experiments and to roll them forward into the next Parliament, but I put down a footnote about what is happening to our Thursdays.
5.4 pm
Helen Jackson: We are embarking on a move forward today, which I welcome. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and a couple of Opposition Members, I am one of the original members of the Modernisation Committee. We have already discussed the fact that the proposals, which involve a pilot scheme, are evolutionary and will help us to move on. Both proposals, but especially that involving Thursday sittings, were discussed from the Committee's first meeting onward. We discussed the hours that we spend in the House, whether we could arrange our week so that we had some certainty about when we could fulfil our constituency duties, and the importance of a definite finishing time for the end of the parliamentary week.
The job of Member of Parliament has many aspects which need to be balanced, and certainly involves more than working in the House. During those early days, I was rather depressed by the view, which was expressed mainly by Conservative Members but also by others,
48
that constituency business and our need to talk to constituents was subservient to our work in the House. The relationship between what we learn and hear about our constituents' hopes and fears and the way we make those hopes and fears our concern when we are in the House scrutinising, debating and voting on legislation is the substance of democracy. To argue that one of them is somehow subservient to the other misses the whole point of our role.
I am pleased by the proposals, but I would go further by making Friday a day on which it would be assumed that hon. Members would work in their constituencies doing the crucial business of listening to schoolteachers and other professionals. I would make that arrangement fairly secure, whether one's constituency was in London or Yorkshire, as mine is. That way, everyone would know where they were.
I also support the present arrangement for Thursday sittings because it has broken the mould. It has made it clear that Parliament would not, for ever and a day, necessarily start at 2.30 pm and finish God knows when. The House sat at 11.30 am, and the world did not fall in and we did not fall into disrepute. We sit the same number of hours on Thursdays, but we have shifted them to earlier in the day.
On Westminster Hall, I thought, rather simply, that in some ways that step forward was our most significant reform, because we got the establishment to spend not a huge, but a medium amount of money on bringing up to date a room that was to all intents and purposes a wasted, dingy public space. Off one of the most beautiful architectural parts of the Palace was the old, dusty Grand Committee Room. It had chairs in serried rows and a raised platform at one end, and my heart sank whenever I went there. Whatever else our reforms have achieved—I agree with the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) that we still have some way to go with regard to facilities for the disabled—it is now a good-looking room and a friendly and inclusive place in which to debate. We must not forget that the room remains a useful location in which meetings can be held when Parliament is not sitting. Such meetings could involve outside organisations, which might even bring in money to offset the cost of such events. The room is suitable for high-profile meetings as it has a media feed, which means that good publicity can be obtained. I strongly support paragraph 26 of the Modernisation Committee report, which reminds people of that.
Some hon. Members have been desperately antagonistic to the Government's ideas for legislative programming, arguing that they were in favour of greater scrutiny, but that the Government were having their own way in programming. Interestingly, however, it is those very hon. Members who are most likely to be intensely antagonistic to the Westminster Hall proposal and to reject the notion that it gives every Member of the House more opportunity to scrutinise Ministers.
I am sympathetic to hon. Members who argued against the suggestion that Westminster Hall should not be a forum for the discussion of important matters. I do not share the concern and consternation expressed by the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who said that important or controversial matters should not be dealt with in Westminster Hall. I do not want a big notice,

49
metaphorical or otherwise, to go up over Westminster Hall, saying "No important or controversial matter will be discussed here."
I believe that the public and media are alive to any occasion when Ministers can be called to account.
Mr. Maclean: Is it not clear that the Government have already erected a huge signpost over Westminster Hall stating that nothing of importance occurs there, when we hear that not a single Cabinet Minister has attended or wound up a Westminster Hall debate and that hardly any Ministers of State have done so either?
Helen Jackson: I am not speaking on the Government's behalf, but I remind hon. Members that senior Ministers have participated in major debates such as that on the climate change levy an example already cited. As the experiment evolves, Cabinet Ministers may want to participate in Westminster Hall debates or respond to them. Who knows? If we allow modernisation to move on, such things may happen.
It is important that any Minister should be on top of his brief, know what he is talking about and be examined carefully. If the public and media know what they are about, they will examine any occasion on which Ministers are called to account, whether in Wilmslow, Winchester or Westminster Hall.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that all Ministers should be accountable. However, the hazard with an Adjournment debate is that Ministers merely wind up, so it can be a little difficult to hold them to account when they are not being treated in the same way as in the main Chamber.
Helen Jackson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am an hon. Member: I am old Labour.
Helen Jackson: You were called a right hon. Member earlier, and I was imitating that. I apologise if that has offended you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady will offend the Chair if she continues to refer to other hon. Members in that way.
Helen Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I shall reply to my hon. Friend's point. It is interesting that, when we debate the modernisation of Parliament on the Floor of the House, many hon. Members on both sides try to think of how the order, nature and procedure of debate can be used to call Ministers more closely to account. My hon. Friend's point may be considered in due course, and if such a structure of debate is more appropriate for this century, it may become practice.
These proposals, together with the important reforms to our legislative framework that we made recently, show that the Modernisation Committee has had an impact on the House. In the early stages, many people said that it had not and would not, but this debate shows that it is making an impact. These changes will allow Members of all parties to do their work as Members of Parliament and to scrutinise the Government more effectively. It is
50
important to recognise that this movement, this programme, this opening up of possibilities and ideas by which we can improve how this place works must not stop here, but must continue into the next Session and beyond.
5.17 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: The Leader of the House, not untypically, revealed what really lies behind the debate on the so-called modernisation of the House, Thursday sittings and Westminster Hall when she used two phrases in the context of the relationship between Members and the work of the House. One was "increasing certainty", which she thought was a good thing; and the other was that Members should not have to "rearrange their diaries", which she also thought was a good thing.
If one thinks about what lies behind those apparently innocent phrases, one suddenly sees with great clarity what the whole thing is all about. It is about the House of Commons being organised and run for the convenience of Members—not so that they can properly discharge their duties or make life difficult for the Government, and not to allow serious debate, but for the convenience of Members. It seems that Members must know with certainty what is to happen and when. They must be able to organise their diaries far ahead without any doubt or disturbance, and the business of the House must be structured on that basis.
Mr. Clive Soley: I know that the right hon. Gentleman holds those views very strongly, but it is a paranoid approach. All of us on the Committee take the view that our task is to make the work of Members in their constituencies and in Parliament more effective. The right hon. Gentleman may feel that we are not achieving that, but that is what we seek to achieve.
Mr. Forth: I shall come to that point in a moment, but I can answer the hon. Gentleman directly. One problem is that there is now a growing assumption that the work of Members of Parliament in their constituencies is of greater importance than their work at Westminster. The hon. Gentleman has just hinted at that. He will not know this, because he was not present in the Chamber last Friday, but we had a debate on embryology, which is arguably one of the most important subjects that is likely to face Members of the House of Commons for some time to come. If I reveal that about 12 Members were present last Friday to participate in that debate, and that it finished ahead of the scheduled time, that will give Members some idea of the extent to which it is now assumed that what Members feel they must do in their constituency outweighs by far their responsibilities and duties in the House.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten something: it is now taking many of us as many as seven, eight, 10 or 12 hours to get back to our constituencies. Some of us have to leave on Thursdays. He might ask the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) what he had to do last weekend to ensure that he was even at the debate today—it is a disaster out there. That is why the House is not being fully attended.
Mr. Forth: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that that explains the attendance

51
every Friday since he and I have been in the House; in fact, he has been here longer than I have. Even given the exigencies and difficulties of the moment, if Members thought that it was sufficiently important to be here to debate embryology, as they had an opportunity and, I argue, a duty to do last Friday, they would have made appropriate arrangements so to do—even given the distance that I know the hon. Gentleman has to travel and the difficulties that he may be experiencing. That is the point that I want to make.
Joan Ruddock: The right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I was also here debating on Friday. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has said. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that a number of Members who participated in the debate excused themselves on the basis that they had to leave early because of the transport situation. I know colleagues who wished to speak and who were unable to keep obligations in their constituencies—this is not a matter of convenience—such as surgeries, which for most of us are a critical duty.
Mr. Forth: That may be. It is a matter of choice as to whether or when hon. Members do surgeries. When I did surgeries, I did them on Saturday mornings. I concluded that that was a waste of my time as well as that of my constituents, but the point is that many Members do surgeries on Friday evenings or on Saturdays.
Again, the hon. Lady illustrates my point. She is trying to find reasons not to be here on a Friday. When I came into the House in 1983, it was assumed that Friday was a parliamentary day on which the House would want to do its work, and that Members would be here for it. I believe that many more Members were here on a Friday then, but the difficulty is that the assumption has arisen—and has been strengthened by debates such as this—that it is more important for Members to do I know not what in their constituencies, perhaps as glorified social workers, than to be at Westminster as Members of Parliament.
Helen Jackson rose—
Joan Ruddock rose—
Mr. Maclean rose—
Mr. Forth: I give way to my right hon. Friend first.
Mr. Maclean: Does my right hon. Friend recall the many occasions in the 1980s when both major parties were whipped on three lines on a Friday for Government business? Occasionally, our party was whipped on three lines when important Adjournment debates were secured by the then Opposition, but all sides assumed that business on Friday meant full attendance, or nearly full attendance.
Mr. Forth: Indeed; my right hon. Friend confirms my point. It depends on the view that Members take of their duties in general. I make no apology for the fact that I regard my duty primarily and principally to be here at Westminster, in the House of Commons: doing my best
52
to hold the Government to account and to participate in debates and votes. I regard that as the main part of my duties.
Helen Jackson: Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that, because he takes that line, he belittles the view of by far the majority of Members, who feel that they have a duty to listen to the views of their constituents in their constituencies on issues of the day, such as embryology or drug education—which I was talking to youngsters about last Friday?
Mr. Forth: The answer is yes, and I would go further. If the hon. Lady's constituents realised that, after their in-depth discussions with her, she felt unable to spend enough time here, for example, to represent their views on embryology, they might have some thoughts about the effectiveness of their Member of Parliament. If that Member of Parliament chooses to spend less and less time here and more and more time talking to people in the constituency, the thing has got hopelessly out of balance. I shall elaborate on that theme as I develop my remarks, but let it suffice for now to say that the hon. Lady sums up my views extremely accurately.
Joan Ruddock: As the right hon. Gentleman is making great play of the subject of embryology—which I agree is an enormously important subject—it is important to make it clear that, when there are votes on the subject, there will be a proper full—time debate in the Chamber. Last week's debate was but a Friday Adjournment debate.
Mr. Forth: I will take a small bet with the hon. Lady that, when that occasion comes, some hon. Members will complain bitterly that they do not have an opportunity to participate, whereas, as she will recall, we finished last Friday's debate early. Is it not another irony—as it is one of the points that I wanted to make, I shall develop it now, a little earlier than I had intended, before returning to my theme—that one of the main arguments for the ghastly Westminster Hall started with the assertion that we did not have enough time in the House properly to discuss all the matters that hon. Members wanted to discuss, such as Select Committee reports and individual constituency matters? The truth, of course, is that we have always had plenty of time in this place.
One of the things that we have had an excess of is time. We had Fridays, before they were effectively abolished by the Government. Additionally, when business finished early, as it did last Friday, and as it has done many times recently, we had the opportunity, for example, to take other business—were it not for the fact that the Whips have always assumed that, for the convenience of hon. Members, Members should not have to stay here in case we took subsequent business. The Whips believe that hon. Members must be allowed to be away from this place and away doing what they want to do, and then come back when it is convenient for them to do so.
We know that business has been prolonged in the House many times, when Whips have ushered in hon. Members saying, "Keep it going; we can't allow the business to collapse because colleagues are out of the House and don't want to be inconvenienced." It is on such occasions that hon. Members, if they took their duties seriously, could be in the Chamber having a series of short debates, rather than artificially prolonging the business.

53
Let us therefore do away with the assertion, on which the entire so-called modernisation has been based, that there is not enough time in the Chamber properly to deal with Select Committee reports and the like. There is plenty of time in the Chamber—there always has been and there still is. If the House chose to sit on Fridays, there would be even more time. The assumption that it is more important to be elsewhere than here and the priority given to the personal convenience of hon. Members have driven us to this point of what is inaccurately called modernisation.
We have an accumulation of factors, such as Fridays having effectively disappeared. Furthermore, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said, Thursdays are being eaten into as well. Indeed, one can already feel the pressure of hon. Members who resent having to stay here as late as 7 o'clock on a Thursday evening and are champing at the bit to get back to their constituencies and to do undoubtedly important things there. Equally, we know that some hon. Members do not even come to Westminster until late on a Monday.
We can also predict—with a fair amount of certainty, I think—that, when the ghastly strangulation of the House that the Government unilaterally imposed on us a couple of weeks ago takes full effect, we shall have the "one day a week" Parliament, when the only day on which hon. Members will have to attend will be a Wednesday, to wander through the Lobbies with a slip given to them by the Whips and cast their votes in some eccentric way.
Surely that would be bad enough were it not for the fact that, apparently, at the very moment when the Government are conspiring with the modernisers to reduce the House of Commons to one day a week, the Senior Salaries Review Body is being urged by the Government to increase the allowance given to hon. Members. What a strange phenomenon: fewer days of work and less effort here at Westminster, but more money from taxpayers to support that diminished effort.
We have the ultimate irony, do we not? At the very time the modernisers are urging us to spend less and less time here—and cause the Government less and less inconvenience, by the way; that is a happy coincidence—the very same people, or at least a very large overlap of people, are urging that they need ever more taxpayers' money to support them in doing ever less here at Westminster. That should be taken into account when it is decided what we should do in the House.
The Thursday sittings are bad enough. However, when we look at the Westminster Hall experiment, matters get considerably worse. The basis on which the argument for the experiment was made—lack of time—is false. To make matters much worse, business is now being shunted off into a sideshow which, we have now been told, is little more than a facility for electronic press releases. Hon. Members have said that the excitement of Westminster Hall resides in the fact that regional television uses many of the debates to provide cheap coverage.
Mr. Tyler: Has the right hon. Gentleman attended any of the debates in Westminster Hall initiated by his Conservative colleagues? He shows a complete lack of respect for their parliamentary talents and for their effective opposition to the Government. They have been using such occasions to hold the Government to account.
54
If the right hon. Gentleman were to go and listen to some of his colleagues' contributions, he might cease to disparage the proceedings.
Mr. Forth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman led me to that point. I have looked at the number of Members from all parties who have participated in the dreadful experiment. The answer to my question to the Leader of the House on the matter revealed that fewer than 50 Conservatives out of a total of more than 160 have bothered to use Westminster Hall. Fewer than 90 Labour Members have attended, out of a total of about 300—if I take away the payroll Members. But—surprise, surprise—the party with by far the biggest proportion of Members using Westminster Hall was the Liberal Democrats. Of course—Westminster Hall is tailor-made for them: an irrelevance, babbling on the sidelines, designed for electronic regional press releases.
Mr. David Heath: I find the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the duty to attend Adjournment debates particularly compelling, and I share some of his views. As he knows, I am a regular attender on Fridays. However, I wonder why that duty is such a flexible friend in his case, and does not apply to his attending an Adjournment debate called by the House of Commons—in which he is paid to represent his constituents as a Member of Parliament—if it happens to take place a few yards away in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Forth: My whole argument is that I do not believe that this artificial creation, this spin-off, this sideshow, this irrelevance should be given succour. I choose not to do so, because I want to be able to argue here that the experiment has failed and should not be continued. I hope to divide the House on the matter and to persuade as many hon. Members as possible to vote appropriately.
Let us put aside the fact that Westminster Hall cost the best part of a million quid. It astounded me when the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) said with some pride that we had turned a dingy old room into something really rather special. When she goes back and mixes with her constituents—as she frequently does—I doubt that she tells them proudly that she has been party to spending £1 million of their money on refurbishing a room at Westminster for what amounts to a sideshow.
Helen Jackson: Let us get the facts right. The cost was nothing like £1 million. I cannot remember the exact figure, but it was several thousand pounds. I am certain that the money would be recouped if the room were used to its fullest potential outside parliamentary hours, as I described.
Mr. Forth: We are now in the business of hiring out rooms. This is degenerating into farce. I will not fall out with the hon. Lady over a few thousand pounds of taxpayers' money. I would not mind betting that, when the facilities for the disabled have been accounted for, and when the room has been moved around to suit her hon. Friends—to make it more Euro—friendly, or whatever they have in mind—the bill will be nudging £1 million. However, the hon. Lady suggests that that is okay because we are now going to become a glorified village hall and hire ourselves out, no doubt by the hour. I do not know

55
whether the room is high enough to accommodate badminton, but I would believe almost anything at this stage. It just will not do.
We must set aside the irrelevances—the press releases and regional television, the various horseshoe shapes and whether constituents can get a seat—and concentrate on the real problem: the fact that Westminster Hall is siphoning business away from this Chamber and purporting to be a rival or parallel to it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and I tabled the amendments because of the peculiarity of having two categories of Deputy Speaker: the proper ones, who have a role that is not only distinguished but places certain constraints on them, in that they cannot sign early—day motions or participate in debates, and a new category of people who are also, confusingly, called Deputy Speakers, but who are free to continue to do those things. What is worse, that spuriously gives Westminster Hall, by implication, the same status as this Chamber.
Calling the Chairman in Westminster Hall a Deputy Speaker may confuse people and lead them to believe that it has the same status as this Chamber. That is wrong and threatens to undermine the proper nature and status of the role of Deputy Speaker. The amendments would deal with the matter by redesignating those who preside over Westminster Hall as Chairmen, unless you or one of your colleagues were presiding, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in which case your title would continue properly to be used. That would clear up the confusion and make a proper distinction between Deputy Speakers and members of the Chairmen's Panel, as well as clarifying the relationship between this Chamber and the sideshow that is Westminster Hall.
Mr. Bercow: Westminster Hall is truly soulless and uninspiring in equal measure. One of the evils that accompanies being an Opposition Front—Bench spokesman is that one is sometimes called on to represent one's party there. My right hon. Friend is missing nothing by not going there, as it is an easy get—out for Ministers, enabling them to pat Back Benchers on the head.
Mr. Forth: I am not sure why Opposition spokesmen feel obliged to go near the place at all. If our betters judge that it is somehow important, that is a matter for my hon. Friend to sort out with them. Personally, I have never seen any point in spokesmen such as him, with his serious responsibilities, wasting their time there. Perhaps he will revisit the matter with our hon. Friends to see whether something can be done about it.
I am especially worried about the way in which business is designated appropriate for Westminster Hall. We have heard that the usual channels, in all their majesty and wisdom, decide not what will be uncontroversial—the Leader of the House helpfully sorted us out on that—hut what will not be subject to votes and can therefore be taken in Westminster Hall. I object to that. Whoever these usual channels are, they have no right to speak on my behalf. I will decide what is controversial or should be subject to a vote. That is a freedom that, as a Member of Parliament, I hope to exercise this evening, not once but several times. If I can find another colleague who feels as
56
I do, we have the right to divide the House to establish its opinion in the Lobbies. For the usual channels to say that they have judged a matter not to be sufficiently important for a vote and to sideline it to Westminster Hall, where the cosy discussion that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) mentioned earlier—full of harmony and consensus—can take place, is not good enough. That illustrates the danger of having somewhere other than the Chamber where such matters can be dealt with, courtesy of the usual channels. I find that quite unacceptable.
One thing that has come out of today's debate which I strongly welcome was the reiteration of the Leader of the House that as far as the Government are concerned there can be no question that Westminster Hall will be used for a legislative purpose. When this idea was first mooted, we were told that it was modelled on the equivalent Chamber in Australia. I have had the privilege of going to Canberra; I visited the Chamber there, and sat through some of its proceedings. They were legislating in the alternative Chamber. My great fear has always been that the Government had that in mind for Westminster Hall. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for having given us the categorical reassurance that the Government will not use Westminster Hall for any legislative purpose whatever. That has reassured me considerably.
The motion says that when it is proposed that a matter be dealt with in Westminster Hall, it should be decided forthwith. I am always rather nervous about such things—I feel easier if there is at least some possibility of even a brief debate in the House before a matter can be resolved. Yet, again, there is the implication that these matters can be dealt with easily and readily, and that we do not have to bother very much about the debate. Our betters have made the decision, so ordinary Members will not have a say.
If the House and Members had wanted Westminster Hall to be taken more seriously, I would have preferred the quorum to be set at a somewhat higher figure than is proposed. A quorum of three suggests that issues in Westminster Hall can be adequately debated with only three Members present. I know, before anyone says it, that in this Chamber there are routinely only three Members present in an Adjournment debate—the Minister, the Government Whip and the Member who has secured the debate. [Interruption.] The occupant of the Chair, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, makes four. However, I make a distinction between the tradition of Adjournment debates in the Chamber at the end of business and the issues that it is argued are appropriate to be dealt with in Westminster Hall. If there is a real difference of kind and of substance, it should surely be reflected in the quorum. Suffice it to say that the amendments dealing with those points, in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and myself, have not been selected, and I obviously do not query that. Nevertheless I believe that those proposals are unfortunate and hope that they may be reconsidered.
All in all, I believe that the experiment has been a failure. It has succeeded only in showing that the Westminster Hall phenomenon is unnecessary and otiose; it has been expensive and could be dispensed with without anyone's really noticing. If it is merely a vehicle for the better press releasing of colleagues' constituency matters, I should have thought that we could find a less expensive

57
way of doing it. Colleagues could go into the little new facility just off Central Lobby and speak to a camera trained on them. If the regional media are so keen on seeing a Member of Parliament saying something of interest to their region, that would be one way of doing it. It would cost almost nothing, inconvenience almost no one and we could hire out Westminster Hall for badminton whenever we wanted.
There are alternatives. This is not the only option open to us. We can go back to where we were. We can, in fact, provide more time for business in this Chamber if we are of a mind to do so, rather than arguing on the basis of convenience for Members and the subjugation of Members' duties here in the Chamber to those elsewhere. That will be worth while.
5.44 pm
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I apologise to the House because I shall have to leave the Chamber shortly to meet a policeman, and do not want to miss the appointment. I shall therefore have to leave before the Member who follows me has retaken his or her seat.
I have much in common with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) when it comes to House of Commons issues. If he presses a Division on his amendments on the chairmanship of Westminster Hall, I shall join him in the Aye Lobby.
That said, the right hon. Gentleman underestimates the great difficulty for many Members that arises from transport arrangements, even apart from the present and immediate problems. Our constituencies are a long way from London. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I take the view that we should spend more time in the Chamber. Members should build reputations in the Chamber, as he and several of his colleagues have over the years. I always impress on my colleagues—particularly new Members—that it is important to do that. However, they have constituency responsibilities, especially in marginal seats. We all have such responsibilities—even Conservative Members—and the volume of work increases as we approach an election.
I wish to discuss a narrow issue—the role of Westminster Hall in debating Select Committee reports. For some time, I have been conscious of a possible reform that the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons might wish to take on board. The report on Westminster Hall notes that Select Committee reports on agriculture have been debated three times, on science and technology twice, on Northern Ireland twice, on environment, transport and the regions three times, on international development three times and on education and employment twice. That is remarkable. During my 21 years in the House, we have rarely had a chance to debate Select Committee reports.
I favour debating those reports, but we must put the value of the debates in context. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—now a Whip, and on the Front Bench at present—went on for years, as part of his own agenda for procedural reform and particularly when he came here in 1987 as a new Member, about the need to debate Select Committee reports. I agree that they should be debated, but do not believe that debating them is as important as some people believe it to be. They can be dealt with in another way, by Parliament as a whole, that would be far more effective and would give Members a greater chance to hold the Executive to account.
58
I speak from the experience of an aggregate 37 years on Select Committees and other Committees in the House. I spent seven years on the Procedure Committee, 10 years on the Members' interests Committee, four years on the Standards and Privileges Committee, 11 years on the Public Accounts Committee, two years on the Agriculture Committee and three years on the Security and Intelligence Committee, which is not a Select Committee but which works in a similar way. I draw attention to my experience because I have seen hundreds of reports from those Committees and have often wondered where they all went. What happens to them? What is their effect? Are they studied? When a response comes back from the Executive, who has written it? Is it a civil servant in the Department, with the Minister—under whatever Government—simply signing off the response to the Committee? I suspect that, because of pressure on Ministers, that is what happens.
I have been thinking about how we can hold the Executive to account through Select Committee reports; as has been pointed out, they are often extremely important. Westminster Hall offers such an opportunity. I draw hon. Members' attention to the procedure for European Standing Committees—I was also a member of one of those Committees for several years. Page 16 of the "Short Guide to Procedure and Practice" states:
Normal procedure at meetings is that the Minister or Ministers make a statement and then answer questions (for up to one hour or, if the Chairman sees fit, for 1; hours), following which the motion is debated.
In Westminster Hall, there is no motion, but there is no reason why that procedure could not be adapted for debates on Select Committee reports. A Minister would be examined by Select Committee members present for the debate. Indeed, perhaps the Minister should be accountable to a wider range of Members—not merely members of the Select Committee but all those who bothered to attend—who should be called by the Chair to put questions to the Minister for one and a half hours before debate on the report.
That would be the best solution because, unless Ministers are prepared to give way many times when replying to debates in whatever Chamber—which can be unreasonable because they cannot get through their brief—we cannot achieve sufficient depth of accountability or the precise questioning necessary to ensure it. My proposal is for a much more specific procedure.
Mrs. Dunwoody: That procedure is extremely useful. It is only sad that the House of Commons has not used it. Often Members do not even bother to attend meetings of such Standing Committees unless they are on the Committee. On one recent occasion, only members of the Committee turned up. The procedure has not been used; that is unacceptable.
The real problem, which my hon. Friend has not highlighted, is that although there might be a motion it is unamendable, and if it is voted on at all whatever the Minister has said cannot be used to change the wording; the procedure makes that impossible. My hon. Friend's brilliant idea leaves control—as ever—in the hands of the Government.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend refers specifically to the procedure in European Standing Committees. I am dealing only with part of that

59
procedure; I suggest not that amendable motions should be tabled, but that the procedure whereby Ministers are questioned in detail be applied to issues raised in Select Committee reports. Hon. Members would thus be better informed and Ministers would be required to answer particular questions.
One occasion when that might have worked was during the inquiries of the Agriculture Committee into BSE. I was not a member of that Committee in 1990 when it produced a report on BSE that, in retrospect, proved to be remarkably accurate in its predictions. If there had been a procedure at that time whereby Ministers were held to account, on the scale of a Westminster Hall debate, about the development of BSE and the associated problems, Parliament would have been far more enlightened and the then Government might have acted far sooner. I do not make a partisan point; that could have been the result.
On many occasions, if the reports of Select Committees had been taken seriously and if there had been a procedure whereby Ministers could have been pressed, squeezed, pushed around and hassled at the Dispatch Box or wherever the debate was taking place, policy changes might have been made.
Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that Select Committees can already adopt such a procedure if they have any sense? If a Minister does not answer all their questions, they can require him to return and can pursue the matter. It is important for Select Committees to keep up a running battle, rather than confining themselves to a one—off report.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend is correct, but Select Committees do not exercise that right.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Yes, we do.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend is a remarkable Committee Chairman. She runs one of the most effective Select Committee operations in the House; she adopts such procedures, but many Select Committees do not. They do not hold the Government to account. If the wider membership of the House—over and above members of the Select Committee—had the opportunity to press the Executive in the forum provided by Westminster Hall, we should be making an extremely effective procedural change.
The right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) would do well to make use of such a procedure—especially in the light of the role that they play in the House of Commons. I want the right hon. Gentlemen and other hon. Members to hold the Executive to account. The right hon. Gentlemen should not turn up their noses at a reform that might secure all their objectives.
Mr. Maclean: Of course we want to hold the Executive to account—to squeeze the Government, put pressure on them and wring things out of them, as the hon. Gentleman says. Does he agree, however, that it is impossible to do that in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall? One can do that only in this Chamber, with whipped votes, or through questions.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman is being somewhat blinkered. Will he consider my proposition? It would secure much of the territory that he wants to hold.
When we consider Select Committee reports in this place, the debate is invariably held between members of the Select Committee. When one attends such a debate in this Chamber, one finds that the chances are that members of the Committee will be called to speak—I presume that it is the same in Westminster Hall. Indeed, the debates are attended almost exclusively by the Committee members or by Members who have some peripheral interest in the subject.
That is not good enough for me. I want far wider engagement in such debates, and that will be achieved by putting Ministers in a situation where they have to answer questions for an hour or an hour and a half. We would then see the Chamber fill up and the Executive would be held to account through Select Committee reports as never before.
5.58 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I welcome the chance to comment on the third and fourth reports of the Modernisation Committee. In view of some of the comments made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, I hardly dare admit the fact that tomorrow I shall be initiating a debate in Westminster Hall on the extremely important subject of reform of the European Union sugar regime. The debate has already attracted enormous attention; I expect it to be extremely well attended.
I intend to support the stance taken by my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House: to support the reforms as experiments. The principle that should guide the Modernisation Committee is that of making the House carry out its work more effectively. It is not a question of whether the House's procedures are viewer friendly, focus group friendly or even Member friendly; the real question is whether they are democracy friendly. Do they help the House more effectively to scrutinise legislation, hold the Government to account and, more important, to act as the voice of the electorate between elections?
The third component—the Bagehot—friendly component—is supported by the Hansard Society's commission on parliamentary scrutiny, but it has been neglected in the debate. We have talked about holding the Executive and Ministers to account and of scrutinising legislation, but another purpose of Parliament is to act as the voice of the electorate between elections. To that extent, Westminster Hall is a useful addition to the weapons that the House holds.
Some changes achieved by the Modernisation Committee are to be welcomed. The clearer Order Paper, the new arrangements for the Division Lobbies, the greater flexibility for the Speaker in calling colleagues to speak and the naming of hon. Members and their constituencies on the annunciators have all helped to clarify what we do. However, those changes cannot disguise the fact that, sadly, the Chamber is in decline. Some functions have moved elsewhere—for example, to Europe, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly—and others have become the preserve of judges and the media.

61
Some changes spring from the attitude of Ministers in this Government who have taken their cue from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who was reported two and half years ago as saying that
the era of pure representative democracy is coming to an end.
He went on to claim that people's panels, focus groups and so on demonstrated a different kind of participation in the democratic process. Only one type of democratic process counts, and that is the ballot box. From the ballot box and the House comes the legitimacy of Governments, and any Government who forget that will be in trouble.
The Minister and hon. Members will be familiar with the document produced by the scrutiny commission of the Hansard Society. "Creating a Working Parliament" points out:
The Chamber's primacy as a forum for political debate … is now being challenged by the media, the judges, a devolved parliament and Europe.
It adds:
The failure to recall Parliament during the fuel crisis of September 2000 was interpreted by many commentators as evidence of its irrelevance and the extent to which direct action has now superseded parliamentary representation.
Those who criticised direct action as a means of bringing deep concerns to Government's attention should ponder those comments. The pamphlet points out:
The crisis illustrated the problem for Parliament. The chamber's work can often appear irrelevant to most voters. It rarely sets the day's news agenda and is often slow to respond to issues of public concern.
This, the pamphlet continues rather superfluously,
has serious implications for democracy.
Quite so.
We should use those principles to appraise the motions and all the other proposals made by the Modernisation Committee. On that score, I support the proposal that, as an experiment, some work should continue to be done in Westminster Hall. Debates on the Adjournment of the House enable Members to raise issues—not to hold Ministers to account—and act as the voice of the electorate between elections. Such an opportunity is useful.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made strong and apposite remarks about Select Committees and their discussions. He was right. Ministers wait, perhaps with anxiety, for the publication of a Select Committee report on the work of their Department. However, if those reports are buried in the sand, Ministers may be aware of the issues, but they will not be examined on their record. Any opportunity that we have to put further pressure on Ministers regarding the findings of a report must be welcomed, even if that pressure is exerted in Westminster Hall. I say that knowing that my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) have misgivings about Westminster Hall. Any opportunity is better than none.
Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to take my right hon. Friend back to her earlier remarks, but I note what she said about the failure to recall Parliament during the fuel crisis. Does she have any objection in principle, or does she think that there is a cogent objection in principle, to the proposition that the House should ordinarily sit in September?
Mrs. Shephard: I was about to come to that point. However, I shall be brief, because many Members want
62
to speak. The Modernisation Committee identified the problem of pressure of time, but I am more concerned with the pressure of time on the House and its procedures than I am with the pressure of time on Members. One chooses one's calling and, if one comes here, one accepts the realities of the job.
The Modernisation Committee should now—perhaps it should have done so from the outset—examine more fundamentally what appears to be the problem of time. If that is the problem, its proposals—some useful and some peripheral—have not tackled it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, there is no problem of time. The House could sit in the morning and it would then have 12 or 13 hours at its disposal on each sitting day. That would remove at a stroke the problem of pressure of time. The House does not have to have a recess of three and a half months in the summer, as we had this year. To argue for longer recesses and shorter hours does not bring the House into good repute with the electorate, who see Members of Parliament designing ever easier job descriptions for themselves.
If the problem is the pressure of time, I suggest to the Modernisation Committee, as the Leader of the House did in her opening remarks, that it considers shifting the parliamentary day. That might be a positive way forward. I recommend it to the Committee in its future deliberations.
6.7 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I am pleased that we are having another debate on modernisation and—
Mr. Maclean: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), but I have just heard that the prime item on the 6 o'clock news was a Government announcement that they are going to sell the dome. Have you, Madam Deputy Speaker, received any suggestion from a Minister that he or she wishes to make an emergency statement to the House? If not, what can you do to prevent yet another gross discourtesy to the House, whereby media outlets are informed of Government plans long before Members of Parliament, this Chamber or even Westminster Hall?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of the House. He knows that that was not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Soley: I cannot be the only person who was aware that the Government were going to sell the dome at some stage. That was the previous Conservative's plan, but perhaps they did not tell the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).
It is a great encouragement to me that the House is debating modernisation much more frequently. The right hon. Members for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) were both Ministers in the previous Government and they did not argue for change to the House's procedures when they were in government. However, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is complaining because he is no longer able to do all the things that he was able to but did not want to do then. He should remember that the major

63
parties go in and out of opposition and in and out of government, so our aim must be to make Parliament and Members of Parliament more effective.
Mrs. Shephard: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's remarks; he is usually extremely well informed. He must know that the previous Government made a number of changes to the practices of the House. I recall them being debated in his presence when we both served on the Modernisation Committee.
Mr. Soley: The right hon. Lady certainly supported changes in a number of ways. Back in the early 1980s, the previous Government took the important step of allowing Committees to take evidence, but people will have noticed, as I have, that they only took evidence on Bills on a few occasions. When it became embarrassing, they stopped doing it. Such activities brought the previous Government's record on change into disrepute.
The argument on which we are predicating the debate is that Members of Parliament and Parliament itself must be more effective. We may disagree—I suspect that I will with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and, certainly, with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—about whether we are succeeding, but we should start from the assumption that that is what we are trying to achieve.
The Modernisation Committee did not decide to see how Members of Parliament could work less, which is what the right hon. Gentleman said. I believe that Members of all parties work hard in the House. Few are looking for less work. The majority of hon. Members, be they Tory, Labour, Liberal or anything else, want to do a good job. We do ourselves no credit by trying to rubbish our colleagues by saying that they are in Parliament for the money or to have an easy time, because they are not. The right hon. Gentleman should not have said that.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that my hon. Friend will not think me unduly unkind, but I have been here since 1966 and the common thread that has run through every Government, irrespective of their label, is that when Ministers are in office they do not want adequate scrutiny to be exercised, and when they leave office they suddenly become extraordinarily keen on it. I am no longer surprised at the unanimity of view, but we should occasionally remember that it is not in the interests of Back-Bench Members to pretend that only one side of the Chamber holds that view.
Mr. Soley: I am not sure that I made myself clear. I was saying that the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Penrith and The Border did not argue the same case when they were Ministers as they are making now. I think that my hon. Friend's remarks support my argument.
I have a different assumption, which I had in the Modernisation Committee and which relates to my general arguments on this subject. In the past 70 years, the House of Commons failed to make the changes necessary to keep it up to date. We have all paid a high price for that. Although we are beginning to make such changes, the core of my argument—and I want to
64
return to Westminster Hall and the 7 o'clock finish, on which we are supposed to be focusing—is that they need to be part of a package that will not finish with today's debate. They need to be continued so that we can achieve the aims that even the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said he wants, although obviously not while he was in government. We need to address that matter if we want to be more effective.
Mr. Bercow rose—
Mr. Soley: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to explain why the changes are necessary to make us more effective and why they are part of a process of modernisation, and not a one-off.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman criticises my right hon. Friends for changing their tune, but does he not accept, as he has done before, that when he wielded the weapon of parliamentary time in opposition to the previous Conservative Government, he did not argue for the wholesale reform for which he is now conveniently clamouring?
Mr. Soley: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) might have missed my saying this, but of the 18 years that I spent in opposition, the first seven or eight were spent following the great idea that time was our weapon. I have admitted several times in the Chamber recently that in those years I kept members of the Conservative Government here until the early hours of the morning. After a while, I began to realise not only that it was not working—I managed to achieve one significant change in legislation—but, more importantly, that it was bringing the House into disrepute. No one outside understood why we were legislating at 3 o'clock in the morning. No one believed that we were doing a good job of parliamentary scrutiny because one or two Members were keeping the Government here until the early hours of the morning. We did that because we believed that we would eventually cause the Government to get tired and run out of steam. All I can say is that if it takes 18 years to get a Government to run out of steam, forget it, unless the Opposition are to make the same mistake as I did, which would be great.
Mrs. Shephard: Is the hon. Gentleman confessing that he too has changed his tune?
Mr. Soley: Yes, this is not the first time that I have said that. When I was elected in 1979, I adhered to the idea that we would grind the Government down, but it was nonsense. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst now has that view. When I see and hear him—I do not know whether this will encourage him—I see and hear myself. We used to do the same things late at night in the 1980s to keep the Government in the Chamber.
Mr. Forth: I am extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advice and encouragement, but I will be the judge of how effective I am in discharging my duties in the House. I would be happy to sit down quietly with the hon. Gentleman, perhaps with my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), and discuss some of our modest

65
achievements that have caused delay and—ultimately—put the Government's programme at risk. It is not necessarily a matter of amendments, but about the overall package of an entire Session. I am quite satisfied that my modest work within the existing rules has been worth my effort.
Mr. Soley: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman thinks that, but he might have misunderstood me. I do not agree with what he has said or, indeed, with many of the Bills that he has objected to and tried to stop, but it does the Opposition or Parliament no good to waste time talking and talking in the belief that time is an effective weapon. My argument is that that is not the case. My great confession, which I have made so many times that I thought everyone was familiar with it, is that when I tried to do that, it did not work.
Mr. Forth: We do it better.
Mr. Soley: There is no evidence of it yet.
The only significant concession was given by an Environment Minister on a planning issue which meant that local authorities were given the right to insist on the plan being the first consideration in a planning application. If the right hon. Gentleman regards that as an effective way of holding a Government to account, he has a minimalist view of what that ought to be about.
Mrs. Dunwoody: If delay is not an effective weapon, why is the Queen's Speech on 6 December, and why are so many Bills mired in another place?
Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend draws attention to what some of us have known for many years, and I know that she understands this: Governments of both political parties have increasingly used the guillotine to get legislation through Parliament. We can argue whether that is good, bad or indifferent, but that is what happens. That is why I argued so strongly—I am delighted that the House agreed with me the other week—for the programming of legislation. Programming allows Opposition Members to determine the time that is spent on specific aspects of a Bill and the time of day when they are debated.
Several hon.Members rose—
Mr. Soley: I will give way in a moment.
If my hon. Friend thinks about that, she will realise that it is a more effective weapon than giving in to a Government timetabling motion.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend is selling out on the past. The matter is open to discussion, as this is a free debate. I do not accept that time is not a weapon, as I believe that it is an extremely effective one. Under the previous Government, there were occasions when we used time and won, although I accept that they were small victories. One involved the Housing Act 1980, under which council houses were sold off. By using time, we secured agreement on a Government amendment that protected certain classifications of property that were occupied by elderly people. That is an example of how time can be used to good effect.
66
I agree with my hon. Friend about the extent to which all business can be sensibly run throughout the night, but we should allow time for certain proceedings, even though that may be uncomfortable for the Government.
Mr. Soley: I am in danger of getting into a debate about timing, which I am trying to avoid, so I do not wish to go into that matter in great depth. However, I must respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who is right that, in certain circumstances, time can be a weapon. I do not think that any Member doubts the central argument, but timetabling by successive Governments has made it impossible to achieve what the old theory of Parliament proposed and use time to defeat legislation. That 19th-century idea has not applied for at least 50 years. If we are going to use time, we must use it more effectively, which is where experiments such as Westminster Hall come in.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington and I achieved changes, but the counter-argument is that they were relatively small, compared to the enormous period that we spent on them. My hon. Friend was at one with me when we spent night after night in the Chamber. However, in doing so, we brought the House into disrepute because—I am sure that he agrees—most people did not understand why we thought that it was a good idea to stay in the Chamber overnight, occasionally achieving small changes of the type that he described, but generally no change at all in the legislation. The method that we used also enabled the Government to have debates on difficult and embarrassing parts of legislation in the early hours of the morning—I accept that Governments of both parties have done that—so that they no longer had embarrassing defeats in the main part of the day.
As my hon. Friend knows, time and again in opposition we watched the Tory party try to have those debates in the early hours of the morning, so we could not get coverage. The proper programming of legislation allows the Opposition and Back Benchers to determine the time for debates. The central part of my argument is therefore that the quality of the time is more important than just having endless time for debate.
Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that he is making the mistake that I complained about at the start of our debate? He is assessing changes on policy as a result of what happened in the Chamber. He should have studied how the changes that occurred in that period came about. While a few people were in the Chamber keeping the House going, a lot of people were in the Tea Room, bars, restaurants and other parts of the building arguing about political issues, and some of that effort resulted in change.
Mr. Soley: Quite frankly, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was far better than me at keeping people here through the night. I accept his argument that other useful things were happening elsewhere, but it is difficult to argue that that alone makes our system for examining legislation good. It does not, and we must focus on the quality of the time available.
Mr. Tom Levitt: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not need me to ride to his assistance, but I am happy to contribute. Will he cast his mind back to the early weeks of this year and when I had the privilege—if that is the word-of being parliamentary private secretary during

67
the 28-hour Second Reading of the Disqualifications Bill. I reckon that there are not many people in the Chamber—with the exception, perhaps, of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—who could tell us what was in that Bill. Although it took 28 hours to debate a Bill with four clauses, that had no effect on the quality or quantity of the legislation, and we lost Prime Minister's questions the next day, because the Opposition obviously did not want their leader to have to face up to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) is right about what happened. That is part of the old game-playing method of time wasting, which brought the House into disrepute.
May I return to the core of our debate? When I joined the Modernisation Committee, I was one of those who argued about the way in which the House used time and whether we used it sensibly. I increasingly came to the view that the House of Commons sits much longer than most other Parliaments and works long hours. It may work long hours, but it does not work very effective hours. I submitted a paper to the Modernisation Committee arguing for a parallel Chamber because certain matters that were taken on the Floor of the House needed to be discussed elsewhere so that the attention of this Chamber could be focused on the really big issues of the day. Members on both sides have said that fewer and fewer people watch or attend the Chamber, and perhaps part of the problem is that we debate matters that should not be discussed here. Westminster Hall was a necessary step in dealing with the number of hours that we sit.
We should consider the main tasks of a Member of Parliament. We all know that there is an endless list of tasks, but the three main ones are holding the Government to account, examining legislation and trying to make satisfactory changes to it, and, finally, representing one's constituents and understanding and responding to their needs. Those matters take up an enormous amount of Members' time. If we want to do those three things, but accept that sitting in the Chamber through the night is not a good way of achieving that, we should make sure that we can deliver a means of meeting our aim.
I agree with some of the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich made about Select Committees, and believe that we must examine the procedure governing those Committees because it is not working as well as I would like it to do. The recent report that dealt with the matter included some attractive proposals.
The key point is that Westminster Hall will enable us to have more debates for Back Benchers, which is good in its own right. Those debates should be removed from the Floor of the House, which should focus much more on the major issues of the day. Greater importance should be given to the Committee structure because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish argued, it is profoundly important, and people outside do not realise the amount of work that goes into it.
Enabling Members of Parliament to spend time in their constituencies is also important. Again, an old, almost 19th-century argument that, in reality, died out some time ago, proposed that Members of Parliament should represent their constituents in Westminster, and should
68
not necessarily be in their constituencies. However, especially with modern methods, Members must spend a lot of time in their constituencies, as they need to visit institutes and establishments and talk to their staff to understand the issues.
We must give Members of Parliament time to visit their constituencies. Westminster Hall will enable us to focus debates in the Chamber on more politically contentious issues that draw the attention of the media and the public. We also need, eventually, to redesign the whole parliamentary year so that we can enable Members of Parliament to spend time in their constituencies, examine legislation and hold the Government to account. The 7 o'clock finish on Thursday therefore makes sense, as most people have to travel a long way to their constituencies. Westminster Hall also makes sense, for the reasons that I have given. Ultimately, we must look at other issues such as the way in which Select Committees function.
In other words, we are embarked on a process of change. We have achieved a great deal—I think that we shall achieve much more—with the programming of legislation. That should allow us to examine legislation that is passing through a Committee by taking evidence on it. The Tories introduced the process in the 1980s. As I have said, they stopped doing it because of the perverse interpretation of the time weapon. We all know that Governments are afraid of losing control of the legislative timetable. If that can be brought under control, people will again be allowed to give evidence on proposed legislation. The other necessary step is to take evidence on how an Act is working. The Conservative party might have been grateful for that procedure. Both the Child Support Agency and the poll tax would have been chucked out much earlier if there had been feedback.
The two experiments need to continue. They should be seen as introducing a more effective way of enabling Members to focus their time on holding the Executive to account, to examine legislation and to service their constituents. That is part of a much wider agenda. Although there is a wish to work by consent and agreement in this place, things would be much easier if the Conservative party would not adopt the paranoid view that everything is a wicked plot by the Government. It should understand that some of us have spent enough time in opposition to know what failed and that we wish to try to put things right for Parliament as a whole and not only for ourselves.
6.31 pm
Mr. David Maclean: According to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), it is an old-fashioned concept that time is a weapon. The idea that Members, especially Opposition Members, could talk at length and pad out debates to delay the Government—to use the weapon of time—is one that the hon. Gentleman suggests is no longer appropriate. Yet have we not seen a splendid example of that process this evening? Indeed, it is still continuing, as it will for the next three hours. New Labour Members have been asked to come into the Chamber to pad out the debate. I am talking not about some of the old faces, the regular attenders, but those who have been drafted in to pad out the debate so that the debate on the immigration appeals motion does not begin until after 10 o'clock.

69
We know that many Labour Members are concerned about the motion, and the Government do not want it to be debated in prime time. As a result, the current debate will be padded out by Labour Members who perhaps did not have the issues before us at the forefront of their minds when the Government Whips approached them today. The Government are using time as a weapon in this debate.
I look forward to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) returning to the Chamber. I am happy to criticise him in his absence because he made his usual snide remarks at the start of the debate about the number of Members in the Chamber, particularly on the Opposition Benches. He then disappeared.
Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is making an extremely important point. Does he agree, for the record, that the hon. Members for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor), for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), whatever their other merits or demerits, were assuredly absent at the beginning of the debate?
Mr. Maclean: I am not able to say authoritatively who was in the Chamber at the start of the debate. However, I can recognise some of the faces of new Labour Members who have been drafted in.
Mr. David Taylor: The proposals of the Modernisation Committee are being debated and I am a member of that Committee. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is entirely proper that I should be present? There is nothing sinister in my presence.
Mr. Maclean: Of course it would be appropriate to be present. However, the hon. Gentleman was not in his place at the start of the debate. The Chamber is much fuller now than it was at the start of the debate. It is clear that my name has appeared on the monitor and it has attracted many Members to the Chamber.
Mr. Keith Darvill: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said that I was not in the Chamber at the start of the debate. May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I was?
Mr. Maclean: I think that that may be so. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was incorrectly advised on that matter. I may be wrong as well.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush suggested that if we work in this place late at night, turn up and debate things on a Friday, work as late as 10 o'clock on a Thursday night and try to hold the Government to account by means of long debates, we will bring the House into disrepute. Instead, we gave ourselves one of the longest summer recesses in history. If we shorten our working hours, if we are not here on Thursday evenings, if most Members are hardly ever here on a Friday and if we increase our parliamentary allowances, will these factors somehow bring new respect from members of the public? Will they think that we are undertaking our duties more assiduously? If that is one of the best arguments that the hon. Gentleman can advance for proceeding with the experiment, his arguments are feeble.
70
I have heard many Labour Members saying that what is before us is only part of the process and that there is much more reform and modernisation to come. Not one of them has dared to tell the House what in his or her view the further steps will be.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have.
Mr. Maclean: That is apart from my neighbour, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). He elaborated on one important change, but one that the Government will not touch with a barge pole. The suggestion that the Government will routinely subject junior Ministers, the poor lambs, to intense scrutiny in Westminster Hall or anywhere else, of the minutiae of Select Committee reports along the same lines as hybrid Committees along the Committee Corridor where there is an hour of questioning before set-piece speeches begin, is rather fanciful. Nevertheless, it is an idea. It is the only idea that I have heard today that if implemented would make the House more effective and Members more effective.
Mr. Forth: Would my right hon. Friend like to speculate on the direction he believes that further modernisation moves might take? Does he agree that it is more than likely that any further so-called modernisation will make life easier for the Government and give Members the opportunity to spend less time in this place while enjoying their increased allowances?
Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is right. He makes the same point as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). During the period that she and I have been in the House under all Governments, we have seen them want to ignore the control of Parliament. Parliament and all Oppositions have always been forced to give way to the demands of the Government of the day that they should get through their business more easily with the minimum amount of scrutiny. We have seen a rather exponential twist of the screw in the past few years. The proposals for modernisation take away tremendous powers from individual Members, and they will not make us more effective.
The word "effective" is the most over-used term that I have heard during the debate. Labour Member after Labour Member and Liberal Members have claimed that somehow yet more Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall have held the Executive to account or made us more effective. We are told that Ministers have been subjected to intense scrutiny. Where have these Members been? Can anyone produce a Minister of whatever party who has ever been put under intense scrutiny in an Adjournment debate? Has a Minister ever been held to account in an Adjournment debate?
I suspect that Ministers now do what I did on occasions when I was to respond to an Adjournment debate late at night. I would say to my civil servants, "I think that I have got the gist of this. I have a speech with which I am happy. Don't bother turning up because it is so late at night. You lot go home. We don't need you."
Of course, civil servants say, "But Minister, we need to be there, in case there are questions that you cannot answer." Let us not pretend that in Adjournment debates Ministers are put under such intense scrutiny that they

71
need their civil servants beside them, passing them messages all the time. If there are difficult questions to answer and they are not covered by the brief, or by the parts headed "Lines to take", "If pressed" or "Don't reveal this at any cost", the Minister simply promises to write to the hon. Member.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich made the same point: Adjournment debates end with the Minister winding up, and in those circumstances, there is no way that he can be put under intense scrutiny or pressure.
Mr. Ian Stewart (Eccles): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he accept that some of us who have held an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, with Ministers in front of us—for example, in the debate on the vaccine damage payments scheme—had a success? Ministers have been subjected to scrutiny and pressure, and that issue was settled amicably.
Mr. Forth: In your dreams.
Mr. Maclean: The hon. Member for Eccles has only just come into the Chamber. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, in your dreams. Not your dreams, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman's dreams.
By their very nature, Adjournment debates cannot put the Government under any scrutiny whatever.
Mr. Tyler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maclean: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, although he did not give way to me, as I recall. However, I do not mind giving way, if the hon. Gentleman wants to pad out the debate and help the Labour party avoid his own debate in prime time tonight.
The Government cannot be put under rigorous scrutiny in Adjournment debates. That is possible only at Question Time or in debates on Opposition motions on the Floor of the House. Upstairs, in Standing Committees and in the new Procedure Committee, the Government and Ministers can be held to account in some ways.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but he should not judge everybody else by his own experience. 1 recall him answering an Adjournment debate that I had launched in the Chamber at 7 o'clock in the morning. Everything that he has just said is perfectly true—his answer was totally inadequate. I put that on record. However, had that Adjournment debate taken place with a number of other hon. Members present in Westminster Hall under the present arrangements, he would have been put on the spot.
The right hon. Gentleman clearly has not attended a debate in Westminster Hall. The atmosphere there is entirely different, and the opportunities to extract information there are much greater. I challenge him to tell us what he has achieved in this Parliament through his type of opposition.
Mr. Maclean: To answer the last point first, an awful lot of letters from the hon. Gentleman's Liberal friends, begging me to let their useless Bills through. It must have
72
been humiliating for the hon. Gentlemen who wrote, pleading that their Bills were so vital, and arguing that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I were the only ones in the House blocking such vital legislation.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, that may be one example of what one has achieved. He may not like it and others may not like it, but at least on some of those measures, our opposition forced the Government to deal with Bills in Government time—in prime time. I do not have the ear of the business managers, and it was not my decision to deal with the hamburgers in the parks Bill—a private Member's Bill of minuscule importance—in prime time as part of the Government's programme, apparently because my right hon. Friend and I had made a few observations about it. I will not be sidetracked by the Liberal party into going down that route.
Westminster Hall diminishes the importance and status of the Chamber. We all know that the main business that takes place in Westminster Hall is Adjournment debates. That has certain merit. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), said, it allows us to raise constituency issues. It gives us an outlet for constituency issues.
That may be a legitimate aim in itself, but when we apply for an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, tell the press about it, have a little press release prepared, go back to our local, parochial press and say, "I'm making a very important speech in Westminster Hall and here it is", let us not pretend, as parliamentarians, that that issue is of national importance. Let us not pretend that we are holding the Government to account, or that we are wringing Ministers' necks till they squeak or squeal. Of course we are not. We are making a point for the media back home in our own patch, which we hope will ultimately get us votes and appeal to our own electorate, our own party or local people.
That is not to diminish some of the issues raised. Some of the issues that hon. Members have raised on Adjournment debates are extremely important to one constituent or to a large number of constituents. Some hon. Members raise international issues in an Adjournment debate, which may be important to many people in overseas countries or to a number of hon. Members.
Mr. David Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maclean: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already, and it was a waste of time.
There is certain merit in letting hon. Members have Adjournment debates—
Mr. Forth: Here.
Mr. Maclean:—in the Chamber. The point about Westminster Hall is that it increases the number of Adjournment debates held in Parliament generally. That is its main function. It therefore automatically diminishes the status of Select Committee reports when they are debated there. Hon. Members on Select Committees say that the media are not particularly interested in those debates. Of course not. The media conclude collectively that if a debate is being held in Westminster Hall, it does

73
not matter. Westminster Hall is just a talking shop—the Bongo Bongo parish council room above the police men's caff, so it cannot be very important, can it?
We know that Westminster Hall is not important. I take issue with my right hon. Friend. It is not a glorified village hall. I have a better village hall in Cumbria than that place above the tea room.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maclean: Not at the moment. I want to let in all the hon. Members who have been drummed in to take part in the debate. I do not want to cause the Government Whips any upset by freezing out the hon. Members who have been asked to speak, although I accept that the hon. Lady has been present from the start.
The Westminster Hall experience is diminishing the status of the House because of the nature of the debates taking place there, and because Cabinet Ministers do not turn up. We have all experienced a Cabinet Minister from both parties over the past few years sometimes taking an Adjournment debate in the House. It was usual for Ministers of State to respond to Adjournment debates in the House. Admittedly, the vast majority were done by Under-Secretaries of State. There is the view that that is the job of junior Ministers—they meet the whingeing delegations, they sign the letters and they do Adjournment debates. One day, when they are important, they decide policy. That is probably the view held in all Governments.
We see in Westminster Hall that every debate is taken by a junior Minister. When every debate is taken by a junior Minister, when the outcome does not matter, the Government cannot pretend that Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber to this place. It is not. Because it is not an alternative Chamber, I support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on changing the title of the person who chairs the meeting in Westminster Hall.
You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are a proper, real Deputy Speaker, and there are two others assisting you. That brings certain responsibilities and duties. It brings a little increase in salary as well, but it is a full—time job, and it causes you to be here on Fridays and all the hours that the House sits. It also means that you cannot sign early-day motions and you cannot vote. That puts you in a rather special category.
Everyone knows the Speaker. The Speaker is always more famous than Deputy Speakers. I expect that as a new incumbent to the post, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will have constituents writing to you asking you to sign early-day motion 5,000,021, or asking why you did not vote on Friday in the debate on embryology. You will have to point out that you are a Deputy Speaker and you are not allowed to do those things. It is the convention of the House. I suspect that you will then receive letters saying, "The hon. Member for so and so is a Deputy Speaker, and he said something and voted."
The Committee Chairmen who act the role of the so-called Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall are in a unique position: they have the same title as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but they are allowed to sign early-day motions, to vote and to be political. That is slightly unfair. It creates two classes of Deputy Speaker; it diminishes the
74
status of the Chair in the House, and it must cause confusion among its occupants—it certainly causes confusion among the electorate.

I simply suggest that the title of those who chair debates in Westminster Hall—while it exists—should be Chairman, unless you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or one of the other two Deputy Speakers are in the Chair, in which case the title "Deputy Speaker" should be used.
I am almost ready to conclude my remarks, except to say that I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that there is ample time in this Chamber to hold all the debates that we need on Select Committee reports and Adjournment motions. In the past three weeks, there has been one Adjournment debate after another. Three days of defence debates have arisen on Adjournment motions, and the Government had to run around, dragooning hon. Members to keep the debates going, as did the Opposition because we could not let the Government be seen to say more than we did. We have all had to do our bit to keep Adjournment debates going for no good reason. Many Labour Members are nodding, and other members of the Government cannot nod and affirm what I say.
There is ample time if we plan the programme better. No doubt, in the next few days, there will be a big panic and the Government will say that they must guillotine the Bills coming from the Lords because of the lack of time, yet we have spent the past three weeks finding subjects to discuss to pad out all the days that the Government have allocated.
This Chamber is the place to hold the Government to account. That should be done during proper, full debates with votes taken at their conclusion, at whatever time that may be. Experienced Ministers and Labour Members know that the Government cannot be held to account in this Chamber in an Adjournment debate. When I was a junior Minister, the first time that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) stood up in the middle of what I thought was a brilliant parliamentary answer and told me that, in view of the inadequacy of my reply, he reserved the right to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate, I must admit that I was a bit nervous.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Oh, come on.
Mr. Maclean: I put more work into that Adjournment debate than any other because I knew that that was a real threat. However, that debate still took place on the Floor of the House late at night. If I were a Minister in any future Government and a Member said that he or she would raise an issue in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, who would care? The media would not cover the debate and no other colleague would attend. It would not matter if the Member made a mess of it. Of course the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is right to say that Ministers are more relaxed in Westminster Hall, spouting and saying anything that they like, because there is nothing to fear; there is no pressure. They do not suffer the nerves of those who answered questions from the Dispatch Box at 3.13 on Tuesday or Thursday when the Prime Minister would come in and those who are now Government Members would shout, "Shut up. Get the monkey off; we want the organ grinder." That sort of pressure is phenomenal.

75
There is no such pressure in Westminster Hall; it is like being upstairs in Standing Committee, where hon. Members can chat and be happily back-slappy and friendly. That takes away some of the status of the House. Of course, we can be relaxed and reach a concordat in debates on certain issues in the Chamber, but we also need some of the tension that puts Ministers from whichever side on the spot and makes or breaks them at the Dispatch Box. I have taken part in debates where the Government's future hangs on a vote, but there are other debates in which Ministers are put on the spot and in which the outcome of the vote was uncertain, as we saw earlier this week during the Labour rebellion. There may not be many such opportunities, but they do matter.
The more stuff we kick into Westminster Hall, the more the status of the House will be diminished and the public will think it irrelevant. The media already think it irrelevant; the public will think so as well, which is the reason why debates must take place in the Chamber and why I oppose the current modernisation agenda. I suspect that I will oppose the further modernisation proposals when we find out about them.
6.55 pm
Gillian Merron: Most of our constituents are interested in the more efficient use of Parliament so that we parliamentarians find a more efficient way in which to run the country that will increase opportunities not only for promotion, but for scrutiny. We must consider how to make Parliament more relevant to our constituents and how to close the gap between the Dispatch Box and the doorstep. My constituents wonder why we have not taken more action to change some of the House's more arcane practices, which get in the way of making Parliament more relevant to them and their lives.
As a Back Bencher who was elected to the House in 1997, I welcome the opportunities provided by Westminster Hall, which represents a new and more effective way of working. I am sure that many Members share that view. I was interested in the comments of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who argued more against Adjournment debates than against Westminster Hall. When he spoke about tension at the Dispatch Box, I wondered whether he had had the opportunity to visit the body zone of the dome and see the large heart pumping under the impact of adrenalin. Clearly, that is how he suggests we could hold Ministers to account more effectively, but that is not what the debate is entirely about.
Westminster Hall is not a distraction; it is an addition to our facilities. It provides an opportunity at a more relevant time to raise pertinent issues, especially those of importance to our constituents. That is why it has not distracted from this Chamber's primacy. I have had an opportunity to initiate two Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall, the first of which was on the economy of the east midlands. As the chair of the east midlands group of Labour Members, I thought it particularly important to secure that debate. It was the first time that we had had a chance to put the spotlight on our region for the benefit of our constituents. I felt, and still feel, that it is right to use Westminster Hall to raise the profile of our region and secure more interest in it—and thus more
76
support for it. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that there have been an extra 134 opportunities for Back Benchers to raise issues of concern with Ministers in Westminster Hall.
The other issue that I took the opportunity to raise related to the passage of rail freight through Lincoln—a problem of particular concern to my constituents, which was exacerbated by Railtrack's plans. On Friday, I again met representatives of Railtrack, the city council, the county council and others to talk about the problem that had been aired in Westminster Hall. The issue had the support of the Minister, who pressed Railtrack to meet us and talk constructively so that we could deal with the problem, which has been a thorn in the side of my constituency for 150 years and which, even now, is holding back the development of the city. That is a good example of the way in which Westminster Hall, the presence of the Minister and the role of the constituency Member of Parliament can all come together.
A minority of Members do not like Westminster Hall. I suggest, therefore, that they do not use it if they feel so strongly, but it is important to show respect to colleagues on both sides of the House who value the opportunities presented by Westminster Hall.
On Thursday sittings, to be truthful, it is not clear to me what all the excitement is about. The reform involves a change of hours, not a reduction. We currently sit between 11.30 am and 7 pm—that is, for seven and a half hours—and we used to sit between 2.30 pm and 10 pm—again, for seven and a half hours. What matters is the way in which we use that time and our Thursdays. The report makes it clear that if one compares the present arrangement for Thursday sittings with that for the last year in which traditional hours applied, during the first year of the experiment the House sat for almost an hour longer and for 40 minutes longer during the second year. That clearly shows that we are seeking not to reduce our hours, but to make better use of our time.
The debate is not about constituency versus Chamber—that is an artificial argument. When we are in the House, are we not ambassadors for our constituencies, and when we are in our constituencies, are we not, among other things, ambassadors for Parliament?
My constituents cannot understand why we cannot introduce changes to use our time in the House more effectively. Recently, on a Friday, I visited Wyman Gordon in Lincoln, which employs more than 170 people in my constituency and is a supplier to the aerospace industry. My discussions with people there are an important piece of work. How can I highlight in the House the successes and challenges of manufacturing industry unless I know what I am talking about? It is as important for me to be in the House raising and highlighting issues about the manufacturing industry as it is for me to be in my constituency finding out what those issues and challenges are. Being a Member of Parliament involves not only speaking, but listening and seeing. The challenge for all hon. Members is to find the right balance.
Mr. David Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the dual role of Members of Parliament, which involves obtaining facts, figures and information about our constituencies that help to shape our speeches in the House. Does she agree that if Conservative Back Benchers under the previous Government had spent more

77
time in their constituencies, they would have found out a little more effectively, and at an earlier stage, about the unpopularity of policies such as the poll tax? Had they done so, such policies might not have led to Lady Thatcher's demise, the 10th anniversary of which we shall celebrate with gusto this Wednesday.
Gillian Merron: That is a creative intervention, and I share my hon. Friend's views. May his words be a lesson to us all.
Mrs. Browning: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Gillian Merron: No, I want to wind up.
I welcome the report, but I hope that we shall introduce more changes in the House that will make Parliament more relevant to my constituents' everyday lives.
7.3 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What a deeply conservative place the House is.
Our debate, to which I have listened carefully, has contained a true flow of ideas, but there has been a common theme: an acceptance that, somehow, the proposals that we may approve tonight are a great leap forward in our attempts to modernise and to hold the Executive to account. That is a great delusion. I support the motion on Westminster Hall sittings and, with some qualifications, which I shall discuss later, the proposal to end the main debate at 7 pm on Thursdays, but to suggest that the proposals represent a great leap forward is a charade. I shall spell out why that is so.
A feature of the House is the cosy consensus that exists between those on the two Front Benches and between those who took the shilling of Lady Thatcher or the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), and those who no doubt aspire to office under the present Prime Minister. It is time that people stood up and said that the problem with the House is, to a large extent, the choreography between the two Front Benches, the synthetic anger that the two main protagonists throw at each other, the adversarial nature of the House and the fact that we never really examine some of the issues that are thrown up, particularly but not exclusively, by Back Benchers. I hope that my remarks will at least be different from most of those uttered this afternoon.
As the representative of a south-east constituency, I recognise the enormous difficulties faced by hon. Members who represent those parts of the United Kingdom that are far from Westminster. They have a natural desire to reach their constituencies and their duty is to be there. Our arrangements must recognise that.
My second point, which has not been made this afternoon—hon. Members may disagree with many of my arguments, but at least they are new—involves the fact that Parliament tries to do too much, compared with Parliaments in the other principal democracies, most of which are either federal or work in an extensively devolved system. In the Bundestag, the United States Congress and the Westminster-style Parliaments in Canberra or Ottawa, Members of Parliament and Ministers, or their equivalent, have to deal with broad macro-economic policy, social policy, defence and foreign affairs. We deal with broad macro-economic policy, social policy, defence and foreign affairs as well
78
as the sidewalks and other such issues that, although relatively important, are elsewhere dealt with by state legislatures, the Lönder or the Parliaments of Alberta or New South Wales.
We in Parliament try to do too much, and we therefore do it badly. Unless and until both parties come to a consensus about creating a devolved federal United Kingdom, we shall go on saying that we are focusing on and are able to scrutinise the enormous growth of government in this country when we are not. That needs to be understood.
I have already alluded to the fact that I find it nauseating that Members who have sat on the Treasury Bench suddenly undergo a Pauline conversion when they are no longer there. I shall never be guilty of that because I am not going to sit on the Treasury Bench. In the unlikely event of my being invited, I would say no, but it is not going to happen.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why?
Mr. Mackinlay: From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend asks me why. I shall tell him. The corrupt nature of British politics involves the fact that those elected to Parliament, friend and foe alike, are told, "We hope it won't be long before you are on the Treasury Bench." This country is obsessed with the fact that promotion in politics involves becoming a Minister. Until we break that mould and elect hon. Members who do not aspire to be Ministers, the power of patronage and the control of Whips will continue. We must break that mould. If, in my small way, I can beak it by saying, as I have said before, that I never, ever want to be a Minister, we might make some progress.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), who has left the Chamber, and other Conservative former Ministers referred to this year's inordinately lengthy recess. They are quite right, but they are not free from sin: they acquiesced in similarly long recesses when they were in office. The Labour Government may have gone further, but that does not make it right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) discussed the question of scrutiny. I listened carefully to his comments, as we should do, especially on this occasion, but I wonder whether he will join me in criticising our inordinately, indefensibly lengthy recess and embrace my remedy, which would apply rubrics to Westminster Hall and our sittings. In my view, the House, or perhaps Westminster Hall, could and should sit in September and October. Parliamentary questions and statements could be dealt with, but not legislation.
Have you noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that from time immemorial, the House sits only when the King or Executive of the day want legislation? The Government bear the idea that they must suffer scrutiny as a consequence of legislating, but if they can minimise that scrutiny, they will ensure that the House does not sit. It is time for us to assert ourselves and for hon. Members to say to the Government, whether Labour or Conservative, "We will decide when the House sits; it is our property." That is why I believe that, if a human tragedy or disaster occurs in September or October next year, a statement that would be made at other times should be made

79
immediately. Of course, if there are no votes, hon. Members will not be obliged to turn up. When submarines are disabled in the Mediterranean—I refer to Royal Navy submarines, not those in the Barents sea—there should be a statement in the House of Commons and Ministers should not take refuge in the parliamentary recess and avoid questions.
In parenthesis, I believe that the Government made a mistake by not recalling Parliament during the fuel demonstration, as they could have tackled head on some of the bogus Opposition criticism and exposed the deeply worrying political conspiracy that sought to undermine the Government.
Mrs. Browning rose—
Mr. Mackinlay: My adrenalin is flowing, but, as it is the hon. Lady, I shall give way.
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is generous. I should like to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley). If Labour Members see it as part of their job to feed information to the Government of the day, I presume that they were feeding to their Whips and Ministers the anxiety in the country about the price of fuel. If that was the case and they were doing their job, why were the Government surprised and shocked when the fuel crisis began? Should not they have been fully alerted by Labour Members?
Mr. Mackinlay: That intervention demonstrates the facile nature of this place. While I was trying to explain why we should ensure scrutiny and accountability, the hon. Lady introduced a partisan view, because of the House's adversarial and gladiatorial shambles of scoring points. I often agree with views expressed by hon. Members from other parties as well with those of Labour Members. Why must there be a continuous sparring that does not address the issue on the Order Paper? I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would like me to do that.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend explain whether he genuinely believes that there is a consensus between his political views and those of the Conservative party? Does he believe that we should always make decisions on that basis? If so, I should tell him that I have been a member of the Labour party since I was 16 and I can honestly say that I do not agree with Conservative Members. Indeed, I sometimes have difficulties with the views expressed by Labour Members, let alone other hon. Members.
Mr. Mackinlay: If I have given any impression that I identify with the Conservative party, I am amazed. If you cut me in half, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will see that Labour goes through me like words through a stick of rock. I have supported and sustained my party during bad times as well as good and I bear the scars and bruises to prove it.
We should acknowledge that we sometimes recognise wisdom and prudence in the words of hon. Members who are members of political parties other than Labour. I know
80
that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will accept that point. That is why I deprecated the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), with whom I was disappointed, for trying to trespass into the fuel dispute when I was using it merely to illustrate the need for Parliament to sit.
I invite hon. Members to consider the following point: genuine modernisation would consist of our taking away from the Government of the day control of the business of the House. Even if I cannot persuade them of that, I ask them to consider the use of Fridays. Business on that day should not be for the usual channels or the Leader of the House; it should be for ordinary Members—Back Benchers—to decide what the business and priorities should be.
Mr. Winnick: I hope that I display as much independence as my hon. Friend, or, at least, nearly as much. However, I do not agree with him about taking control of the House away from the Government, although I believe that plenty of time should be allowed for Back-Bench speeches. Does he agree that we were elected as Labour Members to get a Labour Government to achieve a number of aims near to our heart, such as the minimum wage, trade union measures or reform of the House of Lords? I want to give the Government the powers and opportunity to achieve those aims. I have not come to this place as an independent Member of the sort that existed in the 18th or 19th centuries. I come here first and foremost as a Labour Member and I am proud to stand on a Labour party ticket in a general election.
Mr. Mackinlay: So am I, but, with respect, I was addressing some comments made when my hon. Friend was not present. They related to Friday sittings. On Fridays, we do not usually consider Government legislation. I believe that the priorities for Friday debates should lie more with the whole House than with the Front Bench.
On Westminster Hall, I should like to comment briefly on the Deputy Speakers. I believe that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory. We should either increase the number of Deputy Speakers or refer to the hon. Members who preside at Westminster Hall as Chairpersons. There is a case for increasing the number of occupants of the Chair in the House of Commons. The Canadian House of Commons has the same number of Speakers and Deputy Speakers as this place, but it also sits a lot less, both annually and daily. There is a powerful case for more Deputy Speakers, but if the present arrangements endure, a distinction must be drawn between hon. Members who preside over proceedings in Westminster Hall and those who preside in the Chamber.
The right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) were dismissive of how Westminster Hall can be and is used. I should like, however, to draw on my experience during the experiment. I am sorry to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich is departing, as I wanted to refer to some of the discussions over which she presided. She will recall occasions when a number of Back Benchers were able to probe Ministers sufficiently to leave them isolated on issues that were not party political but were contentious. Although there had been no pre-planning or preparation, hon. Members from

81
all parties could, almost by instinct, probe the Minister effectively and extract commitments that might otherwise not have been made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich might have been in the Chair when the Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), was questioned about Gibraltar. He was probed on the deficiencies in existing policy and we were able to extract some commitments which the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, whose report was being discussed, could pursue with greater vigour after that morning's debate.
Mr. David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is making a good point. Often, it is the cumulative effect of debates that has an influence, which is why the increased opportunity to obtain Adjournment debates can affect Ministers. It is when a Minister is required to recite a threadbare brief for the fourth or fifth time and it is clear that he is not committed to it that we get progress. That may have happened in respect of the case of the far east prisoners of war, in which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and I were involved.
Mr. Mackinlay: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. How we as Back Benchers exploit the opportunities of Westminster Hall is largely down to skill and tactics. That was well illustrated by another debate in which I participated on the future of BBC World television. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), was in a difficult position because he was trying to defend a decision that was about to be taken by the BBC's governors. I am satisfied that the governors' decision was altered as a consequence of that bipartisan, effective and skilfully prosecuted debate by Back Benchers. The Minister was on the receiving end, and we extracted from him and from the governors changes that would not otherwise have been made.
The right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Penrith and The Border were dismissive of the publicity that debates in Westminster Hall sometimes receive in the regional media. It is important for us to be able to articulate in this place concerns that are ventilated in the press. The regional media are often as important as the national media, if not more so. The increased opportunities that Westminster Hall has afforded us has enabled Members of Parliament to express opinions that would not otherwise be aired in the House, but which need to be articulated because they are often unpopular or unpalatable, or represent minority views. If hon. Members can get a slot, they can put them on the record.
I was recently in an isolated position but was nevertheless able to probe the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), about the cover up of police corruption and wrongdoing in the Metropolitan police area, including the unprofessional conduct of its complaints investigation branch. The subject was very important to a constituent of mine, but it also had a wider importance, and I was able to raise that issue on the Floor of the House of Commons, albeit Westminster Hall. I hope that what will flow from that will be to the benefit of my constituent, who has suffered because of the CIB' s arbitrary actions. However, it has also meant that the media have been able to air this important subject, which had to some extent been suppressed by a number of agencies.
82
I want to make a small point about the rubric of Westminster Hall, which I hope the Minister and members of the Modernisation Committee will consider. Debates in Westminster Hall are often detailed and complicated for the Member who is raising the issue. I have never had access to the Dispatch Box, and I do not want it, and I only use notes, but I feel that an equivalent of the Dispatch Box is needed in Westminster Hall for the Minister and for the Member opening the debate, who often need to use extensive notes and documents. It would help them if they had the equivalent of the Dispatch Box, which could be positioned where the Member finds it most comfortable, bearing in mind the nature of that Chamber.
I shall conclude by inviting hon. Members on both sides of the House to step back and consider why we should accept this relatively modern idea that the House should sit only when the Government say so—primarily when legislation is needed. If we do, we would be subordinating our historic duty to provide scrutiny and accountability. I hope that the Modernisation Committee will address that issue in the future.
Westminster Hall is an asset to those of us who want to probe the Executive, but it is nothing more than that. We have it, so we should hold on to it—that is a basic trade union principle. However, we have a long way to go before we can start rebuilding the status of this place and meeting the expectations of the public. Parliament should be a forum and fulcrum for real debate. It does not matter to me whether it is in this Chamber or in Westminster Hall, which I find comfortable—I welcome its intimacy, which enables us to communicate ideas.
There is a danger that we will think that we have done well, but this is only a small increment towards fighting the inexorable power of Members on the two Front Benches to choreograph this place. That is unhealthy for them, for the parties they represent and for parliamentary democracy. I support the continuance of this experiment. We should not lose Westminster Hall, but we have a long way to go.
7.25 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell: A little while ago, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who is about to leave the Chamber, kindly credited me with having been here since the start of the debate. I must confess to him and to the House that I was not present at the start and I missed some of the opening speeches, for which I apologise. If the trains had been running today at the times and the speed they were when I made my arrangements, I would have been here on time.
Mr. David Taylor: Blame privatisation.
Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend blames privatisation; we know the reason for the rail disruption. I apologise for not being here earlier.
This has been an interesting and instructive debate. Many issues have been aired, and I have listened to the discussion with great interest. I want to pick up on the point made earlier—that things done for the convenience of Members somehow run counter to the democratic process. Things done for the convenience of Members can take away some of the democratic facilities in this place

83
that we need, but not necessarily. I believe that many of the changes made by the Modernisation Committee have proved effective and have made us more efficient when conducting our business.
The added opportunity for debate initiated by Back Benchers—an important point not made previously—is welcome. There have been 108 hours of extra parliamentary time for Back Benchers to raise the issues that they feel are important after being in their constituencies and talking to their constituents. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said that we act as the voice of the electorate between elections, and I fervently believe that to be true. On this occasion, I do not disagree with an Opposition Member. What she said adequately reflected my view.
Politicians are often said to be out of touch. We must keep in touch by making constituency visits, talking to constituents and listening to their concerns. We do not have a dual role. I do not think that we have one role in the constituency and another in Parliament: they are one and the same. We need to bring to this place not only our own experience, but that of our constituents. We cannot adequately do so unless we are prepared to spend time in the constituency talking to the people whom we represent about their concerns.
We do not necessarily have a social worker role, although we all get involved in that way. We help people to move from unsatisfactory accommodation, to put up street signs or to get pedestrian crossings. Those are important, but we also listen to people who are suffering because of the way in which legislation is currently working.
I initiated one debate in Westminster Hall about education standard spending assessments, a subject dear to the hearts of my constituents. The debate was excellent; many right hon. and hon. Members spoke in it. Everyone claimed that theirs was the worst funded local education authority. I did not claim that—I know that mine is not the worst funded—but it was an important debate. It was critical of the way in which the Minister for School Standards answered the points. She did it well, but she came under a lot of pressure to explain why there was delay and exactly what the Government were doing to try to correct mistakes by the previous Government.
Mr. David Taylor: I was present for part of that debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that one measure of the effectiveness of Westminster Hall debates is that that debate had some success in inching the Government towards a more rational method of local government financing? We have yet to see the results, but we have great faith that the debate played a part in providing a more equitable distribution of grant to LEAs, such as those in Leicestershire, which is at the bottom of the county league table in that respect.
Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to make a valuable point. The debate enabled us not only to hold the Government to account, but to express a view, which we had been discussing within the fair funding group of MPs—a cross—party group, not a Labour party group alone—and put it to the Minister and hear her response. I am sure that we shall go on pressing that point—I hope in Westminster Hall.
84
It is important that our constituents are able to see that we are linking their experiences with what we say in this place. The decline in the percentage of people voting in local as well as general elections is distressing. We need to be able to demonstrate forcefully and clearly that we are their representatives, are bringing their concerns to this place and are effective in changing the way the Government do things to make their lives better and to increase their opportunities.
I therefore support Westminster Hall debates. They have proved popular for various reasons. One is that they are held when the press and public are awake, aware and can take note of what is said. The last end-of-day Adjournment debate that I secured was held between 2 and 3 am; I do not remember exactly what time it was. I was so blurred by that stage that I could not concentrate on what I was saying. However, few people were aware of it, except the Minister who was put up to reply and, of course, the Hansard writers, whom I gratefully acknowledge and who helped to demonstrate later what had passed between me and the Minister; but Adjournment debates held at that time of the day are no good for the general public. Even the constituent about whom I was speaking did not hear the debate at that time in the morning: he had sensibly gone to bed some hours earlier.
Another reason why I support Westminster Hall debates is that they feel a good deal more accessible to people than the ones in this Chamber. When people are sitting in the public gallery, it is difficult for them to feel part of the debate in quite the same way as they do in Westminster Hall. It brings the immediacy of the debate more closely to the people who have made representations.
The more informal seating arrangements make it much easier to arrive at consensus. I am not one of those people who feels that we should always arrive at consensus—far from it. I have some strong political beliefs and much of the time I disagree completely with the Conservative view, but there are occasions when I do agree. We have points in common. We should be able to arrive at consensus when it is appropriate to do so.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Before I resigned from the deputy speakership, I sat for many hours in Westminster Hall. May I assure my hon. Friend, because I heard many debates, that the placing of the furniture has absolutely no effect on whether people decide on consensus? The House of Commons, with its normally very tolerant, very flexible response, automatically divides itself into Government one side, Opposition the other and third parties in the middle.
Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend, if she were to listen to some of the people who advise management on how best to arrive at consensus—
Mrs. Dunwoody: I listened to Westminster Hall.
Mrs. Campbell: If my hon. Friend were to listen to management consultants and to people who have done much work with businesses and commerce—I think that we should be prepared to learn from those organisations; I do not think necessarily that we are unique in the way we behave—she would realise that it is much easier to reach consensus when the seating is arranged in the way that it is in Westminster Hall. What people dislike about

85
this place is the adversarial nature of the political party debate. If there is consensus to be achieved, we should try to do that.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Which people dislike the adversarial nature?
Mrs. Campbell: A great many of my constituents dislike the adversarial nature of the political debate in this place. Yah-boo politics, it has been called. Making party political points for the sake of it turns off most of our constituents; women in particular dislike that sort of debate. I would not want the seating arrangements to be changed in Westminster Hall. The hemispherical shape is good. When people sit facing each other, two sword lengths apart, it feels adversarial and encourages the hon. Lady to make party political points. I do not object to aggressive debate when it is necessary, but in many cases, it is not.
Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Campbell: No. I shall make some progress now.
I want to say a few words about Thursday sittings. Two weeks ago, we voted for reforms that will effectively limit debates, so that we normally finish before midnight. To be grateful for finishing at midnight may seem a little peculiar to those outside this place, certainly outside the world of business and commerce, but I am grateful.
Thursday sittings have not reduced the hours in any way, a point that was ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron). They are an experiment that has been a huge success, with the House starting and finishing three hours earlier. Thursday sittings have probably—the statistics show it—extended the hours that we sit.
Before we finished at 7 pm, the Whips were under quite a lot of pressure to get Government business finished at 7, so on many days we started at 2.30 and finished at 7. Now we start at 11.30 am and finish at 7, leading to longer debate. It has helped right hon. and hon. Members in far-flung constituencies to achieve a better balance between their work at Westminster and their work in the constituency. It has helped them to arrive home on a Thursday evening, instead of in the early hours of Friday morning.
I know that the arrangement took some time to bed down. I am a parliamentary private secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry. We have parliamentary questions on a Thursday. When the change was first made, there was great tension over whether hon. Members with questions on the Order Paper would remember to turn up in the Chamber at 11.30 am to ask them, rather than rushing in at 2.30 pm and expecting Question Time to be in progress.
I think, however, that the arrangements have bedded down and been a great success. I hope that, when we vote later today, they will receive support from both sides of the House.
7.40 pm
Mr. Keith Darvill: I should like to make just a few points, the first of which—in reply to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—is that I was in the Chamber for the beginning of the debate. However, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham,
86
Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for missing a part of their speeches when I slipped out of the Chamber.
I support both motions. With hours being increased after Jopling, a fixed finishing time of 7 o'clock on Thursdays has made it easier for hon. Members to plan. As a Greater London Member, on Thursdays I have been able to do constituency work in the morning. However, I appreciate that the situation is much more difficult for hon. Members who live further afield. Nevertheless, this debate—and all our other debates on modernisation—is all about balance. We have to balance the need for change with the need for hon. Members properly to perform their various responsibilities.
Although I have some reservations about attendance in the Chamber, I do not blame the Government for low attendance. Hon. Members should attend the Chamber more often. As a member of the Procedure Committee and an assiduous attender of debates in the Chamber—I was here for Friday's important debate, for example—I take my responsibilities to the House very seriously and agree that it is disappointing sometimes to see so few hon. Members in the Chamber.
Before being elected to the House, I thought that the House required balanced change to be made consensually. I believe that we are getting there, albeit rather slowly. I therefore support early Thursday sittings and believe that we should continue experimenting with ways to improve participation in the House.
Mr. Swayne: May I press the hon. Gentleman on that point?
Mr. Darvill: Certainly.
Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman has raised two issues
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Welcome to the debate.
Mr. Swayne: Unfortunately, I had an opposed Bill Committee that I had to attend in the middle of the debate. I have returned, however, having been here at the start.
The hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) raises two issues: the first is that the Chamber is often poorly attended, and the second concerns early Thursday sittings. Has it not occurred to him that hon. Members have many things to do in the mornings? Does he anticipate that, if we sit earlier in the day, those matters will be moved to the end of the day, or that they will still be done in the morning and the Chamber will be even emptier than it is now?
Mr. Darvill: I wish I knew the answer to that. My own feeling as a new hon. Member—more experienced Members may have a better way of dealing it—is that it is very difficult to balance the various demands made on my time. In an ideal world, we would be able to spend more time both in the Chamber and outside it serving our constituents.
Again, the issue is how to strike the right balance. I do not think that Parliament has the balance quite right. My constituents, and organisations in my constituency, demand my time for all types of reasons, and they may not appreciate how hon. Members' time in the House is

87
organised. So it is also a matter of educating people about how we organise our time. I think that reorganising our sitting times and shorter recesses might help in that process. However, I am not sure of the answer.
In the past 20 or 30 years, there has been a drive for a more consumer-friendly society in which we, as hon. Members, are much more available to everyone. However, it is difficult to achieve that objective while doing the work that we have to do in the House. As I said, I do not blame Governments for that change. I think that hon. Members are responding in various ways to changes in society.
I have attended and spoken in various debates in Westminster Hall. The debates have covered a wide variety of subjects, and they have been very worth while. I disagree with the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) that we would have had sufficient time in the House to have those debates. The Westminster Hall experiment has extended the list of subjects for debate, not only constituency debates initiated by one or two hon. Members, but more general debates.
The Westminster Hall debate on community legal service partnerships, for example, was held little more than one year after passage of the legislation establishing it, and it enabled hon. Members to speak from their own constituency experience about how the partnerships were working in their areas. Such a review was useful both for hon. Members and for the Minister, who took a note of the experiences described.
In a constituency debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) raised the issue of Uno plc. Various hon. Members on both sides of the House had constituents who had suffered in that case. Prior to the debate, the company liquidator held a meeting which hon. Members could attend. However, I doubt whether the meeting would have been called so urgently without the prospect of the debate. It demonstrated some of the benefits of Westminster Hall.
I support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on using European Standing Committee debates as a model for debates scrutinising Select Committee reports. My own view is that Select Committee reports are very important, that Select Committees need to be enhanced and reinforced, and that examination of their reports using the European Standing Committee model would enable greater scrutiny.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I remember having a conversation with a junior Minister in the former Government in which he said, "I have been up since 4 o'clock this morning swotting up on the subject of this debate." Later, he said that such debates were the most penetrative parliamentary procedure that he knew of to hold hon. Members and Ministers to account. We therefore have it from a former Minister that that model really works as my hon. Friend and I are suggesting.
Mr. Darvill: I am a member of European Standing Committee C and participate in all its debates. The hour or so that is allowed for questions in those debates is both penetrating and worth while. I urge the Modernisation Committee to consider using that model in the consideration of Select Committee reports.
88
The use of such a model is particularly important because of resource accounting and budgeting, which will affect the way in which Select Committees review the Departments that they shadow. As time passes, the provision of additional information on annual accounts will make Select Committees' work more penetrating and give Select Committees and the House a powerful scrutiny role. If those reports were debated more extensively, using the procedure suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington, Back Benchers would have an additional scrutiny weapon.
There is a modernisation package, but I think that we should consider further modernisation. We should certainly consider greater pre-legislative scrutiny, which could be done in Select Committees. I should also like to see improved procedures for considering private Members' legislation. I should also like changes to the parliamentary year. All those changes need to be considered; we need to modernise and improve our procedures. Although the changes that we are debating today are a part of that process, they should be only the start.
7.50 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: It has been suggested that time is sometimes abused in this Chamber by hon. Members who perform the equivalent of reading out the telephone directory to prolong debate. The powers that be who decided to prolong this evening's debate, whoever they are, did rather better than that. In a step forward from reading names in the telephone directory, we now have the spectacle of Labour Members reading the lengthy debates in which they have taken part in Westminster Hall. Personally, I prefer the telephone directory.
It is, however, a novelty to take part in a debate in this Chamber that has not been guillotined. Perhaps it is better, therefore, to hear the equivalent 'of the telephone directory being read out by Labour Members than to have our debate curtailed.
Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Laing: No. I will give way to almost anyone else, but the hon. Gentleman was not here during the debate, so I will not give way to him.
Conservative Members support the continuation of the experiments involving Thursday morning sittings and those in Westminster Hall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said in her opening speech. Modernisation, however, is a dangerous concept if it is not based on principle. Change for the sake of change, merely on a whim or for the sake of fashion, is not good. The principle that we ought to apply when considering changes to the way in which the parliamentary system works should be whether the changes would strengthen Parliament. If they would, they are good; if they would not, they are not good.
I should like to quote two right hon. and hon. Ladies who, although not of my political persuasion, are ladies for whom I have the greatest respect. The first is the

89
former Speaker of the House of Commons, the right hon. Betty Boothroyd, who said in her valedictory speech:
Let us make a start by remembering that the function of Parliament is to hold the Executive to account…That is the role for which history has cast the Commons.—[Official Report, 26 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 1114]
Mr. David Davis: The Government Whip seems not to think so.
Mrs. Laing: I dare say that that is true.
The other is the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who made some excellent points in this debate. Last month, she said:
Parliament is one of the most important things in our democratic country. We must protect it; we must improve it. We must take back the power that others seek to take away from us.—[Official Report, 23 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 34.]
This debate should be about ensuring that Members of the House of Commons keep their power, however much others try to take it from us. I particularly wished to cite those two ladies because I want to show that large parts of this debate attract cross-party agreement, and are far from being adversarial, as some Labour Members tried to argue.
Change to the House should not be made for the convenience of Members. If one wants to get home early and to have a convenient life, one should not become a Member of Parliament. If, however, one wants to dedicate oneself to the community that one represents, one should be a Member of Parliament.
Changes should not be made to the hours of the House to advance the role of the Palace of Westminster as an object of architectural interest or a theme park for tourists. Sometimes that seems to be happening. We welcome tourists, our constituents and others who are interested in the democratic process, but they should not take priority when we arrange our proceedings. Whenever school parties from my constituency visit the House and are taken to see proceedings in Westminster Hall, I always tell them that it is not the real Parliament. I do not want them to go away with the wrong impression or to think that the atmosphere in the hemicycle of Westminster Hall is anything like the real atmosphere of parliamentary debate. It is not.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said that too many changes had been made without looking at what lay behind them. I entirely agree. He argued that Cabinet Ministers should be brought to Westminster Hall to respond to debates and be held to account. I would argue, however, that debates requiring an answer by a Cabinet Minister should always be held in this Chamber.
Unusually, I found myself agreeing with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)—I do not want to worry him—in so far as he said that, in principle, we should not make changes for the convenience of hon. Members and their staff, or in order to make the House more family-friendly. He is right. We should take those factors into consideration, but they should not be our first priority.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall will be pleased that I disagree with him entirely on another point. I cannot understand his wish to take the confrontation out of politics—a wish also expressed by the hon. Member
90
for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and many of her hon. Friends. The exploration of ideas has, from Plato and Socrates onwards, been achieved by considering one side of an argument and then another, until the whole idea has been thoroughly thrashed out.
Labour Members have been talking for weeks, in this Chamber and elsewhere, about taking the confrontation out of politics, but they have not explained why, or how, that would make the political process any better. If they are afraid to argue, they do not have to do so. They can just sit down and keep quiet. However, if they wish to serve their constituents, they should be brave enough to get up and argue. Politics is a confrontational business. If it were not, we should have a one-party state. That would not serve democracy or the people of the United Kingdom. I doubt that consensus would be more likely if the hon. Member for Deptford sat next to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I cannot imagine such a situation lasting for more than a minute or two.
Mr. Bercow: I sincerely hope not.
Mrs. Laing: I am sure that my hon. Friend is being gallant in saying that.
The hon. Member for Deptford seemed confused about the balance between constituency duties and parliamentary duties. Are we our constituents' representatives in Parliament, or Parliament's representatives in our constituencies? I would argue that we are the former: only the Member of Parliament can represent the views of his or her constituents in the House. Many people can carry out other duties in our constituencies. It is not our job to look at the inconvenient location of bus stops. That does not mean that we do not have to know about it, but we do not have to devote our time to looking at those locations. It is our job to be here. Councillors and others can do those other jobs. We need to know about them, but only we can be here in this Chamber.
Joan Ruddock: I do not remember saying anything about bus stops, and I do not think that any of my hon. Friends mentioned them. We have said repeatedly that it is a matter of balance, and that we need to hear our constituents' views before representing them here. The arrangements that have been made have led to more, not fewer, sitting hours.
Mrs. Laing: I am not suggesting that anyone mentioned bus stops today, but the hon. Lady and other Labour Members went through so many tedious examples of what they do in their constituencies that I cannot remember what they were. Bus stops are merely one example. If she cannot tell the difference between a literal example and a mere point, she is not paying attention to the debate—although I give her credit for having been here throughout.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made some excellent points. He knows the subject as well as, if not better than, anyone else in the House. I share his concern about paragraph 13 of the report, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, will confirm that the Government will not transfer business of substance from this Chamber to Westminster Hall.
My right hon. Friend is right about the importance of restoring Prime Minister's Question Time to Tuesdays and Thursdays, instead of just Wednesdays. Thursdays

91
should be restored to their full importance, because we must be concerned with holding the Government to account and not with the convenience of Members.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) is right about the interaction of our role here and our meetings with people in our constituencies, but I disagree profoundly with her about abolishing Fridays. The less time we spend here, the less scrutiny there is of the Government and the more powerful become the Executive and the Prime Minister, to the diminution of Parliament and the people.
If Labour Members are lulled into thinking that it is a good idea to spend less time here and more in their constituencies, let them think what it would be like for them to have a Government with whom they disagree and whom they would like to hold to account. I assure them that the Labour party will not be in power for ever—or indeed for much longer. They smile at one another because they do not believe me. They think that the present Prime Minister will stay on for ever. They cannot imagine what it would be like to disagree with a Government. They are irresponsible in their outlook on what Parliament is all about.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made many good points, one of which was his warning of the danger of a one-day-a-week Parliament and the consequent diminution of the democratic process. The less debate and holding to account that we have in this Chamber, the less powerful Parliament becomes and the more the democratic process is undermined.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made some puzzling points. I am not sure what he means when he says that hon. Members with marginal seats have greater constituency duties to undertake. I believe that he said that a Member of Parliament's constituency duties increase as we approach a general election. Is he suggesting that the purpose of constituency work is to gain votes? That is an outrageous suggestion. All Members of Parliament, at all times, have duties to their constituents, regardless of the approach of general elections or how marginal their seats are.
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The answer is in the words of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). That is precisely what he said in relation to calling debates in the House of Commons.
Mrs. Laing: My right hon. Friend could not possibly have made such an outrageous suggestion. I was rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman made it, because he is one of the few Labour Members who uphold parliamentary democracy and dare to speak out against the Government.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) correctly emphasised a neglected role of Parliament: to act as the voice of the electorate between elections. She made some sincere, considered and practical suggestions, which I hope the Liaison Committee will take into account.
92
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) must have had some reason for making the speech that he made, but I have a feeling that it had very little to do with his concern for Westminster Hall. He made an unusual confession: that he had changed his mind on one point. I must say that I agree with his previous position. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich rightly said, time is an effective weapon for an Opposition or for anyone who wants to hinder the Government's progress in any course.
It is strange that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush started making a short and to-the-point speech about how time is not a valid weapon and then began to filibuster, for some reason unknown to me. We all know that he is perfectly capable of making a good point succinctly. He made his points at the beginning of his speech and then spoke for more than 20 minutes about how one should not use time as a weapon.
Mr. Soley: I took about six or eight interventions.
Mrs. Laing: I noticed that the hon. Gentleman gallantly gave way to Labour Members who had very little to say.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) made some excellent points. He has devoted much of his great energy to holding the Government to account and he is absolutely right to say that that cannot be done properly and effectively in an Adjournment debate.
All Members of Parliament have the right to speak, but they do not have the right to have attention paid to their words, especially if they do not have the courtesy to be here at the beginning of a debate, which has been the case with many Labour Members today. The irrelevancies of the hon. Members for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) showed clearly that they had not listened to the debate. I do not know why they came in two hours after the debate had started and made irrelevant speeches.
Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Laing: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Laing: I will certainly give way to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Forth: I want to help my hon. Friend. Does she accept the possibility that, halfway through the debate, the Chamber mysteriously filled up with the hon. Members whom she mentioned because the Government decided that they wished to prolong debate to minimise the time available for the following debate? That is precisely what the hon. Member for shepherd's pie said should not happen. [Laughter.] Does my hon. Friend see the contradiction between the one thing and the other?
Mrs. Laing: I most certainly do see the contradiction between one and the other. It is amazing that Labour Members do not see the contradiction or, indeed, the value of holding the Government to account.

93
My right hon. Friend reminds me that at the weekend I spoke to a gentleman with some experience of public affairs, although he is not a party political gentleman. He asked me a simple question: why do the hundreds of Labour Back Benchers not hold the Government to account instead of kowtowing to them? I tried to explain why, but I fear that if I repeated that explanation here, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would call me to order. I would not be sorry to do so but it would be ungallant and perhaps libellous.
In contrast to the irrelevancies that I have mentioned, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) spoke honestly and without fear. I do not always agree with what he says but I think that we all appreciate that his contributions add substance as well as passion to the debate. Although he says that he does not want to be a Minister, many Conservative Members hope that he might be elected to another position, that at some point he might want such a position and that he will continue to hold the Government to account in whatever role he might, hypothetically, have in future.
This debate has not been about secondary matters of organisation and management, unlike the waffle from some hon. Ladies on the Labour Benches. It is difficult to be a woman in politics when one is grouped with people who pathetically say that women cannot argue long into the night, that they cannot hold their own in an argument against men, that they do not want to be adversarial and that they want to agree with everyone all the time. That view undermines the position of women who have fought to have their voice heard in politics—not those who have been slipped in easily at election time. That will show in future. I say that with some vehemence because I mean it. Some of us deal with this all the time, and it really is rather pathetic.
This debate is not about organisation, management, consensus or the way in which the chairs are arranged—it is far more important than that. It is about democracy, and there is no more important matter for discussion. I sincerely hope that the Leader of the House will take into account all the serious points that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
8.14 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) on her first outing from the Front Bench, although 1 did not agree with all she said. I have followed her career with interest. She has been an influential special adviser and a sparky Back Bencher who then took the silence of the Whip's Bench. If anyone thinks that we are in for consensual politics across the House, they are mistaken.
To come straight to the point, the House is being asked to agree the third and fourth reports of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) told us that the reports had been agreed by the Committee. He has played an influential role in the Select Committee and his wise advice, which does not always go down well with some of his colleagues, will be sorely missed. I also want to put on record my thanks and those of the House to every member of the Modernisation Committee. They do a difficult task, as those who have heard tonight's debate will know.
94
Although the Select Committee reports have been agreed, there has been substantial disagreement across the House. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made it clear that they intend to divide the House. I welcome that—I think that it is very healthy. The debate has been characterised by different groups of Members—the radicals and reformers, the radicals and revolutionaries, the reformers and the reactionaries. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said that he would break the mould—a real radical comment. He told us that he did not want a Front—Bench position, but my impression was that his speech reflected the fact that he was running for another kind of elected office. I wish him well. I also wish my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) doubly well in that respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) did not call herself a radical; she called herself a reformer.
Mr. Bercow: I am rather alarmed at the way in which the hon. Gentleman equates reactionary positions with Conservative positions. If he has studied political philosophy, which I feel sure that he has done, does he not accept that there is a significant difference between the two? Many of us who take a Conservative view and a sceptical view of the changes proposed do so because we subscribe to Lord Falkland's dictum that that which it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change.
Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends expressed reactionary views in a radical way. I will turn to the reactionaries in a minute. However, first I want to talk about the reforming instincts of my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford. She has been influential in bringing about change, in an evolutionary way—the kind of evolutionary change that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) talked about. I note that during the course of the debate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) felt, in general terms—although they did not agree with every dot and comma—that the reports offered the right kind of evolutionary approach.
Let me spell out the difference between the reformers and the reactionaries. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush said that change needs to be seen as part of a package of reform which certainly will not end with the reports before us today. That is my view. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) told us that we could go back to where we were. I do not think that there is any turning back in the process—change will continue to occur.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members have used the debate to address wider issues, such as the use of private notice questions and private Members' Bills, the parliamentary calendar and extended sitting hours. Those are indeed important issues, to which, in the course of time and our evolutionary approach, we shall return.
As both reports make clear, Westminster Hall and Thursday sittings are experiments that the House is being asked to extend for the lifetime of this Parliament and the first Session of the next one. The new Parliament will then take a decision on the way forward. I believe that the way forward on Thursday sittings and Westminster Hall is the evolutionary and progressive way.

95
During the debate few Members—with two or three honourable exceptions—took issue with Thursday sittings. Most Members favour the Thursday experiment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) put matters well by saying that while Members of Parliament are asked to perform different roles, those roles are complementary—the one feeds off the other. Some hon. Members try to be prescriptive about those roles, but I do not believe that there is a single rubric for being a Member of Parliament. There are 659 of us, and one size does not fit all. Indeed, as I glance around the Chamber, I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), a leading colleague in the Whip's Office, who will know that one size does not fit us all. He is a big political bruiser, himself, but I am always keen to acknowledge his valuable work, and I do like Thursday evenings off. A balance must be struck between doing our work here at Westminster and in our constituencies.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, among others, expressed concern about Thursday being a normal sitting day. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that many parliamentary groups now meet on Tuesday or Wednesday, and the focus of the parliamentary week has in a sense fixed on those days. He was involved in producing the report, so he knows that the House has in fact sat longer since the Thursday experiment was introduced. That is an important point: more time is being given for debate on Thursdays, and the issues debated remain as important as they were previously. There has been no diminution in the business that the House is being asked to consider on Thursdays. However, the experiment continues, and we shall have to keep the matter under review.
Westminster Hall has been a more contentious matter. My own view is that it has provided many valuable opportunities for Back-Bench debates. Hon. Members on both sides have commented on the value of those debates.
Mr. David Taylor: How did my hon. Friend view the comments of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who traduced Back Benchers who raised local and regional issues as whingers from Bongo Bongo? Does my hon. Friend believe, as I do, that that was insufferably patronising, and that if there were a parliamentary prize for cant and arrogance, the right hon. Gentleman ought to deserve several nominations?
Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend makes his point admirably—subtly would perhaps be the right word—without my having to comment on it.
There has been a general welcome for the greater opportunities for Back-Bench debate in Westminster Hall. Hon. Members should have an opportunity to raise debates that are important to them. Some Members have suggested that debates are shuffled off to Westminster Hall, or are not controversial. 1 remind the House that the middle east, genetically modified organisms, climate change and Sierra Leone have all been discussed in Westminster Hall. They may not all be party political issues, but they are all extremely important social and economic issues that need careful attention and much debate.
The Westminster Hall experiment also gives hon. Members an opportunity to raise topical matters, and I am delighted to learn that the right hon. Member for
96
South-West Norfolk will debate the European Union sugar regime tomorrow. That is an interesting issue. International influences, such as that of the World Trade Organisation, will have real effects on farmers in Norfolk and Nottinghamshire. I may not be able to be with the right hon. Lady throughout her debate tomorrow, but I shall certainly follow it extremely closely.
Mrs. Shephard: If the Minister cannot be present throughout the debate tomorrow, may I excuse his absence to the Chair and pray his support in aid?
Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Lady may certainly pray in aid my support on an important issue. International pressures will force real changes on farmers who are struggling to make a living in Nottinghamshire and Norfolk, and she will provide a good demonstration of Westminster Hall's topicality and the way in which Members may use opportunities to raise issues of real importance. Scoffing mention has been made by some Members to the effect that Westminster Hall is all for the press, radio and other media in our localities. I merely echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge that it is important that we should be seen to be the voice of our constituents here in Parliament.
Mr. Bennett: When we had Wednesday morning sittings, a debate such as that referred to by my hon. Friend would have been replied to by a Cabinet Minister. If the Government are keen to make Westminster Hall significant, would it not be better if that debate, or the one on the middle east, had had a response from a Cabinet Minister?
Mr. Tipping: I was interested when my hon. Friend made a similar point earlier. As far as I can recall—I may be wrong and will check the record—no Cabinet Minister replied to a Wednesday morning debate. Scoffers have said that only Under—Secretaries reply in Westminster Hall, but Labour Members have confirmed that many Ministers of State have replied to debates there.
I also emphasise that real probing takes place in Westminster Hall. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) spoke movingly of the importance that his debate on vaccine—damaged children had had, and we have heard other examples this evening.
Mr. David Davis: I am sure that the Minister does not intend to mislead the House, but am equally sure that on a couple of occasions at least under the previous Government, Cabinet Ministers answered debates on the Floor on Wednesdays.
Mr. Tipping: That may well be the case, but the right hon. Gentleman, who is a fair man, will have heard me say that I would check the record. It was not my personal recollection that Cabinet Ministers had done so. As Westminster Hall becomes more topical, probing and significant, it may well be that Departments will make different judgments about who should represent them there.
We have taken an important step forward with Westminster Hall; much has been achieved, but we can improve matters and do better—Westminster Hall is still a fledgling. I am not one of the scoffers in this Chamber; I know the real importance of bringing up in this place issues that are essential to my constituents and to

97
my region. We must engage in debate and probe issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) told us how she had been able to make progress in relation to rail freight passing through her constituency as a direct result of a debate held in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the Minister for his usual courtesy in giving way. I am one of those who has scoffed that many Members seek debates in Westminster Hall in order to obtain local media coverage. In order that I may be wholly disproved and so that I may apologise to the House, will the Minister consider a proper experiment whereby the live radio and television feeds are switched off for six months? We could thus make an assessment of the issues raised by hon. Members and of the number of Members who apply for debates. If the radio feed were switched off for a while, we might be able to come to a proper, fair assessment.
Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman is another example of those who want to turn the clock back. He will recall that when Westminster Hall was established, there was no live feed; it was installed because of demand from hon. Members and from the regional press— [Interruption.] Hon. Members say that of course it is right that Members want to be in Parliament—in Westminster Hall—showing that they can take up causes and achieve things for their constituents. I am amazed that there are hon. Members in the Chamber who do not share that view.
Some of my hon. Friends referred to how the Westminster Hall agenda is drawn up. A third of the debates are initiated by Back Benchers on an Adjournment, with topics selected through the Speaker's Office. We have made changes to ensure that more Select Committee reports are discussed in Westminster Hall. Today's debate and the reports of the Modernisation Committee have shown that Adjournment debates on a Government motion, agreed with the Opposition, have not gone well. We have learned from that and we shall reduce such debates.
Hon. Members have drawn attention to the need to make better use of Select Committee reports. We have benefited from the presence at today's debate of several influential Select Committee Chairmen. They will acknowledge that some reports are good, but that some are not so good. They will also acknowledge that the current Select Committee system—together with the extra opportunities offered for debate in Westminster Hall—permit those Committees to call Ministers to account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish made it clear that, if a Select Committee report does not receive the response from the Government for which the Committee had hoped, the Minister can again be called to give evidence before the Committee. That is a good and important way forward. No one should pretend that the decision that we are taking will deny Select Committees extra opportunities; in fact, we are offering reinforcement.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest asked me to confirm that the Government have no intention of taking substantive business in Westminster Hall. She will have noted the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House during earlier exchanges. The first report of the Modernisation Committee and the reports before the House today reinforce that point.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman spoke in glowing terms of the highly
98
important debate on the sugar industry to be initiated in Westminster Hall tomorrow by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). Will he set an example by asking his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to reply personally to that important debate? That would reinforce the importance of Westminster Hall and of the debates that take place there.
Mr. Tipping: I give credit where it is due. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk deserves to have her name mentioned in dispatches for raising that important issue. There are sugar-beet farmers in my constituency and I too have pressed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out, sometimes we have to take a drip-drip-drip approach—a cumulative effect—to bring about change.
Westminster Hall offers many opportunities. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire asked about access to Westminster Hall for people with a disability. Work will start in the summer of 2001, after work on the Westminster Hall cafeteria. I was also asked to ensure that the proposed work came in on time and at cost. A sum of £4,000 has been agreed for the new layout; it will be a marvel if we achieve our timetable, but I am determined that we shall do our best. I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton on that matter.
A number of other suggestions were made. For example, it was suggested that the speakers in Westminster Hall should have lecterns and that the Hansard reporters should have better facilities. The Modernisation Committee has considered or is considering those issues.
My good friend, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, said—I paraphrase his remarks—that it is good to talk. That is so, and Westminster Hall gives us opportunities to talk. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that the informal discussions that take place around the Palace of Westminster are important and influential. I was once nearly thrown out of university for suggesting that I had learned more in the bar than I had ever learned in the lecture theatre. I shall not make a similar claim now, but I inform colleagues that I will be in the bar later if anyone wants to have an informal discussion with me. I am open to offers.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the Third Report on Thursday Sittings (HC 954) and the Fourth Report on Sittings in Westminster Hall (HC 906) of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons.

THURSDAY SITTINGS AND STANDING COMMITTEES
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 22.

Division No. 340]

[8.36 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Allen, Graham

Ainger, Nick

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Alexander, Douglas

Atherton, Ms Candy

Allan, Richard

Atkins, Charlotte

99

Austin, John

Dismore, Andrew

Ballard, Jackie

Dobbin, Jim

Barnes, Harry

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Battle, John

Donohoe, Brian H

Bayley, Hugh

Doran, Frank

Beard, Nigel

Drew, David

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Edwards, Huw

Bennett, Andrew F

Efford, Clive

Benton, Joe

Ennis, Jeff

Bermingham, Gerald

Etherington, Bill

Best, Harold

Fearn, Ronnie

Blackman, Liz

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Blizzard, Bob

Flint, Caroline

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Flynn, Paul

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Follett, Barbara

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Brake, Tom

Gapes, Mike

Brand, Dr Peter

Gardiner, Barry

Breed, Colin

Gerrard, Neil

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Browne, Desmond

Godman, Dr Norman A

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Godsiff, Roger

Buck, Ms Karen

Goggins, Paul

Burden, Richard

Golding, Mrs Llin

Burgon, colin

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Butler, Mrs Christine

Gorrie, Donald

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C?bridge)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

Grocott, Bruce

(NE Fife)

Grogan, John

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Caplin, Ivor

Hancock, Mike

Caton, Martin

Harvey, Nick

Cawsey, Ian

Healey, John

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Chidgey, David

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clapham, Michael

Hepburn, Stephen

Clark, Dr Lynda

Heppell, John

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hill, Keith

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hinchliffe, David

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hood, Jimmy

Clelland, David

Hope, Phil

Clwyd, Ann

Hopkins, Kelvin

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Connarty, Michael

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Cooper, Yvette

Hurst, Alan

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hutton, John

Corston, Jean

Iddon, Dr Brian

Cotter, Brian

Illsley, Eric

Cousins, Jim

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Cox, Tom

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Jenkins, Brian

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Cummings, John

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

(Welwyn Hatfield)

(Copeland)

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Darvill, Keith

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Davidson, Ian

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Davis, Rt Hon Terry

Keetch, Paul

(B'ham Hodge H)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Dawson, Hilton

Khabra, Piara S

Dean, Mrs Janet

Kidney, David

Denham, John

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Kirkwood, Archy

Kumar, Dr Ashok

100

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John(Hamilton N)

Lammy, David

Rendel, David

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Robinson,Geoffrey (Cov?try NW)

Lepper, David

Rogers, Allan

Leslie, Christopher

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Levitt, Tom

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Roy, Frank

Llwyd, Elfyn

Ruane, Chris

Lock, David

Ruddock, Joan

McAvoy, Thomas

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McCabe, Steve

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Ryan, Ms Joan

McDonnell, John

Sanders, Adrian

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Shaw, Jonathan

Mclsaac, Shona

Sheerman, Barry

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Singh, Marsha

McNamara, Kevin

Skinner, Dennis

McNulty, Tony

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McWalter, Tony

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McWilliam, John

Soley, Clive

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Steinberg, Gerry

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Stevenson, George

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Marshall-Andrews, Report

Stoate, Dr Howard

Mamton, John

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Meale, Alan

Stringer, Graham

Merron, Gillian

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Stunell, Andrew

Michie, Bill (Shef?ld Heeley)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Miller, Andrew

(Dewsbury)

Moffatt, Laura

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Moore, Michael

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Morley, Elliot

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mountford, Kali

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Mudie, George

Tipping, Paddy

Mullin, Chris

Todd, Mark

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Touhig, Don

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Trickett, Jon

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Truswell, Paul

Oaten, Mark

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

O'Hara, Eddie

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Olner, Bill

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Tyler, Paul

Pearson, Ian

Vis, Dr Rudi

Pendry, Tom

Walley, Ms Joan

Pickthall, Colin

Ward, Ms Claire

Pike, Peter L

Wareing, Robert N

Plaskitt, James

Wicks, Malcolm

Pollard, Kerry

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Pond, Chris

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Pope, Greg

Willis, Phil

Powell, Sir Raymond

Winnick, David

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Worthington, Tony

Primarolo, Dawn

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Rammell, Bill

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rapson, Syd

Mr. Clive Betts and

Raynsford, Nick

Mr. David Jamieson.

NOES

Amess, David

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Bercow, John

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Moss, Malcolm

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Pound, Stephen

(Chipping Barnet)

Prior, David

Clappison, James

Robertson, Laurence

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

St Aubyn, Nick

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Swayne, Desmond

Leigh, Edward

Taylor, Sir Teddy

101

Trend, Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Wells, Bowen

Mr. David Maclean and

Whittingdale, John

Mr. Eric forth

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That, from the next Session of Parliament until the end of the first Session of the next Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:
A. (1) The House shall meet on Thursdays at half-past Eleven o'clock, and will first proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions;
(2) proceedings on business on Thursdays shall be interrupted at Seven o'clock; and
(3) in their application to Thursday sittings of the House, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time three hours before the time so specified, save that reference to half-past Ten o'clock shall be substituted for reference to Twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration).
B. Standing committees shall have leave to sit at any hour and notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, subject to the following provisions:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays when the House is sitting, no standing committee sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of One o'clock and half-past Three o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees); and

(b) on Thursdays when the House is sitting, no standing committees sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock and half-past Twelve o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) with the substitution in that paragraph of 'twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock' for 'One o'clock' and 'twenty minutes to Twelve o'clock' for 'a quarter past One o'clock'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I call for motion 3 to be moved formally—
Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not anticipating what I am going to say.
Mr. Forth: I am trying to find out whether I am anticipating what you are going to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Laughter.] For the avoidance of doubt, I wanted to establish whether you would allow the amendments standing in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) to be put to the vote.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There was never a doubt in my mind. It is my understanding that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will move amendment (b) formally.

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, from the next session of Parliament until the end of the first Session of the next Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:

(1) On days on which the House shall sit after an address has been agreed to in answer to Her Majesty's Speech there shall be a sitting in Westminster Hall—

(a) on Tuesdays and Wednesdays between half-past Nine o'clock and Two o'clock; and

(b) on Thursdays beginning at half-past Two o'clock and continuing for up to three hours (and in calculating that period no account shall be taken of any period during which the sitting may be suspended owing to a division being called in the House or a committee of the whole House).

(2) Any Member of the House may take part in a sitting in Westminster Hall.

(3) Subject to paragraph (13) below, the business taken at any sitting in Westminster Hall shall be such as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall appoint.

(4) The Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman shall take the chair in Westminster Hall as Deputy Speaker; and the House may appoint not more than four other members of the Chairmen's Panel to sit in Westminster Hall as Deputy Speaker.

(5) Any member of the Chairmen's Panel may also take the chair at a sitting in Westminster Hall when so requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means, with the duties and powers conferred on additional Deputy Speakers; and Members so appointed shall be addressed by name.

(6) Any order made or resolution come to at a sitting in Westminster Hall (other than a resolution to adjourn) shall be reported to the House by the Deputy Speaker and shall be deemed to be an order or resolution of the House.

(7) If a motion be made by a Minister of the Crown that an order of the day be proceeded with at a sitting in Westminster Hall, the question thereon shall be put forthwith, but such motion may be made only with the leave of the House and may not be made on a Friday.

(8) The quorum at a sitting in Westminster Hall shall be three.

(9) If at a sitting in Westminster Hall the opinion of the Deputy Speaker as to the decision of a question (other than a question for adjournment) is challenged, that question shall not be decided, and the Deputy Speaker shall report to the House accordingly; and any such question shall be put forthwith upon a motion being made in the House.

(10) If any business other than a motion for adjournment is under consideration at a sitting in Westminster Hall, and not fewer than six Members rise in their places and signify their objection to further proceedings, that business shall not be further proceeded with in Westminster Hall, and the Deputy Speaker shall report to the House accordingly, and any order under paragraph (7) above relating thereto shall be discharged.

(11) At the end of each sitting in Westminster Hall, unless a question for adjournment has previously been agreed to, the Deputy Speaker shall adjourn the sitting without putting any question; and proceedings on any business which has been entered upon but not disposed of shall lapse.

(12) The provisions of Standing Orders No. 29 (Powers of chair to propose question), No. 36 (Closure of debate), No. 37 (Majority for closure or proposal of question), No. 38 (Procedure on divisions), No. 39 (Voting), No. 40 (Division unnecessarily claimed), No. 41 (Quorum), No. 43 (Disorderly conduct), No. 44 (Order in debate), No. 45 (Members suspended, &c. to withdraw from precincts), No. 45A (Suspension of salary of Members suspended) and No. 163 (Motions to sit in private) shall not apply to sittings in Westminster Hall.

(13) In each Session, the Speaker shall appoint not more than six Thursdays on which the business to be taken in Westminster Hall should be debates on select committee reports chosen by the Liaison Committee.

103

(14) The House shall meet on Wednesdays at half-past Two o'clock, and paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) shall have effect on Wednesdays; and Standing Order No. 10 shall not have effect.—[Mr. Tipping.]

Amendment proposed: (b), in paragraph (4), leave out `Deputy Speaker' and insert `Chairman'.—[Mr. Forth].
Question put, That the amendment be made: —
The House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 251.

Division No. 341]

[8.50 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Bennett, Andrew F

Mackinlay, Andrew

Bercow, John

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Prior, David

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Robertson, Laurence

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

St Aubyn, Nick

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Sanders, Adrian

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

(Chipping Barnet)

Stunell, Andrew

Clappison, James

Swayne, Desmond

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Cotter, Brian

Trend, Michael

Fabricant, Michael

Wells, Bowen

Fearn, Ronnie

Whittingdale, John

Harvey, Nick

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Mr. Eric Forth and

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Mr. David Maclean.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Chidgey, David

Ainger, Nick

Clapham, Michael

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Clark, Dr Lynda

Alexander, Douglas

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Allan, Richard

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Allen, Graham

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Clelland, David

Atkins, Charlotte

Clwyd, Ann

Barnes, Harry

Coffey, Ms Ann

Bayley, Hugh

Connarty, Michael

Beard, Nigel

Cooper, Yvette

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Corston, Jean

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Cousins, Jim

Benton, Joe

Cox, Tom

Bermingham, Gerald

Crausby, David

Blackman, Liz

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Blizzard, Bob

Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Cummings, John

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov"try S)

Brake, Tom

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Brand, Dr Peter

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Breed, Colin

Darvill, Keith

Browne, Desmond

Davey, Edward(Kingston)

Buck, Ms Karen

Davey Valerie (Bristol W)

Burden, Richard

Davidson, Ian

Burgon, Colin

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Davis, Rt Hon Terry

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

(B"ham Hodge H)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

Dawson,Hilton

(NE Fife)

Dean Mrs Janet

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Denham, John

Caplin, Ivor

Dismore, Andrew

Caton, Martin

Dobbin,Jim

Cawsey, Ian

Dobson,Rt Hon Frank

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Donohoe, Brian H

Doran, Frank

Drew, David

104

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Macdonald, Calum

Edwards, Huw

McDonnell, John

Efford, Clive

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Ennis, Jeff

Mclsaac, Shona

Etherington, Bill

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Fitzpatrick, Jim

McNamara, Kevin

Flint, Caroline

McNulty, Tony

Flynn, Paul

Mactaggart, Fiona

Follett, Barbara

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Galloway, George

Maxton, John

Gapes, Mike

Meale, Alan

Gardiner, Barry

Merron, Gillian

Gerrard, Neil

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Michie, Bill (Shef"ld Heeley)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Miller, Andrew

Godsiff, Roger

Moffatt, Laura

Goggins, Paul

Moore,Michael

Golding, Mrs Llin

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Morley, Elliot

Gorrie, Donald

Mountford, Kali

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mudie, George

Grocott, Bruce

Mullin, Chris

Grogan, John

Murphy,Denis (Wansbeck)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Oaten, Mark

Hancock, Mike

O"Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Healey, John

O"Hara, Eddie

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Olner, Bill

Hepburn, Stephen

Organ, Mrs Diana

Heppell, John

Pearson, Ian

Hill, Keith

pendry, Tom

Hinchliffe, David

pickthall, Colin

Hood, Jimmy

Pike,Peter L

Hope, Phil

plaskitt, James

Hopkins, Kelvin

Pollard, Kerry

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Pond, Chris

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Pope, Greg

Hurst, Alan

Pound,Stephen

Hutton, John

Powell, Sir Raymond

Iddon, Dr Brian

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Illsley, Eric

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Primarolo, Dawm

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Rammell, Bill

Jenkins, Brian

Rapson, Syd

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Raynsford, Nick

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Reid,Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Rendel, David

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov"try NW)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Rogers, Allan

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Keeble, Ms Sally

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Rowlands Ted

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Roy, Frank

Keetch, Paul

Ruddock, Joan

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Khabra, Piara S

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Kidney, David

Ryan, Ms John

King, Andy Rugby & Kenilworth)

Shaw, Jonathan

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Sheerman, Barry

Kirkwood, Archy

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Sing, Marsha

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Skinner, Dennis

Lammy, David

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Lepper, David

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Leslie, Christopher

Soley, Clive

Levitt, Tom

Steinberg, Gerry

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Stevenson, George

Llwyd, Elfyn

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Lock, David

Stoate, Dr, Howard

McAvoy, Thomas

Strand, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

McCabe, Steve

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Stringer, Graham

105

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Tyler, paul

(Dewsbury)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Walley, Ms Joan

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Ward, ms Claire

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Williams, Alan W (E Canmarthenn)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Williams, Mrs Betty(Conwy)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Willis, Phil

Tipping, Paddy

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Todd, Mark

Worthington, Tony

Touhig, Don

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Trickett, Jon

Truswell, Paul

Tellers for the Noes:

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Mr. Clvie Betts and

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 18.

Division No. 342]

[9.3 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (coatbridge)

Ainger, Nick

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Clelland, David

Alexander, Douglas

Clwyd, Ann

Allan, Richard

Coffey, Ms Ann

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Connarty, Michael

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Cooper, Yvette

Atherton, Ms Candy

Corbyn, Jeremy

Atkins, Charlotte

Corston, Jean

Austin, John

Cotter, Brian

Barnes, Harry

Cousins, Jim

Battle, John

Cox, Tom

Bayley, Hugh

Crausby, David

Beard, Nigel

Cryer, Mrs Ann(Keighley)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Cummings, John

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Cunningham, Rt Hon DR Jack

Bennett, Andrew F

(Copeland)

Benton, Joe

Cunningham, Jim (Cov"try S)

Bermingham, Gerald

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Betts, Clive

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Blackman, Liz

Darvill, Keith

Blizzard, Bob

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Davidson, Ian

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(Llanelli)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Davis, Rt Hon Terry

Brake, Tom

(B"ham Hodge H)

Brand, Dr Peter

Dawson, Hilton

Breed, Colin

Dean, Mrs Janet

Browne, Desmond

Denham, John

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Dismore, Andrew

Buck, Ms Karen

Dobbin, Jim

Burden, Richard

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Burgon, Colin

Donohoe, Brian H

Butler, Mrs Christine

Doran, Frank

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Drew, David

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

Eagle, Maria (L"pool Garston)

(NE Fife)

Edwards, Huw

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Efford, Clive

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Ennis, Jeff

Caplin, Ivor

Etherington, Bill

Caton, Martin

Fearn, Ronnie

Cawsey, Ian

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Flint, Caroline

Chidgey, David

Flynn, Paul

Clapham, Michael

Follett, Barbara

Clark, Dr Lynda

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

106

Galloway, George

McNamara, Kevin

Gapes, Mike

McNulty, Tony

Gardiner, Barry

Mactaggart, Fiona

Gerrard, Neil

McWalter, Tony

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McWilliam, John

Godman, Dr Norman A

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Godsiff, Roger

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Goggins, Paul

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Golding, Mrs Llin

Maxton, John

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Meale, Alan

Gorrie, Donald

Merron, Gillian

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Grocott, Bruce

Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

Grogan, John

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Miller, Andrew

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Moffatt, Laura

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Moore, Michael

Hancock, Mike

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Harvey, Nick

Morley, Elliot

Healey, John

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

(Aberavon)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Mountford, Kali

Hepburn, Stephen

Mudie, George

Heppell, John

Mullin, Chris

Hill, Keith

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hinchliffe, David

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hood, Jimmy

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hope, Phil

Oaten, Mark

Hopkins, Kelvin

O"Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

O"Hara, Eddie

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Olner, Bill

Hurst, Alan

Öpik,Lembit

Hutton, John

Organ, Mrs Diana

Iddon, Dr Brian

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Illsley, Eric

Pearson, Ian

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Pendry, Tom

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Pickthall, Colin

Jamieson, David

Pike, peter L

Jenkins, Brian

Plaskit, James

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Pollard, Kerry

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Pond, Chris

(Welwyn Hatfield

Pope, Greg

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Primarolo, Dawn

Keeble, Ms Sally

Rammell, Bill

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Rapson, Syd

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Raynsford, Nick

Keetch, Paul

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Rendel, David

Khabra, Piara S

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov"try NW)

Kidney, David

Rogers, Allan

Kiltoyle, Peter

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Rowlands, Ted

Kirkwood, Archy

Roy, Frank

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Ruane, chris

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Ruddock, Joan

Lammy, David

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Lepper, David

Ryan, Ms Joan

Leslie, Christopher

St Aubyn, Nick

Levitt, Tom

Sanders, Adrian

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Shaw, Jonathan

Llwyd, Elfyn

Sheerman, Barry

Lock, David

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

McAvoy, Thomas

Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

McCabe, Steve

Singh, Marsha

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Skinner, Dennis

Macdonald, Calum

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

McDonnell, John

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Soley, Clive

Mackinlay, Andrew

Steinberg, Gerry

107

Stevenson, George

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Tyler, Paul

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Tyrie, Andrew

Stringer, Graham

Vis, Dr Rudi

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Walley, Ms Joan

Stunell, Andrew

Ward, Ms Claire

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Webb, Steve

(Dewsbury)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Taylor, Ms Dad (Stockton S)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Willis, Phil

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Winnick, David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Thomas, Simon (Coredigion)

Worthington, Tony

Tipping, Paddy

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Todd, Mark

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Touhig, Don

Trickett, Jon

Tellers for the Ayes:

Truswell, Paul

Mr. Graham Allen and

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

NOES

Amess, David

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Bercow, John

Prior, David

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Robertson, Laurence

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

(Chipping Barnet)

Swayne, Desmond

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Fabricant, Michael

Trend, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Jenkin, Bernard

Tellers for the Noes:

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Mr. David Maclean and

Lidington, David

Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That, from the next session of Parliament until the end of the first Session of the next Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:

(1) On days on which the House shall sit after an address has been agreed to in answer to Her Majesty's Speech there shall be a sitting in Westminster Hall—

(a) on Tuesdays and Wednesdays between half-past Nine o'clock and Two o'clock; and

(b) on Thursdays beginning at half-past Two o'clock and continuing for up to three hours (and in calculating that period no account shall be taken of any period during which the sitting may be suspended owing to a division being called in the House or a committee of the whole House).

(2) Any Member of the House may take part in a sitting in Westminster Hall.

(3) Subject to paragraph (13) below, the business taken at any sitting in Westminster Hall shall be such as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall appoint.

108

(4) The Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman shall take the chair in Westminster Hall as Deputy Speaker; and the House may appoint not more than four other members of the Chairmen's Panel to sit in Westminster Hall as Deputy Speaker.

(5) Any member of the Chairmen's Panel may also take the chair at a sitting in Westminster Hall when so requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means, with the duties and powers conferred on additional Deputy Speakers; and Members so appointed shall be addressed by name.

(6) Any order made or resolution come to at a sitting in Westminster Hall (other than a resolution to adjourn) shall be reported to the House by the Deputy Speaker and shall be deemed to be an order or resolution of the House.

(7) If a motion be made by a Minister of the Crown that an order of the day be proceeded with at a sitting in Westminster Hall, the question thereon shall be put forthwith, but such motion may be made only with the leave of the House and may not be made on a Friday.

(8) The quorum at a sitting in Westminster Hall shall be three.

(9) If at a sitting in Westminster Hall the opinion of the Deputy Speaker as to the decision of a question (other than a question for adjournment) is challenged, that question shall not be decided, and the Deputy Speaker shall report to the House accordingly; and any such question shall be put forthwith upon a motion being made in the House.

(10) If any business other than a motion for adjournment is under consideration at a sitting in Westminster Hall, and not fewer than six Members rise in their places and signify their objection to further proceedings, that business shall not be further proceeded with in Westminster Hall, and the Deputy Speaker shall report to the House accordingly, and any order under paragraph (7) above relating thereto shall be discharged.

(11) At the end of each sitting in Westminster Hall, unless a question for adjournment has previously been agreed to, the Deputy Speaker shall adjourn the sitting without putting any question; and proceedings on any business which has been entered upon but not disposed of shall lapse.

(12) The provisions of Standing Orders No. 29 (Powers of chair to propose question). No. 36 (Closure of debate), No. 37 (Majority for closure or proposal of question), No. 38 (Procedure on divisions), No. 39 (Voting), No. 40 (Division unnecessarily claimed), No. 41 (Quorum). No. 43 (Disorderly conduct), No. 44 (Order in debate), No. 45 (Members suspended, &c. to withdraw from precincts), No. 45A (Suspension of salary of Members suspended) and No. 163 (Motions to sit in private) shall not apply to sittings in Westminster Hall.

(13) In each Session, the Speaker shall appoint not more than six Thursdays on which the business to be taken in Westminster Hall should be debates on select committee reports chosen by the Liaison Committee.

(14) The House shall meet on Wednesdays at half-past Two o'clock, and paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) shall have effect on Wednesdays; and Standing Order No. 10 shall not have effect.

Immigration Appeals
9.13 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
That the Immigration Appeals (Family Visitor) (No. 2) Regulations 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 2446), dated 11th September 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th September, be revoked.
We are glad to have an opportunity to debate these important regulations on the Floor of the House because they follow from the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and a commitment that the Labour party included in its general election manifesto.
The Conservative Government led by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) abolished the right of those who had applied for visas to enter this country to appeal against rejection. That caused widespread disapproval, dissatisfaction and anger. Understandably, the Labour Opposition, like the Liberal Democrats, were committed to restoring the right of appeal and hoped that the result of the general election would mean that that could be achieved.
When the debate took place in the context of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Labour Government confirmed that they would restore the right of appeal. It was restored, but neither the Labour manifesto nor debates on the Immigration and Asylum Bill revealed that it would be restored at what would prove to be a very high price for many people. The right of appeal costs £500, payable in advance at the external port of entry, where the application is made. It is only refundable if the appeal succeeds. The applicant is therefore required to turn up and pay the money in, for example, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, the Caribbean or west Africa for the right of appeal.
An even quicker appeal, with no chance to put the case in person, costs the lower fee of £150.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the original proposal, which was made in early August, was for a higher sum, and that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux said that it received a copy of the draft regulations on 3 August and that comments had to be made by 14 August?
Mr. Hughes: I confirm that the Government began consultation at the end of July, asked for responses by 14 August, and proposed slightly higher sums, which, even in that short period, elicited general opposition from all those who advise on immigration, asylum and nationality matters in this country and are funded and recognised by the Government. I shall return to the intervention of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) shortly.
All the responses to consultation had to be in by the middle of August. The Government introduced the new regime through an order that took effect on 13 September and came into operation at the beginning of October. It is being debated in Parliament only because the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), the hon. Member for Worthing, West and my hon. Friends and I registered our dissent by requesting discussion of the statutory instrument on the Floor of the House. However, there was widespread unhappiness in all parties and outside the House.
110
Since then, three events of note have happened. Two early-day motions have been tabled by hon. Gentlemen in the Labour party—
Dr. Lynne Jones: And hon. Ladies.
Mr. Hughes: The lead name on each has been that of an hon. Gentleman, but of course they were supported by hon. Ladies. One was tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) and the other by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). Both hon. Members are present. Those early-day motions are supported by 65 Labour Members, who protest at the charges that are in force as a result of the order. I am also aware that there is a significant amount of dissatisfaction among Conservative Members. [Interruption.] Although many Labour colleagues are present, that is not true of Conservative Members.
The matter was forced to a debate in another place by Lord Judd of Portsea, a former Labour Minister, who initiated a debate on 2 November. All those who contributed to that debate were opposed to the proposed fees. If I give their names, the House will realise the significant opposition that was expressed in the House of Lords and the duty that we have to persuade the Government to change their mind. After the opposition expressed by Lord Judd in introducing the debate, my noble Friend the Earl Russell made a strong speech of opposition, followed by the Baroness Uddin from the Labour Benches, the Lord Newton of Braintree, a former Leader of the House, who spoke in his capacity as chairman of the Council on Tribunals, Lord Weatherill, a former Speaker of the House, Lord Goldsmith, my noble Friend the Lord Dholakia, and Lord Cope of Berkeley from the Conservative Front Bench. They all spoke in the most categoric and unqualified terms about the unsuitability of the high fees that the Government propose.
Many people cannot afford these fees. Hon. Members deal with a significant number of immigration cases every week, many of which involve refusals of visa applications for people to come to this country for weddings or funerals, to visit ill relatives, to see their grandchildren and the like.
I want to refer to three cases that I have been dealing with in my constituency in the past couple of weeks to show how iniquitous the regulations could be. The first concerns a young man called Bryant Macaulay, who is a Sierra Leonean and whose family left Sierra Leone because of the troubles and fled to the Gambia. The parents have come to this country, and their application for asylum was lodged here. Bryant, the son, was left behind in the Gambia and stayed with his cousin.
The family originally took up the case with the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), because they lived in her constituency, but have since moved to mine. They wanted the son to get permission to come particularly because Mrs. Macaulay was diagnosed as having cancer. She died of cancer in this country before the son's visa application was granted, Bryant not having been admitted.
We tried to get Bryant into the country for the funeral. The visa application was not considered before the funeral took place, and it was later rejected. The rest of the family

111
are in this country. I need not trouble the House with a technicality, but because the family were not rich, in his teens Bryant was adopted by a richer family, who are also in this country. He is still in the Gambia and is still waiting to come here. He has no family there and no resources to come to this country. He has only one potential route to pursue, which is to come to settle here. That was not his original intention, which was to visit his mother when she was ill, but he was turned down. He at no time had £500 to pay for an appeal against the visa refusal.
The second case involves a constituent called Bola Odupitan, whose mother, Florence, lives in Nigeria. Last year, her mother was refused a visitor's visa by the British deputy high commissioner in Lagos. The reason given was that she did not, in the eyes of the entry clearance officer, have the financial support to stay in the United Kingdom, even though it was recognised that her family in the UK were willing to support her. So her mother applied again, but the only way she would have been able to finance a trip was if she had the money to come here. Now we are saying that she has to pay the £500 to appeal against the refusal, which is money that she has already been held not to have, otherwise she would have been allowed here in the first place.
The third case is that of Deborah Beyioku. She is a constituent of mine who came to see me about a year ago. Her mum applied for a visitor's visa, and it was refused in Lagos in August 1999 for lack of funds. In Nigeria, the mother earns the equivalent of only £300 a year: that is her total earnings. It is impossible for her to put £500 up front against the option of an appeal.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Is there not an additional iniquity? I could replicate in my own constituency the examples that the hon. Gentleman has given. I do not know whether it is the case with his constituents, but, certainly with all mine, the applicant for a visitor's visa rarely, if ever, lives close to the British high commission or British embassy that will furnish the permission, should it so be granted. The trekking backwards and forwards, on some occasions for as many as seven days, to get to our embassy, seems an additional iniquity that should be examined in some detail.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She makes an important point well. I have, as she and many of our colleagues will have, people who make journeys in Ethiopia, Somalia or India who have almost no money. They travel hundreds of miles to the nearest high commission or consulate. It costs to stay in the city. Often, they cannot be seen. They queue. They cannot get in on the first, or the second day. They may have to wait a third day. They have no family in the capital city.
The hon. Lady, many colleagues and I try endlessly to understand how it is that the visa is refused when the application is made. I know people who want to come to see their only grandchild whom they have never seen. They have never left their home country. They have never broken an immigration rule. They have never overstayed. There is no history of breaking the rules and they are turned down because it is said that they cannot afford to be here.
112
I have people who want to come for weddings. The wedding comes and goes and they never come. I have people who want to come for funerals. The funeral comes and goes and they never come. I have people who have saved up on retirement. It has been agreed that the wife will come, leaving the husband at home, or the husband will come, leaving the wife at home. The application is refused. Those cases affect real people—thousands in all our constituencies. It could be tomorrow. It could be today. I cannot understand the Government, having clearly promised to remedy a bad mistake by the Tory Government, letting people down so badly—not just any people, but many people who are among the poorest of those with whom they must deal.
There is a second and obvious point. Most of these people are not white; they are Asian or black. In my experience—I can speak only as I find, but I have talked to the Immigration Advisory Service, which has its headquarters in my constituency and which I know well, and to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux—the majority of people whose applications for visas to come to this country are turned down are black or Asian. They are from what in this country are minority ethnic communities. Therefore, the policy is not only unjust in that it does not deal fairly with the poorest of those who look to come to this country. It is clearly discriminatory, impinging aggressively on many families in our community to whom we say that we will give equal treatment and equal worth. I thank organisations such as the Immigration Advisory Service and NACAB for their representations; many colleagues may have received them.
I do not want to take long. I want to allow colleagues to make their points, but I take the salient points in the representations, which were not answered—if I may say so with respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, and to Ministers from the Home Office—by Lord Bassam when he replied to the debate in the House of Lords: the only answer that he gave was that there would be a review. I will try to keep the temperature down. Reviews are pending on other Home Office issues—for example, to do with vouchers—which are not uncontroversial. A review in a year does not deal with the hundreds or thousands of people who will be affected by the order now. It is not satisfactory. The only satisfactory outcome will be if the House votes later to revoke the regulations; or if Ministers undertake to reduce the fee considerably much sooner than the review announced by Lord Bassam indicates.
I have no idea what Ministers have in mind, but I hope that even if they win the vote today—against what I hope will be significant opposition—they will introduce a revised and considerably reduced fee before the end of this Session.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the high cost of the appeal system. However, what would be the exact effect if the House did not pass the order today? Would it not lead to the greater problem of return to the previous system, which was even more expensive?
Mr. Hughes: As I understand it, the answer is no. There are already regulations in force that supersede the first set of regulations and deal with two matters. The first matter is the fee, which those regulations imposed,

113
and the second is the definition of family. If the order were revoked, the Government would be obliged in a new order both to define family and to say whether there will be a fee. Consequently, it would be better for the Government to say that they will replace this order with another one—so that there will not be the type of gap that the hon. Gentleman suggests, or the confusion that would be produced by changing the arrangements three times in three months.
Another complication—I am aware of it only because of my conversations with citizens advice bureaux—is that, for a long time after the new order came into force at the beginning of October, new appeal forms were not even available at some of our missions, including the one in Brussels. Therefore, the new system has not even been working.
Ministers argue that the charge is necessary to cover costs, and that such charges are applied across government. They also argue that such charging is consistent with Government policy. However, it is not consistent with Government policy to charge for social welfare appeals. Such charging is certainly not a feature of Government policy. Although people may occasionally be charged for appeals, they are charged nowhere near the rate now being proposed. Additionally, those charges are certainly not made in this sphere of the law. People who go to an immigration or an employment tribunal are not charged huge sums up front. That just does not happen. It seems entirely unjustified to argue that, suddenly, people in this category should be subject to such charging.
The order affects many cases. I am told that, before they were abolished, visitors' appeals comprised one third of the work done by the United Kingdom Immigration Advisory Service, and that the service was successful in between 50 and 60 per cent. of the cases that it took. There is a considerable record of success in appeals, as there has been in all stages of such cases. The regulations simply encourage people either to have an appeal on the paperwork or not to have an appeal at all.
The Government make another argument. In September, in a letter, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, said that if someone applies for a visa and is turned down,
the appellant may qualify for representation funded by the Legal Services Commission.
What that means is that one would need to apply for legal aid at a British mission from a franchising solicitor or other organisation. The experience that I and all those who advise me have had is that no one at the missions has a franchise. However, even if there were someone with a franchise and people were well advised, it seems unlikely that one would be able both to qualify for legal aid in time for an expedited appeal and to qualify as someone who, after a successful appeal, would be able to look after oneself financially after arriving in the United Kingdom. The two qualifications seem to be inconsistent. If one does have the money to make the appeal, one would not have the money to look after oneself.
Ministers also argue that there will be a great new burden on the Immigration Appellate Authority. They say that, annually, there could be about 19,500 family visit appeals, of which about 20 per cent—almost 4,000 appeals—will be full oral hearings. That would be about 7 per cent. of all the work done by the Immigration Appellate Authority. Is it right that there should be
114
charges only for those 7 per cent. —people who often need a quick decision and a quick appeal—but not for anyone else? There is also the thin end of the wedge argument. If we start having charges for visa appeals, why not for settlement appeals or all the other immigration appeals? No logical case has been made on that basis.
Members may accept that there should be a fee, but we have never debated the nature, level or appropriateness of a fee, or the ability of people to pay. Lord Bassam said that the Government would be in a position to review the arrangements after having seen what happened from 1 October. But how can we review those who did not appeal? How can we review how many people were discouraged from doing so? It would seem to be a review of facts that are incapable of discovery.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The cynic in me is beginning to grow. The more expensive we make the system, the less likely people are to appeal. We make the system prohibitively expensive so nobody will appeal and we get over the problem. Surely that cannot be right.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman—from his legal and constituency experience—makes it clear that he regards this as an unsatisfactory order in terms of its cost. I endorse what he says. By reducing the number of appeals significantly, the Government will say that they do not need to change the system, as it causes no significant cost to the Exchequer.
This year, the Home Secretary has said to the chief executive of the Immigration Advisory Service that family visits often relate to an important event like a wedding. If they are important events, people should be entitled to attend them without barriers such as this being put in their way.
Following the Chancellor's comprehensive spending review in the summer, the additional amount allocated for immigration control was £600 million. Let us assume that 80 per cent. of the Government's anticipated 19,500 cases opt for a paper-only appeal and that 20 per cent. opt for the full appeal. The total cost of administering those appeals would be just over £4 million. Even if most went for an oral appeal, it would cost about £10 million—that is out of a budget allocation, from the Government's own estimates, of £600 million. That amount would be recovered from some of the poorest people who would ever want to come to this country and who may only want to come once. Also, it is not true that other areas of government have to be self-financing.
Mr. Marsha Singh: We are told that the fees are to cover the costs of the appeals system. With the fee being £500, it is likely that only people with a high chance of success will appeal and pay the money. If few appeals go forward, and we have set the system up, how can we cover the cost? Also, if people succeed in their appeals and their money is refunded, how will we cover the costs?
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. This House has never debated the idea that we fully recover the cost of anything in the context of immigration and the Home Office by charges.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Or the legal aid system.
Mr. Hughes: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. Many charges are set on the basis of what is fair and equitable, with the system based on encouraging people into the system, not discouraging them from using it.
Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman says that we have never discussed charges. Is he aware that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's departmental report suggests that, in the present year, the cost of the entry clearance operation will be £72.7 million, and that we will receive more than that in entry clearance fees? The question here is not of covering costs but of making a profit.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady has great experience in this area. My point was that we have never debated whether any charges were meant to be self-financing. In any event, in this case, they are not, if we ring-fence the issue or take into account the budget as a whole—nor should they be, because the system should allow people to put their case.
Experience clearly shows that many visa applications are wrongly turned down and that many succeed on appeal that should not have been refused in the first place. The regulations are extremely inequitable and unjustified. The costs, even if one believes that there should be costs at all, are far too high. No one was ever told that those would be the costs, and the House should not agree to them. We should reject the regulations and ask the Government to come up with proposals that our constituents can find much more acceptable.
9.41 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I hope to deal with as many of the concerns of both Government and Opposition Members as I can. I well understand those concerns, even as I advise the House to reject the prayer against the regulations, not least because, if we accepted it, there would be no regulations in force on visitor appeals.
I want to respond directly to some wholly inaccurate statements made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). His most inaccurate assertion was that the charges were a surprise and that it had never been said, in debate on the legislation, that there would be a fee. That is simply wrong. The first time that the House was told that the Government had it in mind to charge a fee for visitor appeals was in the White Paper published at the end of July 1998, Cm 4018.
Paragraph 510 of the White Paper says:
There is no new money to fund appeal rights for visitors. The Government therefore proposes that those who wish to appeal against the refusal to grant entry clearance as a visitor should pay for at least part of the costs of their appeal. The costs will vary depending on the way in which the appeal is disposed of. It will still be open to an applicant to make a fresh application for a visa at any time.
The Bill that followed that White Paper had its Second Reading on 22 February 1999. We provided that proceedings on the Immigration and Asylum Bill would be extremely inclusive and open, and far more inquisitorial and less combative than Standing Committees usually are.
116

To achieve that, we set up a Special Standing Committee that sat as a Select Committee for four sittings and then proceeded to consider the Bill line by line.
On Second Reading, I was asked about visitor appeals and I said:
Part IV therefore fulfils our manifesto commitment to reinstate a right of appeal to those who are refused a visa for the purpose of a family visit. Provision may be made by regulations that those who wish to appeal will have to meet the costs of doing so, but fees would be refunded to those whose appeals were allowed.—[Official Report, 22 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 43.]
Mr. Jim Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Straw: In a second.
There then followed the usual full debate on Second Reading, most of it unrelated to visitor appeals. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said in his winding-up speech:
I was also asked what the fee is likely to be. It will be about £200 for hearing on the papers or for consideration of the papers and £400 for a full oral hearing—[Official Report, 22 Feb 1999; Vol. 326, c. 120.]
On 19 July 1999, in Committee in the other place, similar questions were raised. Lord Falconer of Thoroton said on behalf of the Government:
The cost will depend on the type of appeal: approximately £200 for an appeal on the papers, and about £400 for a full oral hearing of the appeal. Appellants whose appeals are allowed will have their costs refunded.—[Ofcial Report, House of Lords, 19 July 1999; Vol. 604, c. 791.]
Mr. Marshall: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I have almost forgotten what I intended to ask. My right hon. Friend's White Paper of 1998 said that there would be no new money for appeals. On reflection, was that decided against the background of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's commitment to keep within the constraints of the previous Tory Government's public expenditure levels? Given the way in which the Chancellor has loosened the financial purse strings last year and this year, does my right hon. Friend not think that the sum of £10 million—at most—can be absorbed in this new era of largesse?
Mr. Straw: It is an attractive argument, and I wish that it were true. I know that my hon. Friend does not use the same kind of arithmetic as the Liberal Democrats, who simply make promises as though they were going out of fashion. They promise to spend extraordinary amounts, knowing that the one absolute certainty that we can perceive about any election is that they will never hold the responsibility of office and have to balance competing priorities.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a second. If he thinks that Liberal Democrats will win the election, that is fine.
I will come on to equity and the assertion that there is no equivalent to this kind of charge in a moment. However, first let me say that the pressures on the immigration and asylum system are huge. Staff have to

117
deal with, for example, the substantial asylum backlog, which is down to 72,000, having peaked at more than 100,000. They also have to deal with the previous Administration's utter neglect of the system. Significant modernisation is taking place in many other areas, including the way in which the integrated casework department of the immigration and nationality directorate deals with immigration casework—which affects my hon. Friend's constituents, as it does mine—far more efficiently than it did before.
All those factors add up to significant additional costs. Omitted from the back-of-the-envelope arithmetic of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is the fact that, were this to be an entirely free service, the number of appeals would obviously rise rapidly, the costs would rise significantly, and the delays in dealing with appeals would be extended.
We decided to introduce the charges because funds are limited, even—and not least—because of the prudent way in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has conducted the economy, and because we want to be certain of delivering a streamlined system.
Mr. Jim Marshall: My right hon. Friend refers to the number of appeals being determined by the price mechanism. Can he tell us how the figure of 19,500 appeals was arrived at by the Lord Chancellor's Department, and what fraction that figure represents of the total number of refusals for applicants seeking visas for family visits to the United Kingdom? If it is not 100 per cent., what percentage is it?
Mr. Straw: I shall certainly get that figure for my hon. Friend and the House before the debate closes, and shall give it if I catch your eye again, Mr. Speaker. However, of the total number of applications for visitor visas at British posts around the world, the refusal rate is only 7 per cent. It is higher at some posts in the Indian sub-continent, but is not much higher in, for example, Bombay. In September, I visited posts in New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Dhaka. The figure is higher in the last of those, but we do not always see the large number of applications processed satisfactorily on the day on which they are made.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Are we to take it that in assessing the figure at £500, deterrence was one of the criteria adopted?
Mr. Straw: No, but it is an issue. We want a streamlined system, so we have set the level of the fee for an appeal on paper at less than we expected two years ago and less than the House was then told. Remarkably few—though not no—representations or comments were made on either side of the House at that time or in Standing Committee, although the House had been given full notice of the likely cost of an appeal. We have set the cost of an appeal on paper at £150, which is less than the original proposal of £200, because we believe that that is the quickest, most effective and fairest way of ensuring that appeals are processed as speedily as possible.
The previous system, run by the Conservatives, was made almost useless by the fact that, although it was free, it took so long that it was often months and sometimes years after the event for which applicants wished to visit
118
the UK before they finally received the result of their visitor appeal. That was a useless system. We are asking people to think whether they are certain that they want to make an appeal, but what makes this matter different from appeals for settlement is that I have insisted throughout—I emphasised the point when I visited India and Bangladesh in the summer and ensured that instructions were issued on it—that the right of appeal is not an alternative to the right that individuals have to make representations to the entry clearance officer and that Members of Parliament have to make representations directly to posts or to the Minister concerned on behalf of their constituents. This is an additional right, not an alternative.
On comparative fees, the cost of applying for a visitors visa is £33 in local currency. The cost of applying for a visa for settlement is £240. It is true that if someone applies for a visa for settlement, he or she has an automatic right of appeal, which is, as it were, included in the £240. However, if the person wins the appeal, none of the £240 is given back. The total cost of an appeal on paper—we expect most appeals to be made on the papers£would come to £183 for the initial application and the appeal fee. That compares well—it is plainly arithmetically less—with the £240, which no one has particularly gibbed at, that people must pay at present for a visa in settlement cases.
Dr. Brian Iddon: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that people who run into the sand on their first application make multiple applications—although, of course, they have to make the £33 payments. One of my constituents made a total of seven applications; happily, this summer, the relatives visited Bolton. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cost of administration of six or seven applications—or however many have to be made—together with the involvement of Members of Parliament who make protests to Departments must far exceed the £500 that we are haggling over this evening? Would it not be cheaper and cleaner to use the appeal process? The appeal would be upheld or dismissed.
Mr. Straw: The £500 fee is for a full oral appeal. Those estimates were made by the Lord Chancellor's Department, but as I was reluctant that fees should be set at that level, I assure my hon. Friend that we pared them down as much as possible. Of course, I understand that there are circumstances in which people both apply for visitor visas and raise such matters with their Member of Parliament; I hold five constituency surgeries each month, significant portions of which are taken up by immigration casework—including visitor appeals.
The reason that I was so determined to get a fast appeal system on to the statute book and then into operation was not only the frustration of my constituents, which was paramount, but my personal frustration when trying to pin down the facts about the circumstances of the visitor and the sponsor. Although it is true that—as many hon. Members have told me outside the Chamber—in settlement applications, it would typically be said both by the immigration service and by the appeal authorities that the credibility and integrity of the sponsor go without saying, but are not directly relevant to the position of the applicant, in family visitor applications the circumstances of the sponsor in this country are usually much more

119
relevant to the circumstances of the visitor. By definition, the visitor who exercises his right of appeal is a member of that family and is likely to have a much greater connection with them when making an application for a visit than when an application is being made for settlement—especially by a spouse or fiancé.
Ms Diane Abbott: My right hon. Friend made much in his introductory remarks of the fact that the fees were indicated in the White Paper and in the original Immigration and Asylum Bill and that little was said about that at the time. That measure brought in vouchers, miserly cash amounts on top of vouchers, a swathe of new powers for immigration officers and bonds, and it turned registrars into immigration officers. Many of the Bill's proceedings were guillotined—officially or unofficially. The reason that not much was said about fees was not because the subject did not provoke strong feeling, but because we wanted to draw the public's attention to so many other aspects of the measure.
Mr. Straw: I accept many criticisms from my hon. Friend—usually with good grace—but I do not accept that, because it is not true. I am proud of the fact that the Bill was subject to much more scrutiny than almost any other Bill introduced during this Parliament and certainly during the previous Parliaments in which I served. I have before me just a few of the reports of the Special Standing Committee—to refresh my memory, as we used to say in the police courts. There was a great deal of meat in the Bill—some greatly welcomed by my hon. Friend; some treated with rather more reservation. She was a member of the Special Standing Committee and will remember that I gave evidence for two and a half hours. That had not been done before on an immigration and asylum Bill.
I have looked through my evidence, for which I received the usual plaudits for a range of liberal measures included in the measure—to which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) referred—but people did not engage me on fees. I make that point only to show that we have been open about the matter. Of course I realise that, sometimes, issues do not arise until the 11th hour; that is in the nature of politics. I accept that, but I refute any suggestion that we have not been open about our intentions from the very start.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the Immigration Appeals (Family Visitor) (No. 2) Regulations 2000 may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half past Eleven o'clock.—{Mr. Mike Hall.]
Question agreed to.
Question again proposed.
Mr. Straw: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr.Gerrard).
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Can my right hon. Friend clarify a point about the costs? What might families eventually end up being liable for? I am sure that many hon. Members will be familiar with a scenario in
120
which more than one person applies for a visit visa. In the debate in the Lords, Lord Bassam suggested that, if it were possible for more than one family member to appeal, only one fee would be payable. However, it is far from clear in the regulations that that will be the case. Will my right hon. Friend make the position absolutely clear, so that we know whether families will have to find £500, or £1,000 or £1,500 if two or three members of the family appeal? It would be helpful to know the answer. Will he also clarify when the money will be returned in the case of a winning appeal? The regulations say that it will be returned, but they do not say when. Surely, if an appeal is won, the money should be returned at the point when the visa is granted.
Mr. Straw: The technical answer to the first point is that the regulations are at present phrased to mean one application and one appeal. However, I accept my hon. Friend's point that, in some circumstances, the same issues will be raised by the same cases. For that reason, I am pleased to tell the House that spouses and their children will need to pay for only one appeal. If the appellant wins the case, the whole family will be granted visas. Entry clearance officers have been instructed about that. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend. His second question was about when the refund would be made. It will be made when the person returns to the entry clearance office to be given a visa.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) has temporarily left the Chamber, but he asked about the estimates on which the Lord Chancellor's Department's calculations were based, and that point is of interest to Liberal Democrat Members, too. The estimate of 19,500 thought likely to appeal is based on the fact that, in May this year, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office asked 136 posts worldwide to estimate how many people who had been refused a visit visa would be eligible to appeal as family visitors. The total came to a little more than 39,000 and—although it is generally accepted that it is difficult to estimate how many of them would appeal—it was estimated that about half of them would. That is 19,500, which is probably a fair estimate.
Mr. Gerrard: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for suggesting that there will be flexibility and that people will not end up having to pay multiple fees. However, I am still unclear as to what his answer means. He referred to spouses and children, but a very much wider definition of family appears in the regulations. Certainly, like many other hon. Members, I know of cases in which grandparents visit and, perhaps, a nephew comes with them. It is not only spouses and children that arrive together. The issue needs clarifying so that we know where we stand.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend will accept that spouses and children will normally be in exactly the same circumstances, and I have given him an undertaking about them. Where a family—husband, wife and children—make an application for a visit and they are all refused a visa, they will have to pay only one fee and the result of the appeal will apply to them all.
I accept the principle behind the point that my hon. Friend raises. Sometimes grandparents may be part of the immediate family unit. Although I cannot give him a firm answer before the debate closes, I certainly undertake to

121
take the matter up. I shall write to him and make the answer known to the House by way of a written answer. I do not know whether it is possible to give instruction to posts abroad that a family unit—that is, people living in the same household and with similar circumstances—will have one appeal.
Mr. Singh: I should be grateful for my right hon. Friend's help. He was explaining that the sponsor's credibility was not taken into account in settlement cases but that it was taken into account in visitors' visa cases because it related to a family member. My experience is that entry clearance officers always say that it is not the sponsor's credibility but the applicant's credibility that is at stake. Will my right hon. Friend clarify that?
Mr. Straw: That is true, but my hon. Friend should bear it in mind that I am in the same position as he and every other hon. Member in the House who has to deal with immigration cases. I have had cases before and after the election in which the refusal was initially based simply on a view of the applicant without any reference to the circumstances of the sponsor. I have gone into detail about such cases and have sometimes written to or seen the Foreign Office Minister who has been dealing with them, to say, "Look: the circumstances of the sponsor are such as to clarify and confirm the integrity and veracity of the applicant."
Visitor cases pose two fundamental questions for the entry clearance officer. First, is the visit genuine and will the person return from the United Kingdom at the end of it? Secondly, is there adequate maintenance and accommodation while that person is here, without recourse to public funds? In my experience of 21 years, evidence from the sponsor is often relevant to both those considerations.
Mr. George Mudie: The Home Secretary said that we have been honest from the start, but will he read out to the House our manifesto commitment on this issue? Does he not understand that the anger is not only about our hitting people in the poorest communities in the city, but about our getting their loyal, full and thoroughgoing support at the general election because of our manifesto commitment, which we are implementing in a way that is far different from the words on which we fought the election? That might be the Home Secretary's definition of honesty, but it is certainly not mine.
Mr. Straw: I am happy to read out the manifesto commitment. It said that we would introduce
a streamlined system of appeals for visitors denied a visa.
Mr. Mudie: Did it mention charges?
Mr. Straw: It did not mention charges, but when I campaigned—as did my hon. Friend—at the general election, it was made quite clear that the system of appeal would be different from the previous system which, frankly, had not worked. We also made it clear that funds were going to be limited. That was made absolutely clear throughout the election.
The fact that there would be a charge was made clear as early as possible—namely, in the White Paper published in July 1998—and put on the record of
122
the House. On Second Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill—as quickly as we could make the calculations—we gave notice of the cost. The paper appeal system, which will be used by the vast majority of applicants, has been set at a figure 25 per cent. lower than the figure anticipated by Ministers and relayed to the House in July 1999. I understand the concern of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but had this been the huge issue that some suggest it is, we might have heard about it in the past two and a half years—and we have not.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend help me in pursuing a detail that was inherent in the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), which I believe he did not answer? He spoke of an extended family, and I understand the issue as far as a fee is concerned, but it has been my experience that a grandparent or both grandparents may wish to visit this country and, because of their frailty and age, will be deemed to require the accompaniment of another relative who does not live with them and who is not part of their direct extended family. In that instance, will a fee be charged twice or three times? When does that fee need to be paid? In my experience, when the decision is eventually given and if the visitor wishes to appeal, there is a great deal of time before an appointment is made for that appeal to be heard. When does the money have to change hands?
Mr. Straw: I have already made it clear that spouses and children in the family unit would be treated as one appeal for the purpose of the fee, and I promise to look into other circumstances. In the circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), if the person concerned was not a member of the family in the wider sense, he or she would not qualify for an appeal. However, in my experience, such people normally have a family connection of some sort. I cannot give my hon. Friend a categorical answer, but some appeals by people who are members of the same broad family will have to be subject to a separate fee because their circumstances are different.
It may be helpful to the House if I answer the point that my hon. Friend made about the time that such appeals are likely to take, then deal with the definition of a family visitor and take further interventions if they are made. As the House knows, and as I have repeated, the pre-1993 system of appeals took months and sometimes years. Frankly, it was a useless system.
Fiona Mactaggart: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment, but I want to make some progress.
Under the present system, the applicant will usually have no more than six weeks to wait before receiving a decision if he or she makes a paper appeal. Six weeks is the target, and allows some leeway for postal and other delays. If a visitor applies for a visa three months in advance, as many do, there should be plenty of time for the visit to take place. Every effort will be made to prioritise urgent cases in which the need for a visit could not have been foreseen, such as those involving family illness or funerals.

123
As the House knows, an oral hearing is possible and can be secured for a fee of £500. However, it will take about three weeks longer, as the appellant's representatives must have time to prepare the case. There is a 28-day period for appeal and if there are genuine difficulties in making arrangements within that time, the adjudicator has the discretion to extend the time limit.
I shall deal with the definition of a family visitor before giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). I accept that there have been concerns about the definition of a family member, which we have drawn as widely as possible to include step-family, adoptive relatives and unmarried couples. It is feared that the definition may exclude some people who could be construed as family members, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) said. However, the point of the procedure is to ensure that applications are dealt with quickly, and any doubts about the genuineness of the relationship would import delay. Although the definition is broader than that of the standard nuclear family, we have had to go for one that stands up to examination and allows for someone who is a family member to be identified pretty quickly.
Fiona Mactaggart: Two or three times, my right hon. Friend has suggested that the old form of appeal was worthless. Does he accept that it had the merit of clearing the name of visitors who won their appeals? Those family members may not have been able to visit for a family event, but thereafter the barrier to their visiting was often taken away so that they could come here on future visits. On that level, the process was useful.
Mr. Straw: I agree that it was better to have a right of appeal than not to have it and I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough. However, the process was often hopeless in dealing with the application at an appropriate point in time. Part of the purpose of the new system is to ensure that people are able, as my hon. Friend puts it, to clear their name. I emphasise again that, when people are successful in their appeal, the appeal fee will be returned in full.
Mr. Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend said that, if the regulations were revoked, there would be no right of appeal. Will he confirm that? My understanding is that the statutory instrument that we are debating—SI 2000/2446—was laid before Parliament on 13 September; however, so was SI 2000/2302, which is to be revoked, according to regulation 1(2) of SI 2000/2446. If we vote down SI 2000/2446, will SI 2000/2302 continue to apply? If not, why not? Will he explain the implications, as that might be important in influencing the way some of us vote later?
Mr. Straw: Ultimately, that is a matter for the Clerks, not for me. The operative statutory instrument is the No. 2 regulations. If revoked, they would cease to have effect, there would be no regulations in force, and there could be no family visitor appeals. I am not suggesting that the debate is without purpose—I take account of the
124
concerns raised by all right hon. and hon. Members. However, I should draw the House's attention to the practical consequences of revoking the No. 2 regulations.
Mr. David Lammy: Will my right hon. Friend give my constituents an assurance that the payment of the £500 fee will not prejudice the embassy's assessment of the savings of the sponsor family? In many cases, the individuals involved will be poor people who have forked out quite a lot of money for an airline ticket; they then have to make savings, and now they have to find a £500 fee. We must therefore have an assurance that the embassy will take account of the depletion of their bank accounts.
Mr. Straw: It is a nice point, but we anticipate that, in most cases, the sum that families will have to find, while a lot of money, is three times less than £500: an appeal on the papers will cost £150. In addition, we have to accept that a test of means is and always has been inherent in the immigration rules. One of the criteria for both settlement visas and visitor visas is that, in terms of both accommodation and maintenance, the individual should be able to be supported without recourse to public funds. My experience, drawn from my constituents, is that sponsor families, especially those who are concerned about having been turned down at the other end, have access to the funds necessary for the appeal fee; some do not, but some do. If they lack the necessary funds, they are, in any event, unlikely to pass the tests regarding maintenance and accommodation that are inherent in the immigration rules.
Mr. David Winnick: From my experience of the operation of the previous system for visitors, I cannot recall a single appeal on the papers that was favourable to the appellant. Only at the oral hearing was the adjudicator in the position to hear the sponsor—not, of course, the appellant, who was overseas—and the Home Office representative. There were questions and cross-examinations, as there are in an ordinary court, after which the adjudicator would make a decision. In the light of that experience, I would find it extremely difficult to advise any constituent to spend £150 obtaining a decision on the papers, because I do not believe that that will offer any chance of the appellant winning. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would consider moderating the increases—I accept that the chances of no money at all being involved are remote—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.
Mr. Straw: That is my hon. Friend's recollection. I do not have the figures in front of me—they pre-date the 1993 Act. My recollection is different. Sometimes appeals on paper were successful. In any event, I am not here to defend what happened before 1993. Leaving aside the history of the fees, we are establishing an expedited system of appeals following our manifesto commitment. I believe that it will be fair. We can only prove that in the light of events.
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Straw: I shall take two more interventionns and then bring my remarks to a close so that others may speak.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Does my right hon. Friend accept the evidence from other tribunals that appellants are much

125
more likely to be successful if they turn up in person for their appeal? I note that he has not sought to justify the £500 personal hearing fee on the basis of its affordability to the appellant. He has merely said that an appellant can opt for the £150 fee for a paper hearing. Surely he will accept that appellants are much less likely to be successful at a paper hearing rather than an oral hearing.
Mr. Straw: I do not accept that in the context of visitor appeals. The difference between visitor appeals and many other judicial or quasi-judicial appeals is the imperative of speed. One fault of the previous system was its tardiness. We are setting up a system where people will have the right to exercise an appeal within 28 days. The appeal will be heard within six weeks if it is on the papers. It will be heard within nine or 10 weeks if it is an oral hearing.
I say to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who accepts the point, that the applicant is never present at the appeal hearing, whether it is on the papers or is an oral hearing. I accept that the sponsor is present at an oral hearing. I considered whether we could introduce appeals in, for example, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. There would have been many advantages in that approach, but it turned out not to be practical.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) referred to the statutory instruments, both of which were laid before Parliament on 13 September and both of which came into force on 2 October 2000. The one signed by my right hon. Friend states that the fees should be £580 for an oral hearing and £280 in all other cases. The one signed by the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), stipulates that the fee should be £500 for an oral hearing and £150 in all other cases. Was this a cock-up or a conspiracy? It does not reflect well in either event. It is incumbent upon my right hon. Friend to explain why two contradictory orders were laid before Parliament on the same day.
Mr. Straw: The first order was laid in error, with figures that had been discussed and were the subject of consultation. It turned out to be too late to withdraw the figures, so the only thing to do was to lay the second order. I can promise my hon. Friend that it certainly was not a conspiracy: quite the reverse.
I shall bring my remarks to a close. I have laid the history of the matter on the record. We wish to see a right of appeal established. The details of how it would operate were spelled out in the White Paper, on Second Reading and in Committee. The fees that we have introduced are within the range that was spelled out more than a year and half ago by the Under-Secretary of State on Second Reading. The fee of £500 for an oral hearing is higher than that specified by my hon. Friend, which was £400. The fee for a hearing on the papers is lower, at £150 compared with £200.
I understand the concerns that have been raised. I hope that I have been able to allay some of the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friends. We have undertaken, and I repeat the undertaking, to review the full working of the scheme after it has been in operation for a year, and then to report back to the House. We must have some
126
experience of it to see whether the anxieties that have been spelled out are correct or not. I think that the scheme, particularly as regards the paper appeals, will work.
Ms Joan Walley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Is he giving the House an undertaking that when the review has taken place, there will be an opportunity for the House to debate the matter further?
Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend knows, proceedings on the Floor of the House are usually a matter for the business managers, but I am happy to give her an undertaking that I will use my best endeavours to ensure that there is a full debate on the Floor of the House at the end of that period of one year. I commend the order, but not the prayer, to the House.
10.26 pm
Mr. David Lidington: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) set out in some detail the background to the regulations, so I shall confine my remarks to the definition of family visitors and say a few words about fees.
I was interested to listen to the exchange between the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) about whether an appeal under the proposed new system would be handled as one appeal if a number of relatives applied together to attend the same event. I hope that the Home Secretary or the Minister who will respond to the debate will clarify matters further, as the Home Secretary's interpretation seemed to be somewhat more restrictive than that given by his junior Minister, Lord Bassam of Brighton, when he responded to the equivalent debate in another place.
When he wound up that debate, Lord Bassam responded to an earlier remark from Earl Russell, who asked what would happen if "several relatives"—that was the phrase that he used—came together to attend the same event. Would the fee be paid for one appeal or severally for all the relatives involved? Lord Bassam said:
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also asked about appeals and how many appeals one family group should make. We would expect it to be just the one appeal, the outcome of which would decide the case for the other family members. — [Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2000; Vol. 618, c. 1223.]
My reading of Lord Bassam's remarks was that he interpreted the term "family group" in a rather wider sense than did the Home Secretary in his reference to a spouse and children or to other relatives from the same family living under the same roof. The Government owe the House a more detailed explanation of what exactly they intend.
My other question relates to the definition of the type of application and refusal that will entitle a rejected applicant to an appeal. As we know, under the regulations it is only family visitors who are to be given the opportunity of a formal appeal.
I refer Ministers to the report published in July this year by Dame Elizabeth Anson, the independent monitor appointed under the terms of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. In paragraph 6.12 of her report Dame Elizabeth asked whether the proposed new appeal system

127
would include any visit refusal that had what she termed a family flavour but which, under the strict terms of the immigration rules, was
a business or medical application or even a short term student application.
Her view was that if that wider category of family-related cases came within the framework of the new system
at least half of the refusals I have monitored—
some 40,000 cases—would be covered. She continued:
It will be very expensive to set up such a system.
Her figure of 40,000 is more than double the 19,500 or 20,000 that has been referred to.
Mr. Bermingham: I must declare an interest as one who from time to time gets involved in immigration matters. I am becoming increasingly concerned by what we mean by "appeal". Were an appeal to be held abroad, how would all the facts in respect of the sponsor be put before the adjudicator, who might have said no in the first place? Were an appeal to be held in this country, how would all the facts be put before the adjudicator should the personal circumstances of the appellant be unknown because he was acting through the sponsor? The system is riddled with doubt, riddled with problems and grossly unfair.
Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman makes his point forcefully, and it reinforces my view that Ministers owe the House a much more detailed account of the way in which the system would operate in practice.
Mr. Gapes rose—
Mr. Lidington: I shall give way, but I am conscious of the fact that many Members want to speak.
Mr. Gapes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but will he confirm that the Conservative party removed the right of appeal? Is not it rank hypocrisy for the Conservatives to criticise a Government who are at least reintroducing a right of appeal? Is not it disgraceful that Conservative parliamentary candidates around the country are opportunistically jumping on the bandwagon and pretending that their party, which removed the right of appeal from thousands of my constituents, has a different history?
Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman sounds a trifle nervous at what Conservative prospective parliamentary candidates might be saying and, indeed, the support that they might be gathering. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer the point."] I shall certainly come to exactly that point, because I want to deal with fees. However, there is a further question about the detail of the costs on which the fee system will be founded.
As I understand matters, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office have already said that they intend to waive the opportunity to pass on through an appeal fee their share of the administrative costs of the appeal system. We are left, therefore, with the Lord Chancellor's Department. The fee will be levied to reimburse it for the cost of administering the new system.
128
I feel sorry for the Home Secretary and his team. The Lord Chancellor's procession has passed on its way, and here is the Home Secretary with his bucket and shovel trying to clear up the mess that the Lord Chancellor has left behind. The truth behind the Government's case for fees and for setting them at such a high level boils down to their recognition of the fact that if an appeal system is to work it has to be speedy. They cannot envisage a way in which to provide a first-class, accelerated service for visit visa appellants other than by charging a fairly hefty fee.
To come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), the Government have finally discovered why my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) decided that the pre-1993 system was insupportable. As we all know, and as the Home Secretary said, far too many people were turned down when they applied to attend a marriage, a funeral or some other specific family event. They appealed, but the occasion for their visit had long passed by the time that the appeal was heard and determined. Therefore, the decision was made in 1993 to replace the system with a system of administrative review, subject to the scrutiny of an independent monitor. It is interesting to note that successive reports of the independent monitor have shown that the rate of refusal of applications for visas has remained fairly constant—approximately 6.5 per cent. of all applications—every year since the system was established.
The Government's problem is that the waiting time for immigration and asylum appeals is increasing. This year, a queue of 8,000 cases has been referred to the Immigration Appellate Authority. The cases are piling up, waiting for the IAA to make a decision and appoint an adjudicator. I received a written answer today from the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department. It said that in 1999-2000 the average waiting time was 10.7 weeks for an asylum appeal and 12.3 weeks for a non-asylum appeal, but that up to 31 October this year waiting time had increased to 19 weeks and 18.8 weeks respectively. That means that the Government have to grapple with the reality—
Ms Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understood that we were debating visitors' visas this evening. I was not aware that we were embarking on a broader debate about asylum applications. Would you be good enough to rule on the matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I think that it is clearly understood that if the hon. Gentleman was out of order, I would correct him.
Mr. Lidington: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) is so eager to cover up the Government's embarrassment over the increased waiting times for all immigration and asylum appeals. [Interruption.] That creates the difficulties, which are apparent to the House this evening, with the prohibitive fees that the Government plan to impose.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way eventually. Let me return him to the point that we are supposed to be debating. Will he give comfort to Conservative candidates who are wandering up and down the constituency of my

129
hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and assure them that a future Conservative Government would fund the fees through general taxation and thus remove them? Or are Conservative candidates conducting a completely bogus campaign in Ilford, South?
Mr. Lidington: I can understand the Parliamentary Secretary's desperation. However, as Parliamentary Secretary, he should concentrate on trying to justify the regulations for which his Department, rather than the Home Office, is responsible. He should respond to the criticisms, which hon. Members from all parties have made, of the Government's measure.
There is a case for the sort of system that has existed since 1993. It has the merit of allowing a determination to be made speedily so that the applicant can at least know where he or she stands before the intended visit. There is also a case for an appeal system that allows people to have a hearing by an independent judicial or quasi-judicial authority.
The Government's proposal is a sham. It masquerades as an appeal system, but Ministers have quite deliberately and with breathtaking hypocrisy—to use the words of the hon. Member for Ilford, South—set the fee at a level that will deter people from making an application and thus keep the numbers down. If Ministers are now experiencing a tide of anger and betrayal from the people to whom they made such generous promises, they have no one but themselves to blame.
10.40 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: Such breathtaking hypocrisy from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) is unbelievable. He says that the Government's proposals are a sham. The problem predates 1993: it goes back to 1979. The screw against immigration to this country was tightened every year between 1979 and 1997. The hon. Gentleman represents the party that introduced the British nationality legislation, that brought in the primary purpose rule and that in 1993 abolished the right of appeal for visitors. Instead of attempting to lecture and hector Government Members and, implicitly, the Liberal Democrats, he owes the House an apology for the historical experience of 1979 to 1997. A few years of silence from the hon. Gentleman is required, rather than raising his profile visually and vocally in the coming general election campaign.
I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's pearls of wisdom—I am sure that he is not prepared to accept mine—I intend to accompany the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends into the Division Lobby if there is a Division.
I must congratulate my right hon. Friend on his bravura performance. He realised that he was on a sticky wicket, so he referred to his experience as a constituency MP. I know how busy he is in his constituency dealing with these matters, as I and other hon. Members are in ours. We all appreciate that, and we know that he has the best interests of the black and Asian community at heart. That was implicit in what he said. He gave way many times to try to appease hon. Members who have concerns. It was quite a good performance.
130
I shall repeat to my right hon. Friend what I said to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. I am not convinced by the Government's argument, and given what I have heard so far I intend to vote against the regulations.
I take some pride in the restoration of the right of appeal against the refusal of a visitor's visa to the United Kingdom. However, I cannot help but repeat that I oppose the measure because I believe that the restoration of that right is tarnished by the imposition of a £500 fee for an oral appeal and £150 for an appeal based on a review of the papers. Despite what the Home Secretary says, that will act as a grave deterrent in many cases.
Like me and other hon. Members, my right hon. Friend will recall that the abolition of a right of appeal in 1993 caused great anger and resentment in the black and Asian communities in this country. Many of us will have witnessed in our advice surgeries the anger and resentment. Many of us will have witnessed at first hand the desperation, bewilderment, hopelessness and helplessness on the faces of our constituents when their relatives have been refused a visitor's visa for reasons that, to them, appear perverse.
We know that that has led to many of us becoming a conduit for appeals against the present system. I, as others do, write many letters monthly to the relevant Minister asking him or her to review a case. Occasionally one succeeds, but more often than not the case rests as it was decided by the person in the British mission abroad.
We all accept that we live in a multi-ethnic society, in which many of our citizens have close links with extended family members living in countries other than the United Kingdom. They wish to maintain those links. As hon. Members have said, an important way of doing so is by inviting family members to weddings, births and funerals. It is an essential part of maintaining contact with their relatives and culture abroad. In order to ensure that all families are not denied the opportunity to be together, it is essential that the appeal system be re-established. That is what we are now faced with, fortunately. However, I repeat for the third time: I oppose the imposition of fees.
As I said to the Home Secretary, I am not persuaded by the Government's argument over costs. Even if the majority of appellants opted for an oral appeal, the cost, based on the figure of 19,500, would still be less than £10 million. I understand that, in my brief absence from the Chamber, he indicated that the total number of refusals was nearer 40,000, so even if all those people were to appeal the total cost would still be less than £20 million per annum. That could be found not only from the £600 million extra that the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced for immigration control, as referred to by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, but from the largesse that the Chancellor, we are told, hoards in the Treasury to increase public expenditure next year, the following year and the year after.
There is, however, a far more compelling reason for opposing the imposition of fees. Such an imposition is inconsistent, as the hon. Gentleman said, with the rest of the social welfare tribunal system under which family visitor appeals will be heard. There are no fees for any other type of immigration appeal. There are no fees for employment and social security tribunals. There are no fees for disability and medical appeals. There are no fees for mental health review tribunals, so the imposition of

131
fees in that sphere could represent the thin end of the wedge and a significant departure from one of the underlying aims of the tribunal system: to maximise the access to justice of those who lack the means to mount a conventional legal action in the courts.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, the fees will deter some genuine cases from appealing because, no matter how strong they believe the case to be, the possibility of failure will remain. For people in the most impecunious circumstances in Bangladesh, India or Pakistan, the prospect of losing £150 or £500 will be a sufficiently strong deterrent to stop them lodging an oral or a written appeal. I call on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to draw on his experience as a constituency Member of Parliament to recognise the truth of that point.
Those who have dealt regularly with immigration cases know the importance of the credibility of both the applicant and the family in the United Kingdom. There is no doubt in my mind that, if costs were not a problem, most appellants would opt for an oral hearing to enable their relatives in the United Kingdom, where the appeal would be heard, to demonstrate their credibility before the adjudicator and to explain on their relative's behalf how his or her case had been misunderstood in the British mission abroad. That is what has happened in the current appeal system, and that is what would happen in the new system with only oral appeals. If my right hon. Friend draws on his constituency experience, I believe that he will accept the validity and the truth of that point, too.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will have second thoughts. Even if he is not prepared to withdraw fees entirely, he could set them at a more realistic level. To my mind, £500 is a deterrent to an oral appeal. The fee needs to be reduced substantially if an oral appeal is to be accessible to the majority of applicants who would, if given the opportunity, make such an appeal their first choice.
If my right hon. Friend cannot give such guarantees, I shall have to follow my conscience and honour the word that I have already given the House by voting against the regulations.
10.51 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: Having listened to the debate and the strong opinions expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, the one question that I genuinely have is why on earth the Home Secretary is defending the regulations. I think that everyone who has studied them will know that they are cruel, heartless and discriminatory, and I know that the Home Secretary and his officials are not of that character. Therefore, I genuinely cannot understand why they want to pursue the regulations.
Are they doing so because of the money? That certainly cannot be the answer, because, only the other day, we had an announcement that, in the next three years, the Government are spending an extra £400 million on coping with asylum seekers. If there were an easier way of coping, we could save an awful lot of money. It seems utterly pointless to pursue the order to realise a maximum of £9 million in savings.
We should also think of the reputation of British politics. After the previous Conservative Government completely abolished the right to appeal, the Labour party
132
made its appeal proposal in 1993, which was genuinely appreciated by large parts of the immigrant community. As we know, subsequently, many of those people voted for the Labour party. They thought that the Labour party cared about them, and, quite wrongly, that the Conservative party did not.
What on earth are those people going to think when they realise that, although Ministers said that they would re-establish appeals and care for applicants, the Government never suggested even once in their general election manifesto that charges would be imposed for appeals? Charges are not imposed for any other type of appeal, and it is quite wrong to deny justice to someone on the basis of them.
I do not believe that the people affected will turn from one party to another, but many of them will simply be sickened entirely by politics and say, "We want nothing to do with you or your crowd." As one of the old stagers in the House—I have been here a long time—I can see the effect of politics on the British people. At one time, they cared deeply about the issues and for one party or another, and they had respect for politics. Quite honestly, however, this business of getting votes by making a promise and not delivering simply gives people the impression that they have been conned. I do not want to make a party political point, but I think that every party should bear that in mind.
The Home Secretary apparently misled the House on the facts about the extent of discrimination. I have the figures, having taken some little trouble to get them. Around the world, one in 15 people have been rejected. For example, one in every 202 applications from Americans was rejected. For Australians, the figure was one in 703. For those from Pakistan, Bangladesh or Ghana, the figure was one in five; for Nigeria, it is one in six. Clearly, the measure will apply to those countries more than to others. Is there not a danger that the order—which will deprive people of the right to justice and consideration—will be found to be illegal under human rights legislation?
How are we suggesting the legal aid system should work? The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, wrote to me to say that cases can go to the Legal Services Commission
subject of course to…financial eligibility and merits tests.
That means that the legal aid people have to look at the case, decide whether there is a chance of success and examine the financial circumstances. If the family concerned comes from Peshawar in Pakistan, how will the information be provided? How will the Legal Services Commission work out the family's finances? How will the money be paid? Frankly, to bring in legal aid is simply a joke because I genuinely cannot see how it is relevant to someone applying for a visa from somewhere in Pakistan or Bangladesh so as to go to a family wedding.
How many people will this order apply to? It is obvious that if we are talking about a grandfather, grandmother and one of their children, or a nephew, who want to come to this country, the amount charged will be three times £500. To pretend that the figures will be anything but that misleads the House, which is very bad. A figure of £500 may not seem a great deal to people with credit cards or bank accounts, but for families in Bangladesh, Pakistan or India it is a year's salary. It is not a tiny amount of money; it is an horrendous amount, which must be paid in advance.

133
I have a great deal of respect for the Home Secretary and I do not think he supports the proposal at all. I do not say this unkindly, but I listened to his speech, and he did not give the impression that he thought that the measure was a good idea. I have a feeling that something funny has happened within government. Those in the House tonight should give a message; not that we disagree with the Government, although I do, but that this is a cruel, heartless and stupid proposal which goes against promises made by the Government. The proposal will bring no benefits to anyone; it will simply cause resentment and create injustice. It should be thrown out and I hope the House of Commons will have the courage to do so.
I hope the Government will think again. If we are trying to save £4 million or £6 million, there are many ways in which we can do that without depriving people of their right to justice simply on the basis of being poor.
The Labour party does many good things—I have great respect for it—but it sometimes forgets the effects of its policies on the poor. My third child has just finished university. Student loans do not affect people with a bit of money, but what about the poor people? I get the impression that when student loans were proposed, we forgot that it meant that a child coming from a poor home would come out of university with a debt of about £12,000.
In the case of immigration visits, richer families will not have to worry, but poorer families will be deprived of their rights. That is wrong. Anyone in a democracy should oppose the measure, and anyone who stands for the principles of a Labour Government should have nothing to do with it.
10.59 pm
Mr. Piara S. Khabra: There has been a wide-ranging debate on the issue, but I would like to concentrate on the appeals fee. I listened to the Home Secretary's argument, but I am not fully convinced. We are debating what I and many others regard as the injustice of levying fees for appeals against the refusal of a visa to visit family members in the United Kingdom.
I have a multicultural constituency, and a large number of those who live there come from the Indian sub-continent. It is my experience that many of their relatives want to come to the UK for various reasons, and many have expressed concern about the regulations. It appears that they are discriminatory and have been deliberately designed to restrict the entry of many genuine visitors.
The Government's commitment to a fair and firm immigration policy has been tarnished by the regulations. At issue is not only the potentially prohibitive charge of £500 for an oral hearing or £150 for a papers only appeal but the unnecessarily rigid definition of a family visitor.
As a Member of Parliament with considerable experience of immigration matters, I welcome the reinstatement of the right of appeal against refusal of a visa application in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, but, along with organisations including the Commission for Racial Equality, the Immigration Advisory Service and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, I am greatly concerned that the benefits of the Act will be negated by the levying of charges on appeal. Although the regulations state that the fee will be refunded when
134
the appeal is successful, an applicant has no guarantee of success, so some who are unfairly refused a visa will simply not be able to take the risk.
In costing the administration of the appeals, the Lord Chancellor's Department has argued that 80 per cent. of appellants will opt for a papers only appeal. However, as the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has pointed out, if cost were not an issue, most appellants would opt for an oral hearing, in an attempt to maintain their credibility for future visa applications as well as for the immediate request.
Another crucial point is that what may seem a reasonable fee to some is completely unmanageable for others, and especially for applicants from the Indian sub-continent, who make up a large proportion of those who apply to come here as visitors and whose yearly income is not even equivalent to the level of fees imposed. In US dollars, the UK's average income in real terms is $;21,800 a year. In India, the figure is $;1,800, and in Bangladesh just $1,470. The charges place an unacceptable burden on many who might otherwise have applied.
Furthermore, according to the 1998-99 family resources survey, the average household income in Pakistani or Bangladeshi households in the UK was 24 per cent. lower than the national average, and the figure for black households 39 per cent. lower. That suggests that many of the groups likely to have family members applying are less likely to be able to offer financial assistance to meet the costs.
In July, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced an additional allocation of £600 million for immigration control. Assuming, as the Home Office does, that 80 per cent. of the expected 19,500 appellants per year will opt for papers only, the total cost to the appellate authority of administering family visitor appeals would be £4.3 million. Even if all 19,500 requested an oral hearing, the fees received would be £9.75 million: a small proportion of the £600 million extra funding available.
I also question the unnecessarily rigid definition of a family visitor, as the nature of family relationships—especially extended ones—means that a family visitor can often be hard to define. Their importance also varies on a case-by-case basis.
Abolishing the charges would not create a flood of immigrants to the United Kingdom, nor even an influx of asylum seekers. We are dealing not with primary immigration but the right of family members to appeal against a refusal to attend a funeral, a wedding or another life event in the United Kingdom.
Many of my constituents have visited my surgery to tell me that the level of fees will be restrictive for many appellants and their sponsors, and that the reinstatement of the right of appeal in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 has become meaningless. The charges also mean that people with a moderate income are refused access to justice, which will be available only to those with a lot of money. It is a mockery of justice that sponsors or appellants cannot afford to challenge the decision of the entry clearance officer in a court of law.
Finally, I am happy that the Secretary of State has given a commitment to review the order in due course.
11.6 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra). On his last remark, may I suggest that the

135
Home Office considers using Dame Elizabeth Anson to do the review? She has concluded distinguished service reviewing the system. I think that she has the confidence of people in the service and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. It might be suitable if the great Dame—as I call her—is asked to review the situation, preferably after six months rather than a year.
Missing from the Home Secretary's speech was any indication of the numbers who have used the new system of appeal.
Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bottomley: This is the only time that I will, because I know that others want to speak.
Fiona Mactaggart: I am informed that the user panel was told earlier this week that 18 appeals had been received.
Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Lady's answer has helped. That may have been the point that she wanted to put to the Home Secretary when he indicated that he would give way to her. I am glad that she has been able to give a partial answer. In the extra week, the number may have gone up from 18 to 20, 30 or even 50.
There is no suggestion that the Home Office wanted to impose fees at this level. It has clearly been imposed by the Treasury and no doubt the Home Office will say that there was a deal and it managed to get more money for other things. The fewer the appeals, the greater the overhead cost, and costs will not be covered at the level suggested by the hon. Lady.
The Home Secretary spent some time explaining the terrors that would result if the measure were rejected by the House. It will not be rejected by the House. The real question is how many abstentions and how many Labour Members voting against the Government it will take for the Government to take the question of fees rather more seriously. My estimate is that if the analysis shows that 30 Labour Members abstain and 70 vote against the Government, Ministers will start to say that they have it wrong when the review takes place.
The Government have accepted that the costs have had to be reduced from those in the draft consultation document. This is not the time to go into the method of consultation, why the document came out at the beginning of the summer recess and why we had to ask the voluntary associations—which were the most concerned—and some of the professional advisers to appeal groups to start giving their views. Heaven knows what opportunity was supposed to have been given to those representing the rejected applicants in overseas countries—whether Commonwealth or foreign—if they heard about this at the end of July and had to get their representations in by the middle of August.
We should pay tribute to Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff for dealing with the applications. The total number that they must consider—whether they grant or refuse—is high. Even if one person in five is rejected from a country from which a relatively high proportion is rejected, they are approving many applications.
136
There are difficulties for the staff, but also for the applicants. A man in my constituency—a father and a son—told me that his mother was eventually given permission to come to the UK, but his sisters were not. His mother is not enjoying the visit because she lives with her daughters and wants to be with them and her son. He pointed out that the fee was not the only problem. There is also the 10-hour wait once an applicant gets to the mission—the high commission in his mother's case. We must understand that a shortage of cash is not the only problem, although a £500 charge would, in effect, double the cost of visiting for many people. Another problem, which the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) have mentioned, is that of reaching a mission, then waiting up to 10 hours or having to come back another day or another week. In addition, there may be something wrong in the paperwork.
None of that qualifies the thanks that we should give to the staff who deal with these matters. Ministers' private offices also deal with a great deal, both in running Departments and in behaving courteously to Members of Parliament who put forward questions on this and other matters. The burden on Home Office officials is as great as that on any other Department.
Finally, I pay tribute to the voluntary organisations that have helped to alert people to these proposals. Members of Parliament are sensitised to it by our constituency case work, but I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) for being the first Member to put down a prayer against the regulations, and to the Liberal Democrats for joining him. We have heard proper protestations from Labour Members, too, but they would have come better if those Members had put down a prayer alongside my hon. Friend. That would have produced an all-party set of questions to Ministers and helped to ensure that this debate was held.
11.12 pm
Mr. George Mudie: I shall be brief because there is little time left. I find myself in the same position as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who intends to vote against the Government. I see no reason to do otherwise. Any review would take us past the next election, and we would have to go to the polls having let people down, and done so deliberately. Two months into the operation of the system, the review has not even started. The terms of reference have not yet been agreed. That is not much of a review and not much of a promise.
In 1993, the Conservative party abolished appeals. Members have example after example of what has happened since. A dad who lived three doors along from me died, and his young lad applied to come to his dad's funeral and was turned down. I telephoned the high commission at length, and won an agreement that, if he turned up the next morning, he would be put on the only plane that would guarantee his presence at the funeral. He did so, but he had to wait five hours before he was given a visa, and he missed the plane.
A woman in Leeds was dying in a hospice. She was expected to go into a coma and wanted to see her sisters and brother from Bangladesh. For some reason, the entry clearance officer allowed one sister in and refused both other siblings. That sort of arbitrary, cruel behaviour has

137
more than once affected our constituents. That is why the decision to ban appeals was so disgraceful. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) should have had the humility and decency to apologise for it.
We fought the election pledged to reverse that decision. I ask the Home Secretary to read our manifesto commitment. It contains not one word about fees. Those fees relate to the poorest communities in our cities-the Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Afro-Caribbean communities. The Bangladeshi community in my city are among the poorest, and £500 is beyond the earning power of anyone living in Bangladesh. So they look to their sponsors in this country. But are the sponsors well-off and affluent? They are members of the poorest community. How can the Lord Chancellor defend in another place the imposition of a £500 fee? He is wholly out of touch with life in this country—especially in the Bangladeshi community.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor); he was right on the button. Those hon. Members who were in the House in 1992 will remember our "rainy day in Nottingham" exchanges with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. When he abandoned some of his election promises, he passed it off by saying that they were just remarks he had made on a rainy night in Nottingham and that we should not pay any attention to them; they had got him past the election. Such behaviour gives all of us a bad name—whatever our party—and causes youngsters to look at politicians with distaste.
There have been two similar occasions in a week. The first was when we thought that our air was not for sale, but suddenly it was for sale. Last week, Ministers were asked about our manifesto for the last general election. I saw nothing in that manifesto about selling off the National Air Traffic Services.
Tonight is the second time. In our manifesto, we told the Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities that we would restore the right of appeal—they thought it was marvellous that we were delivering a promise—but we did not tell them that it would be at a price. Will the Home Secretary read out that part of our manifesto? We did not mention a word about price: "streamlining"—the word used by the Home Secretary—now means price. Can he tell me how to read into the word "streamlining" that it would be a cost for members of the poorest community in the land?
I do not blame the Home Secretary; he is one of the most decent members of the Cabinet. I know who to blame—the Lord Chancellor. It is because of the Lord Chancellor and that £10 million that my word to my Bangladeshi community will mean nothing—nor will the next election. That is why I have the deepest objection to the order. It is a matter of our integrity; we should not let the Government get away with it.
11.17 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Many of my colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), are desperate to contribute to the debate; it is a tragedy that such a short time was allocated. I shall try to be brief.
We have restored a right—it is good to have a right. We have restored the right to appeal when a visitor visa is denied. However, to have a right when there is no means of enforcing it is to have no right at all. That is the trouble with the proposals under this statutory instrument.
138
I was proud to support the Labour Government in reinstating that right of appeal, which had been taken away by the Conservatives in 1993. Our manifesto commitment was to
reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results that can follow from the existing "primary purpose" rule. There will be a streamlined system of appeals for visitors denied a visa.
Before the general election, I championed that commitment to many of my constituents—representing it to them as the Labour party's position. It was not clear to me—hence I could not make it clear to them—that there would be any suggestion of the imposition of a fee for that right. We have heard that the fee will be £500 for an oral appeal and £150 for a paper appeal. That will be a huge deterrent to many people—as many hon. Members have pointed out this evening.
In the other place, Lord Bassam said that most appeals would be by paper, but I cannot agree with him. In a letter dated 16 November to the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), the Immigration Advisory Service said:
Our experience of conducting a large number of visitor appeals in the past is that an oral hearing with the sponsor giving evidence is often the only way in which to address criticisms by the entry clearance officer about the credibility of the applicant.
If anything, the view of the Immigration Advisory Service was strengthened when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary informed the House that it was his view that the credibility of the applicant was aided primarily by sponsors in this country being able to make those very representations.
It is said that those most likely to be deterred by the fee would be entitled to have their appeal funded by the Legal Services Commission. The idea of a constituent's relative in Calcutta or Ahmedabad having access to the list of solicitors that is approved by the Legal Services Commission and being able to contact one to advise him and to lodge an appeal within 28 days is preposterous. Even if that were to take place, the relative would be paid retrospectively. But that is to ignore the fact that the whole problem in the first place is that he does not have the money to lodge with the entry clearance office when the application is made.
I seek two assurances from my right hon. Friend. First, will he honour the system whereby Members of Parliament can continue to make representations on behalf of applicants? Secondly, will he assure us that, if the Government press on with the fees, they will monitor the number of appeals as a percentage of the refusals from each country? They will see that the percentage of appeals from the poorest countries is the lowest, and they will then be able to assess whether there is a racist implication to the legislation.
There is one good reason why I cannot support the Liberal Democrats in the Lobbies tonight. If SI 2446 is annulled, my understanding from the Journal Office is that it will be replaced either by SI 2302, which imposes yet higher fees, or it will leave us with no right to appeal because both statutory instruments will have fallen. I ask my right hon. Friend to correct that understanding if it is wrong.
11.22 pm
Mr. Straw: I have only three minutes, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not respond to all the points that have been made.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Why?
Mr. Straw: Because the Liberal Democrats' spokesman will wind up on their prayer.
I am grateful to hon. Members, and particularly my hon. Friends, for the way in which they have made their points and for the strength with which they have expressed them. I understand the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), but I do not think it is true—we might have to continue to argue about this—that there was any disingenuity at the election and in what we said in the manifesto and have said subsequently. The issue was spelled out and the range of fees is similar to that anticipated nearly two years ago in the White Paper and on Second Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
I understand the concerns that have been raised about the cost of the paper hearing and, particularly, about the cost of the oral hearing. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) asked two questions. The first was whether it will be possible for Members to continue to make representations, and I give him an absolute assurance that it will. I will personally ensure that that continues to be so. That distinguishes this system from the system of settlement appeals where, in practice, Members' representations cannot be entertained while an appeal is pending.
Secondly, my hon. Friend asked whether the Government would monitor the number of appeals, particularly as a percentage of refusals. I have already said that there will be a formal review after a year, but in light of the concerns expressed this evening, of which I take very careful account, I also undertake to carry out the monitoring that my hon. Friend and other colleagues have urged upon me and to review the scheme's operation within three months.
I want to make it clear that fees will have to be charged under this system, and although I guarantee that I will review the scheme's operation within three months, the House will understand that I cannot give further guarantees.
11.25 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to the debate, which has been very good, as I hope the House agrees. Many Members from both sides of the House speak from our similar experience; this is not a matter on which the Government have any advantage over the rest of us, and that is why the House has spoken so clearly.
Nobody argued that the Government ever said that there would be no fees. The House is saying that the definition of family is wrong or, at best, muddled, and—worse—fees should not be set at all, as some Members believe, or should be set at levels different from those that will be set by this order if it is not revoked.
The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) was absolutely right to say that this matter concerns poverty and the treatment of the poor, and I
140
thank him for his consistent commitment to that idea. I say to Labour colleagues, including the hon. Members for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), that this issue concerns what we say to people and what we then deliver. Although a Labour Government were elected on a commitment to introduce an appeals process, many of us shared the Labour party's view that the Tories should never have abolished the right of appeal. Now that there is a chance to reinstate that right, we must ensure that people can exercise it. If they cannot afford to do so, it is not a right of appeal. Hon. Members throughout the House know from experience what will be the reality of such a system.
The hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) are right to say that for most people, the real right of appeal is one that is exercised in person, not on paper—not least because people want to establish that they always had a good case and that their record does not show that they were trying to pull a fast one but had a justified case for coming here.
Of course the Home Secretary, like Lord Bassam, has given some ground, acknowledged that the system is not right and accepted that there will have to be a review, but I hope that colleagues do not think that that should only be determined by whether there is enough money in the kitty. There is enough money, but even if the coffers were tight, we should remember that this is a matter of justice and of what is right.
There have been only 18 appeals since 2 October, and 65 colleagues have signed early-day motions 1108 and 1112, tabled by Labour Members. The only figure of which I can find a mention in the Standing Committee on the Immigration and Asylum Bill, on 29 March 1999, is £ 357—£150 lower than the figure that is now on the table.
Mr. Straw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: No, I cannot give way now.
The issue is whether people can avail themselves of a £500 appeal. I ask the House to come to the following simple conclusion: a review may be wonderful later, but either the fees are right now or they are wrong now. If the House agrees with our prayer and revokes the order, new orders will have to be laid, and the political reality is that they will be laid before the end of the Session. I urge all colleagues tonight to join together to correct as soon as possible a bad mistake by somebody in Government.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 62, Noes 238.

Division No. 343]

[11.29 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

Allan, Richard

(NE Fife)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Chidgey, David

Ballard, Jackie

Corbyn, Jeremy

Barnes, Harry

Cotter, Brian

Beith,Rt Hon A J

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Best, Harold

Davis, Rt Hon Terry

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

(B"ham Hodge H)

Brand, Dr Peter

Fearn, Ronnie

Breed, Colin

Foster, Don (Bath)

Burnett, John

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Burstow, Paul

Gerrard, Neil

Gidley, Sandra

141

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Mudie, George

Hancock, Mike

Oaten, Mark

Harris, Dr Evan

Öpik, Lembit

Harvey, Nick

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Rendel, David

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Sanders, Adrian

Keetch, Paul

Singh, Marsha

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Skinner, Dennis

Kirkwood, Archy

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

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Stunell, Andrew

Livsey, Richard

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Taylor, Sir Teddy

McDonnell, John

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Tyler, Paul

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Webb, Steve

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Willis, Phil

Mitchell, Austin

Tellers for the Ayes:

Moore, Michael

Mr. Tom Brake and

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Mr. Donald Gorrie.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (paisley N)

Curtis-Thomas,Mrs Claire

Ainger, Nick

Darvill, Keith

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Allen, Graham

Davidson, Ian

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Davis Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Dawson, Hilton

Atkins, Charlotte

Dean, Mrs Janet

Austin, John

Denham, John

Banks, Tony

Dismore, Andrew

Battle, John

Dobbin, Jim

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Bayley, Hugh

Donohoe, Brian H

Beard, Nigel

Dowd, Jim

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margart

Eagle, Maria (L"pool Garston)

Bennett, Andrewb F

Efford, Clive

Benton, Joe

Ennis, Jeff

Blackman, Liz

Etherington, Bill

Blizzard, Bob

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Flint, Caroline

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Flynn, Paul

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Browne, Desmond

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Buck, Mr Karen

Foulkes, George

Burgon, Colin

Gibson, Dr Ian

Butler, Mrs Christine

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Godsiff, Roger

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Goggins, Paul

Caplin, Ivor

Golding, Mrs Llin

Caton,Martin

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Cawsey, Ian

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clark, Dr Lynda

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

(Edinburgh pentlands)

Grocott, Bruce

Clark, paul (Gillingham)

Grogan, John

Clark, Charles (Norwich S)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clark, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Healey, John

Clark,Tony (Northampton S)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Coffey,Ms Ann

Hepburn, Stephen

Colman, Tony

Heppell, John

Connarty, Michael

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Cooper, Yvette

Hill, Keith

Corston, Jean

Hinchcliffe, David

Cousins, Jim

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Cox, Tom

Hoey, Kate

Crausby, David

Hope, Phil

Cummings, John

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

Howells, Dr Kim

(Copeland)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Hurst, Alan

142

Hutton, John

Plaskitt, James

Illsley, Eric

Pond, Chris

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Pope, Greg

Jamieson, David

Pound, Stephen

Jenkins, Brian

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Primarolo, Dawn

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Purchase, Ken

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Rammell, Bill

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Rapson, Syd

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Raynsford, Nick

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Rogers, Allan

Keeble, Ms Sally

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Kemp, Fraser

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Rowlands, Ted

Khabra, Piara S

Roy, Frank

Kidney, David

Ruane, Chris

Kilfoyle, Peter

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Ryan, Ms Joan

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Savidge, Malcolm

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Sheerman, Barry

Lammy, David

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Lepper, David

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Leslie, Christopher

Soley, Clive

Levitt, Tom

Spellar, John

Linton, Martin

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Steinberg, Gerry

Lock, David

Stevenson, George

McAvoy, Thomas

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

McCabe, Steve

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Stoate, Dr Howard

McDonagh, Siobhain

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Macdonald, Calum

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Stringer, Graham

Mackinlay, Andrew

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Sutcliffe, Gerry

McNamara, Kevin

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

McNulty, Tony

(Dewsbury)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

McWalter, Tony

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Temple-Morris, Peter

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Tipping, Paddy

Maxton, John

Todd, Mark

Meale, Alan

Touhig, Don

Merron, Gillian

Trickett, Jon

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Truswell, Paul

Michie, Bill (Shef"ld Heeley)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Miller, Andrew

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Moffatt, Laura

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Morley, Elliot

Vaz, Keith

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

Vis, Dr Rudi

(B"ham Yardley)

Walley, Ms Joan

Mountford, Kali

Ward, Ms Claire

Mullin, Chris

Wareing, Robert N

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Wicks, Malcolm

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

O"Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

O"Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

O"Hara, Eddie

Woolas, Phil

Olner, Bill

Worthington, Tony

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Pearson, Ian

Wyatt, Derek

Pendry, Tom

Tellers for the Noes:

Pickthall, Colin

Mr. David Clelland and

Pike, Peter L

Mrs. Anne McGuire.

Question accordingly negatived.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With permission, I shall put together the Questions on motions 5, 6 and 7.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  COMPANIES
  That the draft Companies Act 1985 (Electronic Communications) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 23rd October, be approved.
  BROADCASTING
  That the draft Broadcasting (Limit on the Holding of Licences to Provide Television Multiplex Services) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 1st November, be approved.

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.— [Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  Question agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made,
  That, at the sittings on Wednesday 22nd, Thursday 23rd and Monday 27th November, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords shall be received.— [Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  EUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Owen Paterson be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Miss Anne McIntosh be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That—

  (1) the matter of the Review of the future of the juvenile justice centre estate in Northern Ireland, published by the Northern Ireland Office in March 2000, being a matter exclusively relating to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;

  (2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 29th November at 5.00 p.m.; and

  (3) at that meeting the Committee shall consider the matter referred to it in paragraph (1) and the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at 7.30 p.m.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

  Fishing Industry
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  Mr. Austin Mitchell rose—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber do so quickly and quietly?
  11.42 pm
  Mr. Mitchell: I am sure that hon. Members were expressing their excitement at the remarks that I am about to make, and expressing their support before they go home, safe in the knowledge that the British fishing industry is being well defended in the Chamber.
  I have a simple theme: the rise in fuel prices has hit fishing harder than almost any other industry, and has resulted in the fact that sections of the industry are no longer viable because fuel is too expensive for fishermen to carry on fishing in the way that they have done; whereas other industries, such as freight, received help and concessions in the Budget announcements last week, and recognition of their problems, fishing has received neither help nor effective recognition of the scale of the problem. Certainly, nothing has been done about it.
  The fishing industry put its case to Ministers in two or three meetings in September and since, but nothing has happened to help the industry or to save it from the consequences of the rise in fuel prices. That is unacceptable. At the same time as the fishing industry has been hit by rising fuel prices, it has been hit by another crisis as well.
  There is clearly a conservation crisis, or a stocks crisis, affecting large sections of fishing. Quotas have been cut, yet in the case of some species—cod is the classic example—fishermen cannot catch the fish permitted by the quota. Catches are down, but prices have not risen enough to compensate. Indeed, they have fluctuated while the fuel crisis has put up costs.
  Fishermen face three crises: higher fuel costs and a shortage of fish, as well as prices that do not compensate for that. For example, marine diesel has increased in price by 200 per cent. in just over two years, which shows the scale of the rise. Most of that increase has taken place since the spring, and it now sells to fishermen at about £230 a tonne. Indeed, I received word from Lowestoft today that it was trading at £238 a tonne; last week, others told me that they were paying 26p a litre for fuel.
  Such heavy fuel charges are particularly crippling for a number of vessels—those at Grimsby, for example. Grimsby fishing vessels have further to steam to reach the grounds and catch the fish than those from other ports. Those charges are hitting vessels that have to stay longer at sea to catch their quotas and make a living. They are being squeezed both ways: the longer they stay at sea, the higher the fuel costs. However, staying at sea is the only way that fishermen can make a living.
  Beamers in particular are being hit, as they need more power and use more fuel. The markets depend on the big vessels, which catch the bulk of the fish. Their throughput has to be sufficient to keep the market and the facilities in the fishing ports going and to sustain the industry,

  145
  yet those vessels are being hit particularly hard. Fuel costs have risen from a fifth to about 50 per cent. of the earnings of a vessel, which means less money for the crews, who are coming home in debt.
  Some vessels have tied up to sit out the situation; others cannot get crews, even in great ports such as Grimsby, because earnings are too unattractive. Crewing has always been difficult, but that difficulty is increasing because family connections and the tradition of going into fishing have been broken. For example, in June, Aberdeen's Press and Journal cited a skipper who said that his fuel costs were £75,000 a year and that that had cut the crew's annual earnings by about £3,500 a head.
  Those huge cost increases are being taken out on the vessels and the crews, and they cannot be made up through prices because the fishing industry is a price taker, not a price maker. It does not have control over prices, which are set at auction and, ultimately, by the consumer. If the price of fish rises too much, consumers switch to white meat such as chicken. That imposes a limit on the level to which prices can rise to compensate fishermen for those increased costs. Consumers are not prepared to pay more for fish, so the all-round impact on the industry is disastrous.
  If that impact is prolonged, some vessels will clearly drop out of the industry. Many will not be viable and will be unable to carry on fishing. The crews will be out of work and the whole industry will decline. The spiral of decline, which hit us in the 1970s, had been checked, but a resumption is imminent. My hon. Friend is a good Minister and I know that he takes the concerns of the industry seriously—indeed, he takes them to heart and keeps in touch with fishermen—but I want to impress on him the need for urgency. He must outline those concerns to a Department that can be callous and unfeeling to fishing, even when the case is argued as well as he argues it.
  Fortunately, fishing has strong support throughout the country. However, some critics may point out that marine diesel is duty free. I admit that that is true throughout the European Union. Others—including the Government, I am afraid—argue that the increase is temporary and that prices will fall in the long term. However, there is no sign of that. Keynes said that, in the long term, we are all dead. At current fuel costs, in the long term, large sections of the fishing industry will be dead. Keynes' argument is therefore especially relevant. The level of prices is a nail in the coffin of some sections of the industry. If it dies, the Government will effectively have killed it by standing by, wringing their hands and saying, "We feel your pain." That is now the answer to most problems.
  Feeling the pain of the lorry drivers and the freight industry produced some results. However, feeling the fishing industry's pain has produced nothing so far. Unless there is a response, we will return to the policy of the Tory years: restructuring fishing by rigor mortis. I do not want such a process to occur under a Labour Government. It is not right to allow that to happen, and to stand by without helping the industry. I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary wants to take that position. Yet no help has been forthcoming.
  Most of the European fishing nations, with which we compete for the catch in fairly intense competition, have produced some sort of support for the industry to see it through the crisis. Even the Greeks have come bearing
  146
  gifts to fishermen. That has no impact on competition with us, but it shows that other Governments have been more responsive than ours.
  Support has been given in some form other than for fuel prices, although Portugal provides fuel at a fixed price to the Portuguese fishing industry. The classic example of support is France, where fishermen, like lorry drivers, are prone to asserting their power, usually at the expense of British tourists who are trying to return home on the ferries. Such assertion of the industry's needs, to which French Governments listen, has produced both long-term structural support and a short-term package. We need such measures in this country if we are to maintain the competitive position of British fishing.
  Pressure from French fishermen produced relief from social security charges. Dutch fishermen also receive roughly —3 million of such relief. Spanish fishermen have received —9 million in social security reductions. The support for Belgian fishermen is on a different basis; their social security contributions are deferred for one year. Those are all examples of support that has been provided to help the industry in its temporary difficulties through lower social security charges.
  The French have also granted relief from port charges. It is not yet clear whether they will be written off or whether central Government or local authorities will pay them. However, fishermen have been relieved of the heavy burden of port charges. It is right that that should be done to compensate them for the fuel price increase.
  In Ireland, support has been given for exploratory voyages. We used to grant such support in this country; it helps to keep the industry going. As far as I know, Denmark has not yet done anything. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us otherwise when he responds. However, support in the other countries that I cited has been fairly substantial.
  Spain has granted approximately £26 million in soft loans to fishing infrastructure. That is another form of compensation. The French have given support through a reduction in finance charges for those in debt, and Belgium has done the same. British fishermen have had nothing like that.
  All our competitors are anxious to secure the survival of their domestic fishing industries and to see them through this crisis, so they support them. If their industries survive and ours does not, or if our industry is reduced in scale more drastically than theirs because of the crisis, they will inherit the better future which must lie ahead for fishing with proper conservation. Is that what our Government want? Do they want a fishing industry reduced in scale by the pressure of the fuel crisis and because it does not receive help from the Government, unlike fishing in other countries?
  My hon. Friend the Minister told the fisherman early on:
  I am not going to see our industry disadvantaged by illegal action by other states.
  That is well and good. He wants to maintain a level playing field, but if other states are giving advantage to their fishing industries, we must do the same.
  Such measures may not be demonstrably or provably illegal. In fact, I doubt whether social security reductions are illegal. They may be inconvenient for the Government or the Commission, but their legality is another issue

  147
  entirely. Even if they are illegal, it will take a long time to prove that and to get them removed. The crisis is now. It will take a long time for the argument within the European Union about whether this support can be given to this industry and whether it is legal or illegal to go through the official channels. How much of our industry will be left at the end? How many of the EU's industries will be left, given that they will have received aid through this long process of consideration?
  If my hon. Friend intends to contest these supports as illegal because they distort competition. does he have any prospect of success? Frankly, I doubt it, so it is important to keep our industry viable and to maintain a level fishing ground, which I am always talking about—it is a nice concept. Maintaining a level fishing ground means doing something for the industry now, not waiting to prove the illegality of what others are doing. The crisis is now, the impact is now, and the lack of viability is now.
  There has been a series of meetings with Ministers. My hon. Friend always listens patiently. He is the best informed Fishing Minister we have had for many years, and he keeps in close touch with the industry. I am repeating to him what the fishermen have said to him, but he knows it well.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the Minister. I think he is the best we have had since John Silkin. My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need to ensure that our fishermen get the same benefits as those in other member states of the European Union.
  Mr. Mitchell: I am most grateful for that contribution, and I support absolutely what my hon. Friend has just said about the need for intervention and about my hon. Friend.
  The first meeting was on 6 September, when the fishermen were told that officials would examine all options. At the next meeting on 15 September, they were told that this is a short-term crisis and that the United Kingdom had neither the funds nor the mechanism to provide a package of emergency aid to offset the price of fuel. My answer to that is: where there is a will there is a way, and the will and the way have existed in other countries, so why not here? What emerges from the account of that meeting given by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations is that there was no sense of urgency about helping the industry.
  Ministers referred to light dues. We have been talking about light dues for 10 years, ever since they were introduced. They should never have been put on in the first place, but they have not been taken off. We have been talking about satellite monitoring costs for three years, and there is no sign of help for the British industry. There are the GMDSS—global maritime distress and safety system—costs, survey charges and all the other regulatory burdens. There is talk of looking at those, but how urgently will they be looked at? When will they be looked at? What will be done about them? It is an urgent crisis now. The discussions at the meeting seem to have
  148
  exasperated the NFFO, because nothing was said about help in an immediate crisis, besides looking at ways to reduce fuel consumption, which the industry is doing anyway quite naturally.
  The Government hope for a major restructuring package. They hope that it will be done on the European scale, with money coming from the European Union, rather than the British Government. There is a need for a restructuring package, but from what I understand from the fishing industry, even the European Commission is blowing hot and cold on that proposal. The latest wind is apparently colder than the previous wind.
  Why does fishing always have to be the fall guy? I know that the finances of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are in a mess. I know that it has difficulty fulfilling all its commitments. I know that there has been a huge expense for agriculture, but why is it always fishing that is cut? Why is it never fishing that is helped, in the way that agriculture has been helped? Why is help postponed, apparently till the Ides of Brussels? Why is it always so slow to emerge from MAFF?
  Given the Treasury's usual tactic of blocking access to European funds, what hope do we have of getting help from Europe? The answer must be support for the British fishing industry that is comparable with that provided by European Governments—certainly some form of support is needed. It is not beyond the ingenuity of Government to find a way to support the fishing industry to see it through the immediate crisis.
  There is a long-term restructuring package. That is true; the Government have talked about it. We need that, but not now. What we need now is immediate help to survive: support to keep fishing going in the light of escalating fuel costs. The only answer must be an emergency package now.
  I therefore say to the Minister—who has had to listen patiently to an argument that he has heard many times; he always does listen—that he must do something. The British fishing industry needs help to keep going and to benefit from the major restructuring package that might be planned. However, to keep the industry going, something must be done. Please do something-do something now.
  12.2 am
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on advancing a persuasive argument and a strong case. I am grateful to him for his comments, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), who has a long experience of the fishing industry and long connections with it. I know that the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby are shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), who raised them in a question to the Prime Minister, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), who hails from Grimsby, and has long connections with the town and knows the industry well.
  I concede that there is a problem in relation to fuel costs in the fishing industry. The difficulty is how we can

  149
  address it, both in relation to the resources that I have available to me in the Ministry and within European law—the issue of state aids. It is true that the fishing industry does not pay tax on its fuel. Therefore, any measures to reduce taxation, which have been called for by the haulage sector, for example, will not work in the fishing industry. There is not much that we can do there.
  It is fair to say that the impact of fuel charges has hit different sectors of the industry in different ways. Beamers have been very badly hit because of the high fuel consumption of those fishing boats. I accept that some of the other larger vessels, such as the freezer fleet, have been hit, too.
  In relation to the Grimsby fleet, I should have thought that the anchor-seiners were among the lower fuel consumers. It is an environmentally friendly way of fishing; it is very selective and a large mesh is used. Ironically, in relation to costs, they are being rewarded for their fishing methods.
  As my hon. Friend rightly said, I have met industry representatives on various occasions. They have made their case very well and powerfully, and I accept it. I have been examining the issue of costs facing the industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby will understand, however, some of those costs fall to other Departments, such as the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in relation to light dues and Marine Coastguard Agency inspection costs. I am in discussions with the DETR on whether anything can be done about that. As my hon. Friend said, however, it is an issue of budgets and the Department's commitments. Nevertheless, I understand the case that the industry has made and I have agreed to look into it.
  At the last meeting, industry representatives made their case to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who also said that, if there are issues that we can explore, we would be only too pleased to do so. There are, however, no obvious solutions. I realise that the situation is made worse by a shortage of fish and—in some cases, particularly in the export market—by the price of fish. Exports account for up to 90 per cent. of the market for much of the wet fish fleet. As the high pound affects the prices received by parts of the fleet, joining the euro would help, but I know that my hon. Friend has mixed views about that.
  My hon. Friend made some points about the packages offered by other countries. I have examined those packages very carefully, and some of them are probably legal. The bulk of the Dutch package, for example, is a decommissioning scheme for the beam sector, and much of the remainder is to promote sustainable fishing. Its basic purpose, therefore, is to help beam trawlers to convert from beam trawling, which is perfectly legal under the structural funds. We ourselves have funds available to help fishermen who want to convert to other forms of fishing.
  The Greek Government are offering to continue 100 per cent. refund of fuel tax. However, we are doing that; there is nothing new about it. They have also been talking to the oil companies about trying to keeping down the fuel price for the fishing fleet. We might like very much to explore a bit more what the oil companies can do for the United Kingdom fishing fleet, which is vulnerable in selling its fish through markets.
  150
  I am not so sure that the French package is legal. In the example that my hon. Friend gave, the important point is not so much what the French Government are doing, but the intention of what they are doing. There is no doubt that the French Government presented their package as a reduction per litre of fuel, or that presenting a package in such a manner constitutes a state aid. I am sure that the Commission will have something to say about it. It has already asked the French Government to provide details of their packages so that it can carefully examine them. Although the legality of the package is a matter for the Commission, I have no doubt whatever that, if the Commission decides that it is illegal, it will take action against the French and the state aids will have to be repaid, as has happened before.
  Mr. Mitchell: But when will action be taken?
  Mr. Morley: We know how slowly the European Court can operate. I realise, therefore, that the possibility of such action is not a great short-term comfort to our industry.
  Last week, at the Fishing Council, when 1 discussed the matter informally with a French Minister, I said that the French package was altering competition policy within the European Union fishing fleet. He replied that, as my hon. Friend said, fishing opportunities are not equal. He complained bitterly that French fishermen were complaining to him that United Kingdom fishermen have an advantage in business tax, capital gains tax, corporation tax and social taxes. The United Kingdom fishing industry pays the lowest class II stamp rate in Europe. We have some of the lowest on-going taxation costs, as the French Minister had been reminded by his own industry. We should take that into account.
  It is also true that fuel costs are cyclical. My hon. Friend was right to say that, in the past 18 months, the fuel price has essentially trebled. Of course such an increase has an impact. It also demonstrates to fuel protesters, who claim that the issue is soley one of taxation, that even an industry that is paying no fuel tax whatever is still being hit. The bulk of the increase has come from the changes in world prices and the impact that that has had on the fishing industry, which I concede. It is likely that, as part of the cycle, fuel prices can go down as well as up. We are now in the winter period-a period of peak demand for heating oil, which affects the diesel oil market and the overall price of marine diesel.
  I told the industry that MAFF would pay for a consultant who would look not only at fuel efficiency, but at how the market works in relation to fuel and whether the industry could collectively advance purchase. The Dutch buy their fuel on the advance market collectively through their producer organisations, and I was willing to pay for a consultant to advise the industry about that. The industry felt that that was not the answer because of the overall costs, and I understand that point of view.
  We have available structural funds that can help the industry in several ways, although they are not designed to compensate in any way for movements in oil prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby is right that if we are to have major cod recovery programmes or a multi-annual guidance programme 5, we may need some substantial restructuring packages and the cost implications may be significant. I understand that and, depending on changes in fleet size and the MAGP, there

  151
  may be a need to look at the resources that we have available with the structural funds. If so, I am prepared to make the case for the industry on that basis.
  I appreciate that that does not deal with the immediate problem of fuel charges. It is not an easy problem to deal with. Most countries are not really giving their fishing
  152
  industries anything more than we are giving our industry, which still enjoys many lower payments and taxes than those other countries. I have given an undertaking—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twelve minutes past Twelve midnight.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Contraception
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's contributions to the provision of contraceptives in the developing world. [138526]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We are committed to the International Development target to attain universal access to reproductive health services before 2015. We have substantial involvement in efforts to ensure women and men in developing countries can access contraceptives and other reproductive health commodities.

  Our recent pledge to contribute an additional £25 million to the United Nations Population Fund, on top of our annual core contribution of £15 million, will help meet immediate and short-term needs, and assure continued access to essential reproductive health commodities, including condoms for family planning and HIV/AIDS prevention, in a number of countries which are facing shortages.

  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to other donor Governments about the supply of contraceptives in the developing world. [138527]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The recent pledges by this Department and the Government of the Netherlands, to contribute an additional £51 million to the United Nations Population Fund to help fund immediate and short-term needs in developing countries for reproductive health commodities, is a further demonstration of the commitment of both Governments to the health of poor people.

  We will continue to encourage other donors and developing countries to make every effort to meet the rising demand for contraception in the developing world.

  Intellectual Property Rights
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the effects of recent decisions within the WTO on patents and intellectual property rights in technological developments in the developing world. [138552]

  Mr. Foulkes
  [holding answer 16 November 2000]: The UK Government believe that intellectual property rights (IPR)—for instance, conferring copyright, patent or trade mark protection—provide an important incentive for private investment. Developing countries have an important interest in providing intellectual property protection, as a way of encouraging more foreign investment, research and innovation from which they should benefit.
  2W
  The Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement was introduced into the WTO in the Uruguay Rounds and sets minimum standards for intellectual property rights (IPR) protection.

  Developing countries agreed to implement TRIPs consistent legislation by January 2000. The least developed countries have until 2006 to comply. Therefore the real impacts are not yet visible and no conclusion can be drawn as to the effect of these rules on technological developments or otherwise in developing countries.

  The precise details of IPR regimes can and should be tailored to the particular circumstances of individual countries. The UK Government believe that the TRIPs agreement allows WTO members sufficient flexibility to implement domestic IPR regimes which take adequate account of their national circumstances. But governments and the international community do need to support improved arrangements to monitor the impacts of the current agreement to make sure that this is the case.

  GM Research
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the GM research funded by her Department which incorporates genetic systems designed to prevent seed germination. [138721]

  Mr. Foulkes
  [holding answer 16 November 2000]: This Department is not funding research which incorporates genetic systems designed to prevent seed germination.

  We have funded a study to examine the likely costs and benefits to the livelihoods of the poor in developing countries from the application of so-called "terminator genes" and similar technologies. The results of this work are being prepared for publication and will be disseminated widely.

  Development Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the outcome of the Development Council held in Brussels on 10 November; and if he will make a statement. [138452]

  Clare Short
  The main achievement was the adoption by the Council and the Commission of a Declaration on the European Community's Development Policy. This was a milestone for the EC. The Declaration provides the EC, for the first time, with a clear operational framework for all EC development assistance, with poverty reduction as the principal objective. This was an important UK objective in our published strategy for working with the EC. The Development Commissioner, Poul Nielson, also presented a comprehensive Action Programme for implementing the Declaration. He emphasised the multi-dimensional nature of poverty, the need to work within a country's own poverty reduction strategies, the importance of focusing EC development assistance on fewer areas and the need for further progress in ensuring that other EC policies such as fisheries, trade and agriculture do not undermine our development efforts.

  I strongly welcomed the Declaration and the Commission's plans for implementing the new policy. It remains essential to turn the operational framework into reality on the ground. My Department will be reviewing how we can help ensure that this is achieved.
  3W
  The Council also adopted an important new framework for preparation of EC Country Strategy Papers. This clarifies the need to collaborate closely with other donors and to focus on poverty reduction strategies developed by the partner country.

  The Council briefly reviewed the actions that have been taken to follow up the overall evaluation of EC programmes which had been discussed in May 1999. These included the adoption of an overall statement of EC development policy.

  The Council adopted a Resolution on Communicable Diseases which welcomed a recent Commission Communication and called for an Action Programme to implement it. The Council agreed on the need for a coherent approach to tackling these diseases which threaten poor people and hinder efforts to reduce poverty. Conclusions on the 6th Conference of the Parties on Climate Change were also adopted.

  During the pre-Council dinner there was an informal exchange of views on Liberia, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  School Skiing Lessons
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many British school children participated in ski lessons in(a) the UK and (b) Europe in each of the last three years as part of school organised sport. [138663]

  Kate Hoey
  Figures for the number of children participating in school organised skiing lessons are not centrally held. However, Crystal Holidays Industry Report 2000 estimates that in 1999–2000, 119,000 British children took part in school organised skiing holidays. These figures are not broken down between the UK and Europe.

  Free Television Licences (Cheltenham)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioners will receive free television licences in Cheltenham in 2000. [139283]

  Janet Anderson
  Everyone aged 75 or over will be entitled to benefit from a free television licence, but licences cover households rather than individuals. Estimates of the number of households which will receive a free licence are not available at constituency level and TV Licensing, which administers the concession as agent for the BBC, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of free licences issued. However, estimates of the over-75 population based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 7,400 people aged 75 or over in the Cheltenham constituency.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the accountability of English Heritage. [138867]
  4W
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament for the policies and performance of all public bodies sponsored by the Department, including English Heritage. In addition, the Chief Executive of English Heritage, as its Accounting Officer, and the Accounting Officer of DCMS are responsible to Parliament for the resources under their control, and can be summoned to appear before the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Lord Birt
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many meetings the Attorney-General has had with Lord Birt regarding crime since Lord Birt's appointment as an adviser to the Government on crime. [137317]

  The Solicitor General
  I refer to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 17 November 2000,Official Report, column 800W.

  Treasury Counsel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General if his Honour Gerald Butler QC has completed his review of arrangements for the instruction of Treasury Counsel at the Old Bailey. [139708]

  Solicitor General
  His Honour Gerald Butler QC delivered his report to the Attorney-General on 18 August 2000. The report recommends the retention of the Treasury Counsel system but makes important recommendations to open up and modernise the Treasury Counsel arrangements. The Government will be accepting most of the recommendations without modification.

  The system of selecting barristers to be monitored for appointment as Treasury Counsel will be reformed with the aim of encouraging applications from a broader cross-section of the bar (and solicitor advocates) and there will be a higher quality of monitoring so that able barristers have the best chance of an appointment.

  There will be clear rules as to the maximum permitted length of service of Junior and Senior Treasury Counsel. There will be new criteria governing the ambit of work sent to Treasury Counsel with the aim of reducing their considerable workload and giving other banisters more opportunity to be instructed in cases being prosecuted at the Old Bailey. Murder and manslaughter cases, not falling within the criteria, will not normally be prosecuted by Treasury Counsel at the Old Bailey in the future.

  Consideration will be given to instructing Counsel from the provinces in cases at the Old Bailey and, with a reduced volume of work, Treasury Counsel will be freed up to prosecute some cases in the provinces and to be instructed to defend in some cases. The practice whereby Junior Treasury Counsel are paid a brief fee of two thirds of that of Senior Treasury Counsel leading them, whatever work is to be done or not to be done, will cease. I believe these reforms will be of considerable benefit to the criminal justice system.
  5W
  The report and the Government's response have been placed today in the Libraries of each House for the information of Members. It is also being published today on the Attorney-General's website (www.lslo.gov.uk), with copies being made available to interested parties.

DEFENCE

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations have been carried out by his Department into Gulf War syndrome; what are the causes of Gulf War-related illnesses; and if he will make a statement. [138454]

  Mr. Spellar
  In July 1997, the Government published a detailed policy statement: "Gulf Veterans' Illnesses: A New Beginning", which set out how we proposed to address veterans' health concerns, including 20 key points on which the Government are taking specific action. Progress against the 20 key points has been reported and published, the most recent occasion being as part of the Defence Committee's Eleventh Special Report, Session 1999–2000. Further details of the Government's work to date can be found in the Library of the House and on my Department's website at: http://gulfwar.mod.uk. The Government accept that since returning from the Gulf conflict, some British veterans have become ill. Many believe that this ill-health is unusual and directly related to their participation in the conflict. Research published so far shows that Gulf veterans report more health problems than comparable military personnel who were not deployed to the Gulf.

  However, the findings also support the view that Gulf veterans were not suffering from a single illness or "syndrome", and that the illnesses identified were not unique to the veterans. There is still no medical or scientific consensus on this subject. My Department remains open minded about the various causes of illness which have been suggested and important research continues.

  Helicopter Bases
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on plans to review the locations of the home bases of helicopters in the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [138544]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 14 November 2000,Official Report, column 574W, and on 13 June 2000, Official Report, column 565W, and to my letter dated 24 August to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne).

  New Equipment Capabilities
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what initiatives his Department outlined at the university of Lancaster for a range of new equipment capabilities designed to improve the SSN's operational effectiveness in littoral zones; what initiatives were laid out for a network-centric concept of operations; and if he will make a statement; [138982]
  6W
  (2) what plans the Royal Navy Submarine Service has for improved connectivity and advanced intelligence, surveillance, targeting, and reconnaissance capabilities to change the contribution of nuclear attack submarine to future joint operations; and if he will make a statement. [138978]

  Mr. Spellar
  At the Submarine Centennial Conference (27–29 September 2000), the Ministry of Defence's Equipment Capability Customer organisation outlined the research programme to inform new equipment capabilities that will improve our ship, submarine and aircraft operational effectiveness, in support of littoral operations contributing towards a more joint defence capability. Rear Admiral Rob Stevens, Flag Officer Submarines, and members of his staff, also addressed the conference.

  The research programme includes work relevant to operations in littoral zones: hull-mounted sonar arrays; communications technologies; Recoverable Tethered Optical Fibre buoys; and mine detection and avoidance.

  We are also conducting research related to a network-centric concept of operations, and to improve connectivity and advanced intelligence, surveillance, targeting and reconnaissance capabilities. The aim is to integrate underwater assets fully with wider maritime, air and land forces. There is a large programme of research and development work under way specific to the underwater battlespace. Some highlights include research into multistatics, allowing ships, submarines and maritime aircraft to exploit each other's sensors; remote sensor active acoustics; long-range acoustic communications; remotely deployed sensor systems; static sensors and Underwater Unmanned Vehicles. These technologies have wide military utility, and commercial applications, which are also developing rapidly, will be taken into account.

  Soldiers
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if soldiers assigned to the EU defence capability may be used in operations outside Europe. [138724]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 16 November 2000]: Troops on EU-led operations could be deployed outside Europe. The European Union has resolved to establish the capability, where NATO as a whole is not engaged, to launch and conduct military operations in response to international crises. The United Kingdom is committed to support the development of this capability, and will offer British forces to such operations in the light of circumstances at the time, which may involve deployment outside Europe.

  Common European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state(a) the title and function of each of the military bodies established within the Secretariat of the Union, as agreed in December 1999, (b) the names of each of the representatives of the United Kingdom, together with their service rank, appointed to each, together with any other office held by them, (c) the body or institution of the Union that supervises the activities of each committee and to whom they are accountable and

  7W
  (d) what meetings of the Union he has attended in 2000 with members of the Governments of other member states. [139084]

  Mr. Hoon
  At the Helsinki European Council in December 1999, EU member states agreed to the establishment of a Military Committee and a Military Staff within the European Council.

  The function of the Military Committee is to give military advice, make recommendations to the Political and Security Committee and provide military direction to the Military Staff. The Chairman of the Military Committee will attend meetings of the Council when decisions with defence implications are to be taken.

  The function of the Military Staff is to provide military expertise and support to the Common European Security and Defence Policy, including on the conduct of EU—led operations. The Military Staff will perform early warning, situation assessment and strategic planning for Petersberg tasks.

  As an interim measure, the Council agreed to set up the following bodies within the Council as of March 2000:

  (a) An interim body of military representatives of member states' Chiefs of Defence to give military advice as required to the interim political and security committee.

  (b) Military experts seconded from member states to strengthen the Council Secretariat in order to assist in the work on the CESDP and to form the nucleus of the future Military Staff.

  The UK representative in the interim body of military representatives is the Chief of Defence Staff. This body, known as the interim Military Body, (iMB) meets at Chiefs of Defence Staff level as and when needed. A Lieutenant General acts as the permanent representative in the iMB on behalf of the Chief of Defence Staff for day—to—day business. In addition to his role in the iMB the Lieutenant General is also the UK representative in both the NATO Military Committee and the Western European Union Military Delegates.

  The military experts seconded from member states to strengthen the Council Secretariat are known as the interim Military Staff (iMS). The UK has seconded two officers to the iMS, a Major General to head the body and one staff officer (Lt. Col. level).

  The interim Military Staff is accountable to the interim Military Body, which is in turn accountable to the General Affairs Council.

  I attended General Affairs Council meetings on 14 June and 20 November. The Minister for Defence Procurement attended a meeting of the General Affairs Council on my behalf on 20 March.

  In addition, I attended informal meetings of EU Defence Ministers on 28 February and 22 September.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the assessment he has made of the impact on the organisational efficacy and cost of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and of the chain of command to individual military units of adding to the existing NATO contingency planning, the parallel obligations now 8W
  contemplated within the European Union; and if he will indicate what extra forces will be necessary to fulfil such dual demands. [139056]

  Mr. Hoon
  The commitments we have made to develop the military crisis management capabilities of the European Union will strengthen both the European Union and NATO. The establishment of a small military staff within the EU will be partly offset by the winding down of the Western European Union. British forces will be contributed to multinational operations in the framework of the European Union on a voluntary basis, depending on the circumstances at the time.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of how many British(a) military personnel, (b) aircraft, (c) ships and (d) armoured vehicles he estimates will be seconded to the EU under plans put forward at the St. Malo, Cologne and Feira meetings for the development of EU defence policy. [138681]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 16 November 2000]: No British forces are being seconded to the EU. The UK, along with other member states, will identify a range of forces from which a contribution to an EU—led military crisis management operation could be drawn.

  The details of this contribution will not be finalised until the Capability Commitments Conference on 20 November.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what United Kingdom forces will be offered to help meet the Headline Goal adopted by the EU at its Helsinki summit; and if he will make a statement. [139515]

  Mr. Hoon
  Over the last six months, military experts of EU member states assisted by NATO planners, have carried out a detailed assessment of the forces and capabilities required by the EU to enable it to carry out by 2003 the full range of crisis management ("Petersberg") tasks envisaged in the Headline Goal set at Helsinki. The UK has identified a pool of forces and capabilities which would enable it to make a powerful contribution to such options in support of the Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy, where NATO as a whole is not engaged. UK participation in any particular operation, and the nature of our contribution, would be matters for decision by the UK Government in the light of circumstances at the time.

  In the maximum scale operation envisaged at Helsinki—a corps level of deployment of up to 60,000 troops—the UK component could be around 12,500 strong. Maritime and air deployments of up to 18 warships and 72 combat aircraft could be made in addition.

  The pool provides for an element of choice in order to cater for differing operational, political or geographical circumstances. The full details of the forces identified are confidential, but the major elements are as follows:

  Land

  Either an armoured or mechanised brigade, each of which could be sustained for at least a year; or an air assault brigade which would be deployed for up to six months. Combat support enabling capabilities such as artillery, and short range air defence and attack helicopters

  9W
  could be deployed in addition, supported by the appropriate complement of logistic enablers and national support troops.

  Maritime

  Maritime forces comprising one aircraft carrier, two nuclear powered submarines, deployment of up to four destroyers/frigates, support vessels; and an amphibious task group, including one helicopter landing platform and an amphibious brigade. The aircraft carrier, helicopter landing platform and submarines could not necessarily be sustained continuously for a whole year.

  Air

  Up to 72 combat aircraft (including Sea Harriers), with associated support aircraft including strategic transport. This number would be available for six months to cover initial theatre entry. For a longer term commitment the total would reduce.

  The development of the EU Headline Goal and the commitment of EU member states to delivering the capabilities required are important steps in a wider process of improving European defence capabilities. They will reinforce efforts being made nationally and multinationally, in particular, in response to NATO initiatives, and, in so doing, strengthen the European contribution to the Alliance.

  Trident
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans exist in respect of submariners in Trident submarines being trapped on the sea bed; if the Royal Navy has the capability to deal with such emergencies without the use of outside agencies; and if he will make a statement. [138803]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UK submarine Rescue Service has the capability to deal with rescue from any submarine without the use of outside agencies. However, every rescue attempt from a submarine trapped on the sea bed, regardless of nationality, has to be evaluated to determine the optimum solution taking into consideration speed/time and distance. This may mean that it is quicker to rescue distressed submariners using the assistance of other nations' submarine rescue assets.

  European Airspace
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of the adoption of the proposals of the European Commission for the creation of a common European sky on existing provisions and agreements, concerning the powers of Her Majesty's Government to make such arrangements with NATO allies. [139063]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Commission's proposals are still being developed. A formal presentation of the proposals is expected to be made to the Stockholm Summit in March 2001. The need to ensure sufficient access to airspace for both civil and military purposes will be highlighted, as will the need to respect national security and defence requirements. Bringing together civil and military expertise at European level, in co—operation with NATO, is an important element of the work being undertaken. I10W
  am content that our active engagement in the process will ensure that the defence needs of the UK and our allies will not be compromised.

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) service and (b) civilian personnel are employed (i) by DARA and (ii) outwith DARA at RAF St. Athan. [138886]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 1 October 2000, DARA employed 729 service personnel and 2,224 civilian personnel at RAF St. Athan. The non DARA personnel employed at St. Athan on that date were 669 service personnel and 340 civilians.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many headquarters staff were employed by DARA at RAF St. Athan when it was launched in April 1999. [138883]

  Mr. Spellar
  There were 39 staff employed in the DARA Head Office at RAF St. Athan on 1 April 1999.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the cost of re—locating DARA operations at RAF St. Athan to Cardiff International Airport. [138884]

  Mr. Spellar
  DARA are conducting a rigorous investment appraisal of the various options to provide modern infrastructure for its Aircraft Business Unit. This investment appraisal is not yet complete and an accurate cost is therefore not yet available.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) military and (b) civilian personnel are employed by DARA at (i) Fleetlands, (ii) Almondbank and (iii) RAF Sealand. [139327]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of personnel employed by DARA at its four locations is set out in the table.

  Locations

  Civilian

  Service

  Fleetlands

  1,103

  13

  Almondbank

  363

  0

  Sealand

  1,070

  184

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the annual cost of maintaining RAF St. Athan if DARA were to re—locate elsewhere. [139330]

  Mr. Spellar
  No decision has been made yet to relocate the DARA elsewhere. Options are being considered, and the extent of any relocation, if it were to go ahead, has not been decided. Until a full business case has been prepared, no estimate of the cost of maintaining RAF St. Athan without the DARA can be provided.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian employees working for DARA at RAF St. Athan live in the Vale of Glamorgan. [139583]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  11W
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who in his Department was involved in the appointment of the Chief Executive of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency; when he was appointed; and what criteria were used to assess his suitability for the post. [138273]

  Mr. Spellar
  The selection board for the Chief Executive of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency consisted of the Chief of Defence Procurement, the Air Member for Logistics, the Deputy Under Secretary of State for Civilian Management (Principal Establishment Officer) and the Non Executive Director of the Air Officer Communications, Information Systems and Support Services RAF Signals and Engineering Establishment (AOCSS's RAF SEE) Owners Board. The board was chaired by the Civil Service Commissioner and confirmed by Ministers. CE/DARA designate was appointed on 1 September 1998.

  The Department was seeking an innovative Chief Executive to lead and motivate a diverse team during the creation and development of the new Agency, and to devise a strategy for moving the Agency to Trading Fund status in order to operate on a fully commercial basis. Candidates were asked to demonstrate experience at Director/Board level of successful change management to improve working methods and achieve cost reductions in an organisation relevant to the core business of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency. In addition to commercial experience, financial acumen was also sought.

  Service Personnel (Medical Treatment)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his letter dated 19 October 2000 to the hon. Member for Gosport in reply to his question of 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 911W, if he will give figures of medically downgraded personnel in the (a) Royal Navy, (b) Royal Marines, (c) Army and (d) RAF for each of the preceding five years on the same basis. [139009]

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

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the hon. Member for Gosport will receive a substantive answer to his question put down for priority answer on 28 July 2000 concerning the detailed strengths of doctors and nurses in each medical and surgical specialty in recent years. [139010]

  Dr. Moonie
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 14 November and copies of my letter have been placed in the Library.

  Aircraft (Fuel Capacity)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the fuel capacity is of(a) a Tristar and (b) a VC10 aircraft; and how many standard road fuel tankers it takes to fill (i) one Tristar and (ii) one VC10. [139164]
  12W
  Mr. Spellar
  The fuel capacity of Tristar and VC10 aircraft and the numbers of standard road fuel tankers it takes to fill each is detailed in the table.

  Number of aircraft in fleet

  Max fuel capacity (litres)

  Number of bowsers to fill aircraft Civilian road bowser (35,000 litres)

  TriStar mark of aircraft

  C2/C2A

  3

  121,134

  3.46

  KCl/K1

  6

  176,530

  5.04

  VC10 mark of aircraft

  CMk1(K)

  12

  87,940

  2.51

  KMk2

  1

  98,055

  2.80

  KMk3

  4

  104,601

  2.99

  KMk4

  5

  88,054

  2.52

  HMS Ocean
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what problems are scheduled to be resolved during the docking period of HMS Ocean; when it is estimated that the ship will be operational; what will be the cost of the repairs; and if he will make a statement. [138423]

  Mr. Spellar
  The next docking period of HMS Ocean is planned for early 2002 and is likely to span about four months. This is the first routine docking since acceptance, as required to meet Lloyd's survey standards, and is expected to cost in the region of £5 million. During this docking period, the opportunity will be taken to make modifications to the hull to improve the safety of the deployment of some of the landing craft.

  In addition, when HMS Ocean returns from her current deployment, routine maintenance will be undertaken at her base port. During this maintenance, defect repair will also be undertaken; the most significant of these will be modifications to the landing craft davit arrangements, enhancements to the replenishment—at—sea facilities and changes to the main engine governors. These repairs are expected to cost in the region of £2 million.

  HMS Ocean has been deployed on operations and exercises throughout the last two years and is currently on deployment with an amphibious ready group. As in all first of class ships, operating the vessel has indicated the need for improvements in some areas. These are being addressed in the programmed support periods.

  Porton Products
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what products manufactured at CAMR and Porton Down were subject to agreements with Porton Products for their marketing and distribution between 1986 and 1994; where these products were(a) marketed and (b) distributed to; and if he will make a statement. [138421]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply

  Porton Products Ltd. was purchased by a French company, the Beaufour Ipsen Group, in 1994. I refer the hon. Member to the list of products subject to the marketing agreement with Porton Products Ltd., which has been deposited in the Library. Neither CAMR nor the

  13W
  Department has information relating to the locations in which CAMR products were marketed and distributed by Porton Products Ltd. Beaufour Ipsen may be able to provide the hon. Member with such information.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Transport Investment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what public investment in public transport and road improvement has been made since 1997. [135209]

  Historic and planned expenditure

  £ billion1

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Public Investment expenditure

  2.8

  2.3

  2.7

  2.8

  3.3

  4.5.

  6.8

  of which:

  Strategic roads

  0.9

  0.8

  0.7

  0.9

  1

  1.1

  1.2

  Rail

  0

  0

  0.1

  0.1

  0.3

  1

  2.3

  Local transport

  0.6

  0.4

  0.5

  0.8

  1.3

  1.5

  1.7

  London

  1.2

  1

  1.2

  1

  0.6

  0.8

  0.9

  Other transport areas

  0.1

  0

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Public Resource expenditure

  4.7

  4.9

  5.2

  5.3

  5.5

  5.7

  5.9

  of which:

  Strategic roads

  0.3

  0.3

  0.5

  0.5

  0.6

  0.7

  0.7

  Rail

  1.8

  1.7

  1.5

  1.4

  1.4

  1.3

  1.3

  Local transport

  2.1

  2.3

  2.5

  2.6

  2.8

  2.9

  3

  London

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.6

  0.6

  0.7

  0.7

  Other transport areas

  0.1

  0.1

  0.3

  0.1

  0.1

  0.2

  0.1

  Total Public expenditure

  7.4

  7.2

  7.8

  8.1

  8.8

  10.2

  12.1

  of which:

  Strategic roads

  1.2

  1.2

  1.2

  1.4

  1.6

  1.8

  1.9

  Rail

  1.8

  1.7

  1.6

  1.5

  1.6

  2.3

  3.6

  Local transport

  2.6

  2.8

  3

  3.4

  4.1

  4.4

  4.7

  London

  1.6

  1.4

  1.7

  1.6

  1.2

  1.5

  1.7

  Other transport areas

  0.1

  0.1

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  1 Rounded, outturn prices

  Animal Rendering Plants
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the implications of the Phillips report for animal rendering plants. [136385]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Phillips Inquiry report raises a wide range of issues, including some concerning the management, operation and regulation of meat rendering plants. The Government are considering the implications of this extensive and complex report and will publish a response in due course.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries between 1 December and 5 January have been attributed to drinking and driving in each of the last 10 years. [136502]
  14W
  Mr. Hill
  "Transport 2010: The 10—Year Plan" published by the Government in July contained details of historic and planned future levels of public investment in transport. Between 1997–98 and 1999–2000, DETR funded public capital investment in transport totalling £7.8 billion in cash terms. In the same period DETR funded public expenditure on transport totalling £22.4 billion in cash terms. The table provides a breakdown of these figures by mode of transport and year and illustrates how spending on transport is due to increase as a result of the Spreading Review 2000 settlement announced by the Chancellor in July. Copies of the 10—Year Plan have been placed in the House Libraries.

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The estimates of casualties in drink drive related accidents in Great Britain are shown as follows:

  Casualties in drink drive accidents 1 December-5 January

  Fatal

  Serious

  1989

  60

  450

  1990

  50

  330

  1991

  60

  340

  1992

  60

  280

  1993

  40

  230

  1994

  50

  230

  1995

  60

  280

  1996

  50

  230

  1997

  40

  220

  1998–991

  50

  210

  1 Provisional

  These figures are shown rounded to the nearest 10.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the major breakdowns on the London Underground in the last 12 months. [137380]

  Mr. Hill
  This is an operational matter for London Underground (LUL) but they have provided the following information.

  LUL keep a range of records of incidents on the London Underground system. They do not use the term "major breakdown" as such, but the most appropriate measure to refer to is the record LUL have of operational or mechanical incidents which give rise to delays to passengers of over one hour. For the purpose of answering this question a "major breakdown" is therefore taken to be an incident which gives rise to delays to passengers of over one hour on the system, and is related to a failure of infrastructure or assets on the system.

  The table sets out, by line and by main categories of infrastructure or asset failure, the number of such incidents during the 12 months to 14 October 2000. The incidents are in practice very varied, and categories may inevitably overlap to some extent: for example, track failures may be closely linked to signal problems, and train or track failures may be linked to power problems.

  The table excludes incidents which are not related to a failure of infrastructure or assets on the system. These include a wide range of instances: for example delays due to passengers reporting the smell of burning, or water on platforms, or broken glass roof panels at a station.

  Failures

  Train/signal/track

  Escalator

  Lifts

  Power

  Bakerloo Line

  19

  8

  36

  18

  Central Line

  17

  8

  —

  8

  District Line

  13

  —

  —

  11

  Jubilee and East London Lines

  8

  3

  —

  4

  Metropolitan and Circle (C and H)

  11

  —

  —

  2

  Metropolitan and Circle (Main)

  8

  3

  —

  10

  Northern Line

  7

  48

  1

  16

  Piccadilly Line

  7

  10

  4

  9

  Victoria Line

  9

  73

  —

  11

  Waterloo and City

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  104

  153

  41

  89

  Rail Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to ensure that better information is made available to the travelling public concerning the cancellation and disruption of train services arising from(a) Railtrack's rail replacement programmes and (b) disruption caused by adverse weather conditions. [138164]

  Mr. Hill
  On 9 November, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister met senior rail industry representatives to discuss progress with the national track recovery plan, including the need to provide better information to passengers during the current disruption to services. Train operators have, among other things,16W
  increased staffing on stations and trains by 1,000 and have placed posters on stations and distributed newsletters to passengers setting out service changes. The National Rail Enquiry Service has an extra 200 staff to help at its call centres and the National Rail website ("www.nationalrail.co.uk") is updating travel information three times an hour.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will discuss with Ofwat proposals to encourage water companies to offer support to farmers who are committed to methods of cultivation and land management which reduce pesticide usage. [138302]

  Mr. Mullin
  Diffuse sources of pollution, including from the inappropriate use, mis—use or run—off from agricultural pesticides, fertilisers and cultivation (erosion) can increase the cost of purifying drinking water. The regulatory regime provides an incentive for water companies to adopt the most cost—effective way of delivering clean water to their customers. In some cases, there will be scope for innovative approaches to cutting treatment costs by reducing diffuse pollution. This could include supporting farmers in reducing their usage of chemicals, and I very much welcome the efforts of those water companies who have chosen to do this.

  However, water companies are not responsible for the environmental quality of water more generally. The Government therefore believe that the principal channel for financial support for environmentally friendly farming practice should continue to be agri—environment measures. Expenditure on these measures will more than double in England over the seven year period of the England Rural Development Programme. The Government have published Codes of Good Agricultural Practice to help farmers protect water, air and soil, and also the Green Code for the safe use of pesticides. We are also encouraging the Environment Agency to focus more regulatory effort on the causes of diffuse pollution, particularly where bathing waters or river water quality objectives are threatened.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what actions he will take following the conclusion of the inquiry into the sinking of the MV Derbyshire. [138263]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 8 November 2000,Official Report, columns 239–40W about the MV Derbyshire Report.

  The Honourable Mr. Justice Colman's report was published on 8 November 2000, and copies have been placed in the Commons Library.

  Mr. Justice Colman made a total of twenty—four 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.
  17W
  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.

  Council Tax Bands
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many properties are in Band F and above, broken down by(a) registered social landlords and (b) local authority in (i) London and (ii) England. [138627]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have placed in the Library of the House a table showing the number of dwellings in Bands F and above in each local authority in England. The Department does not collect separate information which allows this to be broken down by registered social landlords.

  Walton Group Plc
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on recovering the city grant awarded to Walton Group plc for the regeneration of Exchange Flags in Liverpool. [138751]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Police investigations are still in progress, and therefore it would be inappropriate for me to make any further statement at this time.

  Housing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the need for provision of affordable housing in advance of his publication of his(a) rural white paper and (b) urban white paper. [138548]

  Mr. Mullin
  While the Government have from time to time commissioned studies of the extent and nature of housing need to inform their views on the need for affordable housing in England, they believe that neither national nor regional estimates can adequately reflect the diversity of needs and priorities which exist at the local level. For these reasons, the Government believe that local authorities are best placed to carry out assessments of housing need in their areas.

  But the Government recognise that in many areas there is a need for more affordable housing. That is why we shall be almost doubling funding for affordable housing through the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme over the next three years. Our Rural White Paper will set out our policies for affordable housing provision in rural areas.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of the recommendations made in the Policy Action Team 7 report from the Performance and Innovation Unit, "Unpopular Housing" his Department(a) has implemented to date and (b) plans to implement in the near future. [138547]
  18W
  Mr. Mullin
  Nearly all recommendations are being progressed. A number of these have been implemented in full. Several were included as proposals for reform in the Housing Green Paper, published in April. We will make an announcement on the outcome of consultation on the Green Paper later this year. An Audit tracking progress on implementing the recommendations made by all 18 Policy Action Teams will be published by the Social Exclusion Unit in the next few months.

  National Rail Inquiry Service
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent steps he has taken to improve the quality of the National Rail Inquiry Service. [138524]

  Mr. Hill
  The National Rail Inquiry Service is provided by train operators and administered by the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC). It has recently increased staffing levels by 15 per cent. (200 staff) and has introduced a new recorded state—of—the—network information service to provide better information to passengers during the current disruption to rail services.

  Planning Inquiries
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to accelerate the decision—making process with regard to planning inquiries. [138615]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) on 27 June 2000,Official Report, columns 453–54W.

  The statutory instruments setting out the streamlined procedures for handling planning appeals by written representations, hearings and inquiries in England, and laid before Parliament that day, came into effect on 1 August 2000.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has held with Railtrack about the second phase of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link; and if he will make a statement. [138531]

  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack have said that they will take a decision on exercising their option once they have the final outcome of the Regulator's periodic review process. As yet the Department has received no formal approach from Railtrack concerning Section 2 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Railtrack has already committed to purchase Section 1 of the link and has previously indicated its desire to exercise its exclusive option to purchase Section 2.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates he has made of the dates on which the(a) first and (b) second phases of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link will be in service. [138529]
  19W
  Mr. Hill
  (a) Construction on Section 1 remains on time and on budget. Services are due to start in October 2003.

  (b) Assuming Railtrack's agreement to purchase, construction on Section 2 is due to start in July 2001. Services are due to start in 2007.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent estimate he has made of the cost of building the second phase of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. [138530]

  Mr. Hill
  The target construction cost of Section 2 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link remains at £2.5 billion at 1997 prices.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the passenger figures were for Eurostar journeys in the last year for which figures are available; and what assessment he has made of the need for subsidy to complete the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. [138517]

  Mr. Hill
  The most recent passenger figures are for the year 1999 when 7,046,000 tickets were sold. This was a 4 per cent. increase on 1998. In 2000 to date Eurostar have sold 5,914,000 tickets, an increase of 11 per cent. on the same period last year.

  The Government are providing Capital Grant towards both sections of the CTRL, with £78 million going towards Section 1 and £1.7 billion towards Section 2. Both figures are at 1997 prices.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase competition in the United Kingdom water industry. [138616]

  Mr. Mullin
  On 6 November 2000 the Government published a consultation document on a draft Water Bill. The draft Bill would give the Director General of Water Services in England and Wales a new duty to protect the interests of consumers in relation to water and sewerage services including, wherever appropriate, by promoting effective competition.

  In April this year, my Department published, jointly with the National Assembly for Wales, a consultation paper on the broad options for extending competition in the water industry in England and Wales. There have since been a number of proposals within the industry for restructuring. In the light of the responses to the consultation exercise and these other recent developments in the industry, we are carrying out further work to examine options for increasing competition. We will consider what legislative changes may be needed to promote competition as part of this work, and will make a statement setting out our conclusions early next year.

  The Scottish Executive is responsible for the water industry in Scotland.
  20W

  EU Environment Legislation
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the effect of European legislation on wildlife and the management of(a) nature conservation areas and (b) green belt sites since 1997. [139065]

  Mr. Mullin
  Nature conservation areas in England are generally notified as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) because they host the best examples of our national heritage of wildlife habitats, geological features and landforms. In relation to the first part of his question I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 16 November 2000,Official Report, column 727W.

  In relation to the second part, green belt designation has no bearing on the notification of wildlife sites for the purposes of European Union legislation.

  School Transport
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about those local authorities which require school transport to meet R66 standard. [138843]

  Mr. Hill
  I am not aware of any local authority requiring school buses to meet the UN ECE Regulation 66 standard, which applies to the strength of superstructure of coaches. This standard is required for single—deck coaches first used in the UK on or after 1 April 1993. However, local authorities can specify the age and type of vehicle used for school transport and could require ECE Regulation 66 compliance by specifying coaches first used after April 1993 in their contracts.

  Bus Companies
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those bus companies which have had prohibition notices issued against them in the last 12 months. [138844]

  Mr. Hill
  Details of operators and any prohibitions which they receive are not released because they might be open to misinterpretation.

  Prohibitions issued to bus operators by the Vehicle Inspectorate are monitored by Traffic Commissioners. They consider whether an operator should be called to appear at a Public Inquiry (under the Public Passengers Vehicles Act 1981) and decide whether disciplinary action is appropriate.

  In the financial year ending 31 March 2000, disciplinary action was taken against bus and coach operators on 172 occasions.

  Park Homes
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the regulations relating to static caravans; and if he will make a statement. [139254]

  Mr. Mullin
  Recommendations for changes to the control regime applying to mobile homes were included in the report of the Park Homes Working Party, published earlier this year. We have consulted on, and are considering, the Working Party's recommendations.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions who Her Majesty's Government's representatives were at the Hague Conference on curbing emissions of greenhouse gases; and what conclusions were reached to which Her Majesty's Government acceded. [138532]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 17 November 2000]: The Deputy Prime Minister and I will represent the Government at the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is currently taking place in The Hague. The ministerial segment begins on 20 November and the Conference is scheduled to end on 24 November. The Government will inform the House about the outcome of the Conference in due course.

  Rough Sleepers (East Sussex)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many rough sleepers there were in(a) East Sussex and (b) the Lewes constituency in the last year for which figures are available. [139038]

  Ms Armstrong
  The latest available figures for the number of rough sleepers in each of the local authorities in East Sussex are shown in the table. There are no specific figures available for the parliamentary constituency of Lewes.

  These figures show the position as at June 2000. These figures are compiled on the basis of local authority data from local street counts, and estimates provided by local authorities.

  Number of rough sleepers

  Brighton and Hove

  26

  Eastbourne

  1

  Hastings

  3

  Lewes

  10

  Rother

  10

  Wealden

  20

  1 Estimated

  2 No estimate made by local authority

  Automatic Train Ticket Machines
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what progress his Department has made in ensuring that all automatic train ticket machines have facilities for accepting rail cards held by disabled people; [138782]

  (2) if his Department will take steps to ensure that all automatic train ticket machines are able to provide discounted tickets to groups of people with a statutory entitlement to a discounted fare. [138781]
  22W
  Mr. Hill
  Automatic ticket machines inherited by train operators from British Rail offer a limited number of ticket options and train operators have had to decide which tickets to include on the basis of greatest demand. The new generation ticket machines gradually being introduced by train operators will allow a wider range of tickets to be sold and we expect train operators to include discounted tickets for Disabled Persons Railcard holders.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many grants have been awarded under the home energy efficiency scheme in the Newcastle upon Tyne, Central constituency from 1997–98 to 1999–2000; and what was the(a) total and (b) average value of grants in that period. [139159]

  Mr. Meacher
  The number of grants and their total value and average value for each year from 1997–2000 is shown in the table. Also shown is the comparative information for the current year to date.

  Period

  Number of grants

  Average value of grant £

  Total value of grant £

  1997–98

  606

  142

  85,900

  1998–99

  450

  135

  60,600

  1999–00

  511

  162

  82,800

  2000–011

  1,133

  371

  420,100

  For overall period 1997–2000

  2,700

  241

  649,400

  1 Up to 13 November 2000

  The average value of grant has increased substantially in the current year following the launch of the new Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) for England on 1 June 2000. It replaced the more basic scheme that operated since 1991. HEES provides packages of insulation and heating measures, linked to the condition of the property and the type of householder. The grant maximum increased from £315 up to £2,000.

  South East England Regional Assembly
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the cost to public funds to date of the South East England Regional Assembly, broken down into provision for(a) salaries of staff, (b) premises, (c) disbursements to members and (d) others. [138783]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Expenditure for the year 2000–01 as at the end of September 2000 is as follows:

  £

  (a) Salaries of staff

  128,729

  (b) Premises 1

  0

  (c) Disbursements to members

  22,226

  (d) Others

  89,425

  Total

  240,380

  1 Rent free office provided by the Government Office for the South East

  Emergency Tug (Pentland Firth)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2000,Official Report, column 488W, on the emergency tug in the Pentland Firth, if he will place a copy of the correspondence in the Library. [139078]

  Mr. Hill
  I am unable to provide this information as correspondence between Ministers and their correspondents is treated in confidence unless the originator chooses to make such issues public.

  British-Irish Council Environmental Sectoral Group
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the British—Irish Council Environmental Sectoral Group meeting held in London on 2 October. [138742]

  Mr. Meacher
  A copy of the Communiqué issued at the end of the meeting which sets out very clearly all the matters covered has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what data he provided to the British—Irish Council Environmental Sectoral Group on the environmental impact of munitions dumping in the Beaufort's Dyke. [138744]

  Mr. Meacher
  I did not provide any information on the environmental impact of munitions dumping in the Beaufort's Dyke to the 2 October meeting of the British-Irish Council Environmental Sectoral Group. The meeting reviewed the conclusions of the OSPAR Regional Quality Status Report on the Celtic Seas which has been made public.

  Radioactive Discharge (Irish Sea)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what forecast he has made of the level of radioactive discharge into the Irish Sea in each year to 2020, indicating the measures he will take to ensure fulfilment of the OSPAR Agreement. [138743]

  Mr. Meacher
  The consultation document on a UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges 2001–20, which was published in June, shows how we shall implement the agreements on radioactive discharges reached at the 1998 Ministerial meeting of the OSPAR Commission. It includes projected discharge profiles by sector for the nuclear industry, for the period to 2020. Responses to the consultation are now being considered, with a view to issuing the final strategy in the spring. The final strategy will show separate projections for radioactive discharges into the relevant OSPAR sea areas, one of which is the Celtic Seas, which includes the Irish Sea. Statutory guidance to the Environment Agency, which is about to be issued in draft for consultation, will ensure that future discharge authorisations are consistent with the discharges strategy. The strategy will also contain environmental concentration data for a key set of indicators designed to monitor progress in implementing our OSPAR commitments and will be updated every four years. Comprehensive data on the amounts of radionuclides 24W
  discharged from UK installations and their concentrations in the marine environment are published annually in "Radioactivity in Food and the Environment", a joint report by the Food Standards Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

  Bill Boards
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans to change the restrictions on the siting of bill boards in the countryside. [138868]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on 7 November 2000,Official Report, column 136W.

  Departmental Pay Bill
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2000,Official Report, column 467W, on payroll administration, what the total wage bill is estimated to be in 2000–01 for his Department and its agencies. [139011]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The estimated wage bill for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and its Agencies, in the financial year 2000–01, is £464 million.

  Ministerial Visit (Santiago)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the purpose was of the visit of the Minister for Housing and Planning to Santiago, Chile on 9 and 10 November; and what was the total costs to public funds. [138484]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I led a very successful trade mission to Brazil and Chile from 5–10 November. We visited Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo and Santiago. Accompanying me were around a dozen representatives from the British construction industry. The purpose of the mission was to promote British construction exports. In Santiago we met with the Chilean British Chamber, the Minister of Justice, the Under-Secretary for the Economy, Energy and Mining, the Under-Secretary for Finance and the Director General of the Ministry for Public Works and participated in a seminar to promote the use of Public—Private Partnerships to facilitate greater investment in public infrastructure. A large number of UK construction companies are now pursuing the opportunities opened up during this mission. While I was in Santiago, I took the opportunity to address the Canning House conference on Chile and the EU which coincided with my visit. Other speakers from the UK included Baroness Hooper, Chris Patten and Lord Garel—Jones.

  The cost to public funds of the mission to Brazil and Chile was approximately £27,400. This covered the cost of my travel and accommodation and that of four officials who accompanied me. It also included part sponsorship of the seminar to promote Public—Private Partnerships and the cost of the Chairman of the Movement for Innovation joining the Chilean part of the mission to discuss plans to promote the principles of "Rethinking Construction" in Chilean construction projects.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from Mr. PY Gerbeau regarding the operation of the Millennium Dome after 31 December. [139307]

  Ms Armstrong
  Since the withdrawal of the bid from Nomura for the Dome in September, we have received numerous unsolicited expressions of interest from parties interested in procuring the Dome, including one from PY Gerbeau. These have all been outside the terms of the competition.

  Within the context of the competition, the competition team has been continuing its discussions with Legacy plc, and in the light of progress the Government have now decided to grant Legacy preferred bidder status. Legacy plc have been awarded preferred bidder status because they have confirmed that they will resolve all outstanding contractual issues within an agreed timetable. Negotiations will continue, and if all goes well we expect to exchange contracts during February. Progress will be reviewed regularly.

  English Partnerships will be working closely with Legacy plc to agree a masterplan for the Dome and associated land.

  In addition, English Partnerships and the London Borough of Greenwich are working together, and are in discussion with the London Development Agency, to put in place a new partnership for the next stage of the regeneration of the Greenwich Peninsula. This will build on the work done so far on the development of the Peninsula, including the Dome site, the Millennium Village, and retail and commercial investments, and the emerging development framework for East Greenwich Riverside.

  The aim will be to work closely with local stakeholders, including private sector landowners, employers and residents, to establish and implement a new masterplan framework for the Peninsula. This will maintain the momentum established by the Millennium Experience and the enormous improvements in transport infrastructure that have been made, maximising private sector investment and regeneration benefits for the Peninsula. I have asked English Partnerships to consider, in their discussions with other parties, the possible establishment of an urban regeneration company, following the principles set out in our White Paper published last week.

  Title

  Author

  Date commissioned

  Estimated publication date

  UK Accession to the EEC volume 1

  Professor Alan Milward

  1993

  2001

  UK Accession to the EEC volume 2

  Professor Alan Milward

  1997

  2005

  Falklands Campaign

  Professor Lawrence Freedman

  1997

  2002

  North Sea Oil and Gas

  Professor Alexander Kemp

  1999

  2004

  External Economic Policy since the War volume 2

  Professor Leslie Pressnell

  1974

  2002

  Defence Organisation since the War

  Professor Donald Cameron Watt

  1974

  2001

  Secret Flotillas—revised edition

  Sir Brooks Richards

  2000

  2001

  SOE in France—revised edition

  Professor M. R. D. Foot

  2000

  2002

  SOE in the Low Countries

  Professor M. R. D. Foot

  1987

  2000

  SOE in Italy

  Christopher Woods

  1989

  2002

  SOE in Greece

  Professor Richard Clogg

  1984

  2002

PRIME MINISTER

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister how many officials in his office work(a) part time and (b) full time in the Regulatory Impact Unit; and if he will make a statement. [136020]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Constituency Matters
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is his practice to notify hon. Members when he has received a complaint about a personal constituency matter for which the hon. Member would expect to take responsibility; and if he will make a statement. [137772]

  The Prime Minister
  It would depend on the circumstances of the correspondence and the nature of the complaint.

  Saudi Air Hijack
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 280W, what factors underlay his decision not to hold discussions with the Iraqi Government on the hijacking of a Saudi Arabian aircraft. [136861]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 November 2000]: The Iraqi Government severed diplomatic relations with the UK in February 1991. The Saudi Government naturally took the lead in discussions with the Iraqi Government to resolve the hijacking of Saudi Air flight SV115. I am grateful for the assistance provided by the Russian Embassy in Baghdad which was in touch with the local authorities on our behalf.

  Official Histories
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Government sponsored official histories are in preparation; when each was commissioned; who the authors are; what the estimated dates of completion are; and what the estimated cost in each case is. [138778]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 November 2000]: The original programme of official histories, commissioned by the War Cabinet and covering military and civil histories of the second world war, was extended in 1966 by the then Prime Minister to include selected periods or episodes of peacetime history. The following are in preparation:
  27W
  The cost of preparing official histories is borne mainly by the Cabinet Office with royalties payable by the publisher offsetting the costs. It is not possible without disproportionate cost to itemise the cost of all the individual histories.

  Professional Services
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the greatest amount paid from public funds to an individual(a) dentist, (b) doctor, (c) solicitor, (d) barrister and (e) accountant for services provided in the most recent 12 month period for which figures are available. [139597]

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is not held centrally.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is (1) on the 2000 NPT Review Conference proposals on a move to single—warhead submarine—launched ballistic missiles and multiple warhead SLBMs; [138480]

  (2) on the 2000 NPT Review Conference decision on a no—first—use policy. [138479]

  Mr. Vaz
  No such decisions were made at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that NATO's arms control options (1) should include an upgraded financial commitment to International Atomic Energy Agency and a public statement in support of the organisation; [138483]

  (2) should include (a) recommendations for the creation of a subsidiary body within the Conference on Disarmament to deal with nuclear disarmament, (b) examination of measures regarding irreversibility, (c) removing requirement for nuclear weapons from its defence policy and (d) recommendations urging progress on the START process and the preservation and strengthening of the ABM Treaty; [138475]

  (3) should reflect the 2000 NPT Review Conference decisions on resumption of testing or developing new nuclear weapons; [138540]

  (4) should include examination of further verification measures; [138477]

  (5) should include a declaration by the Alliance formally adopting the elimination of members' nuclear weapons as an eventual goal; [138482]

  (6) should reflect the 2000 NPT Review Conference recommendation urging the US Administration to re—submit the CTBT to the Senate; [138539]

  (7) should reflect the 2000 NPT Review Conference decisions on use of its existing science programme in order to support the Trilateral Initiative; [138478]
  28W
  (8)should be released as a public document; [138481]

  (9) pursuant to the 2000 NPT Review Conference decisions should include a review of the reliance placed by non-nuclear weapon states on nuclear weapons held by allies. [138538]

  Mr. Vaz
  The scope of the exercise to which each of these questions refer is, as agreed by all Allies at the 1999 Washington NATO summit:to consider options for confidence and security building measures, verification, non—proliferation and arms control and disarmament.

  NATO has already made clear, at its ministerial meetings in Florence in May, its strong support for, and commitment to, the conclusions of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. Allies have naturally taken those conclusions into consideration in the course of this exercise. We expect Allies to reiterate their support for all of them. It will be for NATO Foreign Ministers to decide, at their meetings in December, how best to make public the conclusions of this exercise.

  The Trilateral initiative involves the development of arrangements to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that fissile material from nuclear weapons declared by the US and Russia to be no longer required for military purposes is irreversibly removed from military programmes. These arrangements are being negotiated between the US, Russia and the IAEA. NATO is not a party to these negotiations.

  The UK and NATO Allies have of course made regular national statements in support of the IAEA, most recently at the Agency's General Conference in October. All NATO Allies make regular budget subscription payments and contributions to the IAEA Technical Co—operation Fund, in accordance with a scale guided by United Nations principles. Furthermore, last year the UK, along with 14 other NATO allies, made additional voluntary contributions to the Agency amounting to some US$15 million.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the policy of Her Majesty's Government are on production of fissile material for weapons use. [138474]

  Mr. Hain
  The previous Government announced in 1995 that the United Kingdom had stopped the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. We have welcomed similar statements by France, Russia, and the United States.

  We are eager to see negotiations started in the Geneva Conference on Disarmament on a Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the policy is of Her Majesty's Government on implementation of Article VI and paragraph 4(c) of the 1995 Decision on Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non—Proliferation and Disarmament. [138476]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government are fully committed to the implementation of Article VI and paragraph 4(c) of the 1995 Decision on Principles and Objectives for Nuclear
  29W
  Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. It hopes to see early international progress on the implementation of the agreements reached at the 2000 NPT Review Conference in this regard.

  The Government's highest priorities are the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut—Off Treaty; and further deep cuts in the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Russian Federation.

  EU Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which social protection policies are intended to be covered by the new Article 130(b) of the TEC, as proposed in the draft Treaty of Nice. [138486]

  Mr. Vaz
  New Article 130(b) of the TEC is a suggestion from the Presidency. It proposes that a new Committee on Employment and Social Protection with advisory status shall monitor the social situation and the development of social protection policies in the member states and the Community and promote exchanges of information, experience and good practice between member states and with the Commission. Discussion continues on the Article.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria will apply to determine whether representatives of the general public come from organised civil society as proposed by the amendment to Article 257 of the TEC contained in the draft Treaty of Nice. [138487]

  Mr. Vaz
  Each member state will decide its own criteria for determining which members of the general public best represent civil society in their country. The Government will consider a wide variety of nominees, with the aim of making our delegation to the Economic and Social Committee as representative as possible.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those areas which fall within the exclusive competence of the European Commission which will not be subject to the proposals for enhanced co—operation as set out in the draft Treaty of Nice. [138499]

  Mr. Vaz
  Discussions continue on the precise scope of the proposed enhanced co—operation arrangements. All partners are clear that enhanced co—operation could not be used in areas such as trade policy, the common agricultural policy or the single market.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the areas of social exclusion which are intended to be brought within the ambit of the suggested new Article 137(j) of the TEC in the draft Treaty of Nice. [138485]

  Mr. Vaz
  New Article 137(j) of the TEC is a suggestion from the Presidency. It proposes that the Community supports and complements the activities of member states in combating social exclusion. Discussion continues on this Article.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the provisions outlined in the draft Treaty of Nice as being 30W
  candidates for qualified majority voting are deemed by Her Majesty's Government not to be vital to the United Kingdom's national interest. [138491]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government have made it clear that we shall insist on retaining unanimity in the areas of tax, social security, Treaty change, own resources, border controls and defence. We shall consider all the other Articles on a case by case basis.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the regional bodies which will be politically accountable to(a) the National Assembly for Wales, (b) the Northern Ireland Assembly and (c) the Scottish Parliament, for the purpose of the amendment of Article 263 of the TEC proposal in the draft Treaty of Nice. [138488]

  Mr. Vaz
  The proposed amendment states that representatives to the Committee of the Regions will either hold a regional or local authority electoral mandate, or be politically accountable to an elected assembly. There would be no change to the present position in the UK.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place a copy of the draft Treaty of Nice in the Library. [139294]

  Mr. Vaz
  A copy of the Progress Report on the Intergovernmental conference has been informally available in the Library since 6 November. It is also available on the following website "www.europa.eu.int".

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the areas where it is proposed that enhanced co—operation need not involve at least eight members of the EU. [138472]

  Mr. Vaz
  Talks continue on the scope of enhanced co—operation and the number of member states required for enhanced co—operation in specific areas. Some member states have suggested enhanced co—operation in foreign policy in groups of less than eight.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the EU's provisions on closer co—operation should encompass the Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy. [138473]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government support the introduction of provisions for enhanced co—operation to the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy for the implementation of policies which have been agreed by consensus by all member states.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when draft amendments to the consolidated treaties of the European Union will be considered at Nice; when they will be(a) published, (b) placed in the Vote Office, (c) available to the media throughout the European Union and (d) sent to the Governments of candidate member states; and if he will publish communications he has made to representatives of Governments of (i) member and (ii) candidate states prior to the consideration of the proposed amendments. [139085]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Nice European Council will take place from 7–9 December 2000. The Presidency has been consistent in placing draft papers put to the
  31W
  Intergovernmental Conference on the Council Secretariat website www.europa.eu.int. We have passed these to the Scrutiny Committee. A final version of the Treaty will be made available to the media at the end of the European Council; this will then be submitted to Parliament in the form of a Command Paper in the usual way. The Government are in regular touch with other member states and applicant countries on the IGC. It is not the Government's policy to make public its records of meetings with other Governments.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made on the proposals in the paper Confer 4790/00, "Progress report on the Intergovernmental Conference on Institutional Reform", relating to the extension of qualified majority voting to(a) Article 13, (b) Article 100, (c) Article 137(a)(f), (d) Article 151(5) and (e) Article 161. [138355]

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

  Demining (Afghanistan)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which export licence applications for the export of equipment on the Military List for demining operations in Afghanistan the Government have approved since August. [139226]

  Mr. Hain
  Following consultations with this Department and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently issued a licence for the export of Military Listed mine—clearance equipment for use by OMAR International, a UN funded NGO, to aid their demining activities in Afghanistan. This licence was granted for humanitarian purposes and it does not affect the Government's continued support for the EU Common Position on arms exports to Afghanistan.

  Israeli Military Helicopters
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigations are being undertaken into the use of Israeli military helicopters using parts exported by United Kingdom companies. [138988]

  Mr. Hain
  We are closely monitoring the current violence in the Middle East, including the equipment used by the Israeli Defence Forces in the Occupied Territories. We have no evidence that British equipment licensed for export under this Government has been used against civilians in the Occupied Territories. We continue to look at all applications for licences to export defence equipment to Israel on a case—by—case basis against consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens resident in Zimbabwe have been affected by the actions 32W
  of the Zimbabwean Government which have recently been ruled illegal by the Supreme Court; and if he will make a statement. [138839]

  Mr. Hain
  British nationals overseas are not obliged to register with British missions. Those that do register are not asked about their property holdings. It is therefore impossible to say how many British citizens might be affected by the Supreme Court ruling in Zimbabwe on 10 November.

  Departmental Expenditure (Special Missions and Services)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a breakdown of the special missions and services included in the other external relations section of his Department's expenditure plans for 2000–01. [138354]

  Mr. Hain
  The planned expenditure of £17.574 million for special missions and services, information services, sponsored visits and lecture tours, given at Table 28 of the departmental expenditure plans for 2000–01 (Command 4609), is broken down as follows:

  (a) £7.274 million for general programme activities comprising payments for:

  Military training delivered by loan service personnel—£923K

  Other training assistance—£771K

  Environmental policy—£665K

  Climate change challenge fund—£500K

  Royal visits—£487K

  Conflict prevention—£448K

  War Crimes Tribunal—£350K

  Small Commonwealth states office—£256K

  Peacekeeping incidental expenses (visas, medication)—£240K

  Commonwealth human rights fund—£205K

  Counter terrorism assistance—£204K

  Peacekeeping training—£204K

  Crisis management—£125K

  Other programme items of less than £100K—£1.895 million

  (b) £2.8 million sponsorship of visits to the UK by foreign dignitaries

  (c) £3.7 million command programme budgets covering several hundred small overseas assistance projects under £25K.

  (d) £1.4 million consular information campaign.

  (e) £1.3 million challenge fund—overseas assistance projects over £25K where FCO funds are often matched by private sponsorship.

  (f) £1.1 million OSCE projects.

  These planning figures are based on expenditure during the previous year.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each local education authority(a) the amounts spent and (b) the

  33W
  full-time equivalent numbers directly employed in the Youth Service in each of the last three years, together with a projection of the proportion of that (i) expenditure and (ii) staff to be transferred to the Connexions Service. [137032]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: The table gives the information requested in respect of the amounts spent for each local education authority in the Youth Service for the last three years. The figures are drawn from the local authority returns (R01) for 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99, which is the latest year available. The three years prior to 1996–97 are included to indicate how spending is recovering from cuts in services in 1995–96.

  My Department does not collate the numbers employed by local authorities within their Youth Services. The 1998 audit of England's Local Authority Youth Services,

  Net current expenditure after recharges (R01 line 29) by English LEAs on the Youth Service from 1993–94 to 1998–99

  12£000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  31998–99

  Corporation of London

  0

  10

  40

  130

  90

  100

  Avon

  6,380

  6,540

  6,820

  —

  —

  —

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,490

  1,440

  1,220

  1,320

  1,280

  1,280

  Barnet

  1,620

  1,650

  1,480

  1,540

  1,650

  1,950

  Barnsley

  820

  1,070

  1,210

  1,530

  1,360

  1,630

  Bath and North East Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  570

  1,230

  1,310

  Bedfordshire

  2,580

  2,510

  2,300

  2,190

  1,400

  1,190

  Berkshire

  4,220

  4,470

  4,780

  4,920

  4,990

  —

  Bexley

  1,350

  870

  1,060

  1,120

  1,150

  1,460

  Birmingham

  5,890

  7,010

  6,680

  6,800

  7,430

  8,140

  Blackburn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,030

  Blackpool

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  600

  Bolton

  1,700

  1,540

  1,570

  1,560

  1,200

  1,340

  Bournemouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,040

  1,000

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  740

  Bradford

  3,270

  4,900

  4,640

  4,200

  4,280

  4,290

  Brent

  3,930

  3,570

  2,670

  2,570

  2,410

  2,480

  Brighton and Hove

  —

  —

  —

  —

  710

  1,050

  Bristol

  —

  —

  —

  2,380

  2,380

  1,040

  Bromley

  920

  970

  880

  890

  960

  2,210

  Buckinghamshire

  5,360

  3,970

  3,970

  3,820

  2,440

  1,970

  Bury

  890

  940

  1,090

  850

  710

  820

  Calderdale

  1,740

  1,910

  1,890

  2,150

  2,070

  1,980

  Cambridgeshire

  5,270

  5,020

  3,860

  3,600

  3,110

  2,410

  Camden

  1,850

  2,180

  2,310

  2,310

  2,040

  2,190

  Cheshire

  4,240

  5,140

  3,910

  3,730

  3,980

  2,610

  Cleveland

  4,720

  5,070

  5,150

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  1,920

  2,030

  2,380

  2,110

  2,070

  2,460

  Coventry

  1,760

  1,750

  1,830

  2,330

  2,510

  2,100

  Croydon

  1,700

  1,730

  1,690

  1,770

  1,740

  1,860

  Cumbria

  2,150

  1,600

  1,550

  1,590

  1,530

  1,610

  Darlington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  520

  560

  Derby City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,140

  1,410

  Derbyshire

  5,970

  6,450

  5,610

  5,520

  4,230

  4,320

  Devon

  4,780

  4,160

  2,970

  3,170

  3,150

  2,130

  Doncaster

  1,900

  1,980

  1,890

  1,710

  1,730

  1,870

  Dorset

  3,390

  3,610

  3,710

  3,770

  2,010

  2,320

  Dudley

  970

  1,090

  1,100

  1,070

  1,180

  1,190

  Durham

  4,620

  4,370

  3,740

  3,970

  3,650

  3,740

  Ealing

  1,120

  1,110

  1,230

  1,010

  940

  1,080

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  1,320

  1,300

  1,360

  East Sussex

  2,020

  2,260

  2,210

  2,100

  1,610

  1,500

  Enfield

  690

  740

  690

  750

  900

  970

  Essex

  9,790

  11,270

  8,930

  8,950

  8,760

  5,780

  Gateshead

  1,160

  980

  900

  990

  930

  1,150

  Gloucestershire

  3,340

  3,520

  3,060

  3,010

  2,980

  2,590

  34W
  "England's Youth Service—the 1998 Audit," indicated that there were approximately 7,190 full-time equivalent Youth Service delivery staff employed in 1996–97.

  Details of the Youth Service resources that will contribute to the delivery of the Connexions Service are not yet available. We have asked the Connexions Partnerships introducing the service in 2001–02 to identify the Youth Service resources that local authorities in their areas propose to bring within the Connexions Service framework. This information will be set out in the business and delivery plans that Partnerships will be submitting at the beginning of 2001. The Connexions Service Business Planning Guidance indicates our expectation that local authorities will wish to contribute a significant proportion of their Youth Service provision to the delivery of the Connexions Service. This may include, for example, incorporating youth workers within the
  multi-disciplinary teams of personal advisers created at local level.
  35W

  Net current expenditure after recharges (R01 line 29) by English LEAs on the Youth Service from 1993–94 to 1998–99

  1,2£000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  31998–99

  Greenwich

  2,020

  1,750

  1,830

  1,900

  1,920

  2,220

  Hackney

  3,630

  3,260

  2,810

  1,820

  1,370

  1,240

  Halton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  870

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,980

  830

  790

  1,210

  1,430

  1,050

  Hampshire

  3,930

  4,280

  4,130

  4,470

  3,110

  3,430

  Haringey

  800

  850

  810

  1,250

  1,190

  1,540

  Harrow

  780

  830

  910

  1,020

  740

  810

  Hartlepool

  —

  —

  —

  860

  850

  920

  Havering

  1,060

  1,040

  910

  900

  1,090

  1,220

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,370

  2,360

  2,110

  2,120

  2,370

  520

  Hertfordshire

  4,680

  5,000

  4,870

  5,150

  5,610

  4,910

  Hillingdon

  1,530

  1,640

  1,290

  1,590

  1,520

  1,670

  Hounslow

  940

  880

  870

  960

  990

  1,180

  Humberside

  6,260

  6,200

  6,380

  —

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight

  1,030

  1,050

  940

  930

  1,010

  970

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Islington

  3,450

  3,520

  3,700

  3,800

  4,110

  3,380

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,330

  2,330

  1,790

  3,570

  3,750

  2,720

  Kent

  6,040

  8,730

  4,440

  5,240

  4,930

  4,580

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  —

  —

  —

  2,130

  2,110

  1,400

  Kingston upon Thames

  820

  800

  880

  630

  640

  590

  Kirklees

  3,270

  3,820

  2,850

  1,430

  1,310

  2,070

  Knowsley

  2,120

  0

  0

  20

  0

  490

  Lambeth

  2,480

  2,750

  3,480

  1,610

  1,840

  1,860

  Lancashire

  10,370

  10,790

  10,680

  10,250

  10,790

  6,410

  Leeds

  3,790

  4,260

  4,350

  4,570

  5,360

  11,910

  Leicester City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,450

  2,730

  Leicestershire

  6,600

  6,390

  5,210

  5,140

  3,170

  3,380

  Lewisham

  1,330

  640

  10

  1,470

  1,810

  1,800

  Lincolnshire

  2,040

  2,150

  2,010

  2,100

  2,140

  2,240

  Liverpool

  6,520

  6,220

  6,530

  6,600

  6,400

  6,710

  Luton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,030

  970

  Manchester

  3,300

  2,710

  2,810

  2,740

  2,670

  2,860

  Merton

  930

  830

  520

  520

  490

  530

  Middlesbrough

  —

  —

  —

  1,380

  260

  630

  Milton Keynes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,450

  1,470

  Newbury

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  710

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,600

  2,410

  2,440

  2,680

  2,570

  3,020

  Newham

  2,560

  2,360

  2,110

  2,100

  2,230

  1,860

  Norfolk

  2,970

  3,250

  3,030

  3,100

  3,150

  2,890

  North East Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  870

  650

  680

  North Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  1,090

  970

  1,210

  North Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  900

  870

  850

  North Tyneside

  300

  270

  260

  230

  230

  300

  North Yorkshire

  2,850

  2,900

  2,750

  1,530

  1,600

  1,200

  Northamptonshire

  2,750

  2,880

  2,920

  2,930

  2,990

  3,170

  Northumberland

  1,820

  2,250

  2,010

  1,700

  1,280

  1,170

  Nottingham City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,950

  Nottinghamshire

  6,660

  6,800

  7,000

  7,140

  7,500

  5,060

  Oldham

  1,140

  1,240

  1,200

  1,390

  2,310

  2,660

  Oxfordshire

  2,760

  3,240

  3,470

  2,790

  2,700

  2,690

  Peterborough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  160

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  240

  Poole

  —

  —

  —

  —

  720

  700

  Portsmouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Reading

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,130

  Redbridge

  1,390

  1,400

  1,370

  1,340

  1,190

  1,310

  Redcar and Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  890

  1,050

  1,130

  Richmond upon Thames

  760

  860

  930

  880

  890

  910

  Rochdale

  1,320

  1,440

  1,440

  1,410

  1,390

  1,240

  Rochester and Gillingham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  810

  Rotherham

  2,380

  2,460

  2,180

  1,720

  2,720

  3,420

  Rutland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  150

  220

  Salford

  980

  980

  950

  1,000

  1,110

  1,180

  Sandwell

  690

  730

  880

  980

  1,230

  1,350

  Sefton

  1,410

  1,510

  1,440

  1,500

  1,510

  1,680

  Sheffield

  4,050

  4,320

  4,290

  4,190

  3,970

  4,170

  Shropshire

  3,060

  3,010

  2,720

  2,630

  2,550

  1,400

  Slough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  900

  Solihull

  780

  710

  620

  530

  610

  640

  Somerset

  2,260

  2,340

  2,040

  2,220

  2,390

  2,350

  36W 37W

  Net current expenditure after recharges (R01 line 29) by English LEAs on the Youth Service from 1993–94 to 1998–99

  12£000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  31998–99

  South Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  820

  890

  870

  South Tyneside

  1,040

  1,000

  900

  990

  940

  990

  Southampton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  770

  820

  Southend

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  720

  Southwark

  1,590

  2,760

  3,000

  3,510

  3,820

  4,050

  St. Helens

  380

  470

  640

  400

  850

  890

  Staffordshire

  10,710

  10,320

  8,850

  8,340

  6,630

  6,460

  Stockport

  1,320

  1,130

  1,150

  1,170

  1,300

  1,510

  Stockton-on-Tees

  —

  —

  —

  1,190

  1,170

  1,060

  Stoke on Trent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,090

  770

  Suffolk

  1,480

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  1,860

  1,830

  1,900

  1,940

  510

  1,090

  Surrey

  5,100

  5,890

  5,200

  5,000

  4,640

  4,830

  Sutton

  1,040

  1,180

  1,220

  1,200

  1,140

  1,190

  Swindon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,200

  1,030

  Tameside

  2,900

  2,540

  1,790

  1,830

  1,670

  1,740

  The Wrekin

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,200

  Thurrock

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,070

  Torbay

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  410

  Tower Hamlets

  4,600

  4,540

  4,160

  4,180

  3,930

  3,760

  Trafford

  1,080

  1,040

  1,020

  1,060

  1,030

  1,470

  Wakefield

  1,420

  1,390

  1,350

  1,370

  1,740

  1,570

  Walsall

  1,080

  1,350

  310

  150

  1,200

  1,410

  Waltham Forest

  2,180

  1,890

  1,910

  1,770

  1,910

  2,180

  Wandsworth

  3,180

  3,240

  3,140

  3,070

  2,960

  3,100

  Warrington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  850

  Warwickshire

  790

  970

  750

  760

  940

  1,100

  West Sussex

  4,200

  4,490

  3,990

  3,320

  3,400

  3,590

  Westminister

  2,390

  2,450

  2,700

  2,760

  2,840

  2,190

  Wigan

  1,010

  1,100

  1,110

  1,090

  1,160

  1,200

  Wiltshire

  5,110

  5,000

  4,030

  4,220

  2,660

  1,680

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  580

  Wirral

  2,590

  2,530

  2,250

  2,220

  1,960

  1,940

  Wokingham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  470

  Wolverhampton

  2,690

  2,900

  2,830

  2,920

  2,990

  2,840

  Worcestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,670

  York

  —

  —

  —

  740

  850

  920

  National Total

  296,060

  302,550

  279,140

  274,420

  277,400

  285,610

  1 Figures are in cash terms: i.e. they have not been corrected for inflation

  2 Expenditure has been rounded to the nearest £10

  3 1998–99 figures are provisional

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many school playing fields have been sold during each of the last five years for which figures are available. [138810]

  Jacqui Smith
  Prior to October 1998 there was nothing to prevent a local authority selling a school playing field if it wanted to. An estimated 40 playing fields a month were sold in this way under the previous Government. Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 was introduced, with effect from 1 October 1998, to stop the indiscriminate sale of school playing fields. Local authorities and governing bodies of all maintained schools, including foundation schools, are now required to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before disposing of playing fields, or any part of a playing field.

  Since October 1998, 76 applications from local authorities and governing bodies to sell areas equal to, or larger than, a sports pitch have been approved. As no
  38W
  national figures were collected before October 1998, the following table provides a breakdown of these approved applications for each year since the law was changed.

  Sale of school sports pitches approved under section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 since October 1998.

  Year

  Number of sales

  1998

  7

  1999

  44

  2000

  25

  Notes

  1. All sale proceeds are used to provide new or improved sports or education facilities at maintained schools.

  2. 38 per cent. of approved applications were in respect of sports pitches at closed or closing schools.

  3. In 68 per cent. of cases at operating schools, the sale proceeds have been used to provide new or enhanced sports facilities, including sports halls, all-weather pitches or improved grass sports pitches.

  4. 'Sports pitch' means an area of open grassed land which is equal to, or larger than, the Football Association's recommended 2,000 sq m area for games played by under-10s and which has a configuration making it suitable for sports pitches, whether laid out as a sports pitch or not.

  Catering Industry
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to relax the immigration rules in respect of professionals from the catering industry. [137452]

  Ms Hodge
  The changes to the work permit skills criteria, which came into effect on 1 October 2000, are in part a response to concerns raised by the catering industry about the lack of skilled, professional staff. Where it can be shown that UK or European Economic Area workers are not available, the process for employers to obtain the necessary work permit for overseas staff is now more transparent, straightforward and relevant to the needs of employers.

  If we wish key sectors in the economy to grow, we must ensure that that growth is not inhibited by lack of relevant and appropriate skills. At the same time we are investing £6 billion a year in training and education for adults to encourage more people to develop the skills needed in the modern economy.

  Disability Rights
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to publish a final response to the report of the Disability Rights Task Force, "From Exclusion to Inclusion". [139408]

  Ms Hodge
  The Government published their interim response on many of the Task Force's non-legislative recommendations in March 2000. The SEN and Disability Rights in Education Bill, which will be presented to Parliament next Session, implements the Task Force's recommendations on civil rights in education. We have been considering the remainder of the Task Force's recommendations in the light of negotiations on the European Commission's Employment Directive, brought forward under Article 13 of the European Community Treaty. The Directive, which was agreed at the Council of Ministers on 17 October, has implications for many of the Task Force's recommendations on the definition of disability and discrimination in employment. We hope to be in a position to publish a final response to the Task Force around the end of February 2001.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Lord Birt
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many meetings the Lord Chancellor has had with Lord Birt regarding crime since Lord Birt's appointment as an adviser to the Government on crime. [137316]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17 November 2000,Official Report, column 800W.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason the 40W
  number of QCs appointed in each of the last 10 years has remained broadly the same; and if he will make a statement. [138619]

  Mr. Lock
  The number of appointments in recent years has ranged from 60 to 78. The number appointed in each year merely reflects the number of applicants who meet the criteria to the required degree.

  The number appointed in each year shows little correlation with the number of applicants. The number of applicants in recent years has varied little (from 472 to 553), and the success rate of those applicants has varied from less than 12 per cent. to more than 15½ per cent.

  Immigration and Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the average time taken was between an asylum appeal and (b) a non-asylum immigration appeal being referred by the Home Office to the appellate authorities and the determination of that appeal in (i) 1997–1998, (ii) 1998–1999, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–01 to date; and if he will make a statement. [139372]

  Jane Kennedy
  Waiting time information is available from 1999–2000. The waiting time for asylum and non-asylum appeals from receipt by the IAA to promulgation of the adjudicator's decision, in 1999–2000 was 10.7 weeks and 12.3 weeks respectively. The waiting time for 2000–2001 to 31 October is 19 and 18.8 weeks respectively.

  The increased waiting times are as a consequence of the increase in asylum appeals. The Lord Chancellor expects to meet his target to dispose of 65 per cent. of appeals through both tiers of the system within four months from April 2002.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to meet his target for reducing the average duration of an asylum appeal to four months. [139379]

  Jane Kennedy
  For the current financial year, the Immigration Appellate Authority's target is an average waiting time for appeals before adjudicators of 16 weeks. The Lord Chancellor's Departments Service Delivery agreement sets a different target covering both ties of the appeal process. The target is to dispose of at least 65 per cent. of appeals within four months from April 2002. The Lord Chancellor expects this target to be met.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many adjudicators are available to hear asylum and immigration appeals; what plans he has to review that number; and if he will make a statement. [139374]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are currently 75 full-time and 311 part-time adjudicators available to hear asylum and immigration appeals. This represents an increase of 27 full—time (64 per cent.) and 121 part-time adjudicators (64 per cent.) since 1 April 1999. A further 26 full-time adjudicators are in the process of being appointed and recruitment is under way to appoint a further 200 part-time adjudicators. The Lord Chancellor keeps the numbers under constant review to ensure that sufficient judiciary are available to hear asylum appeals.
  41W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) asylum appeals and (b) non-asylum immigration appeals, were awaiting determination on (i) 1 April 2000 and (ii) the most recent date for which information is available. [139380]

  Jane Kennedy
  The table shows appeals at the Immigration Appellate Authority at 1 April and 31 October 2000 (the most recent date for which information is available).

  Asylum workload has increased by 181 per cent. over that period to a level of broadly 3,600 cases a month. The number of outstanding cases is consistent with the number of cases that will inevitably be in the system at any one time, given the higher workload and an average disposal time of around four months.

  1 April 2000

  31 October 2000

  Asylum

  3,805

  14,216

  Non-asylum

  2,827

  2,522

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the average cost to his Department is of(a) an asylum appeal and (b) a non-asylum immigration appeal; and if he will make a statement. [139376]

  Jane Kennedy
  Separate average cost for asylum and non-asylum average costs are unavailable. The average unit cost to the Immigration Appellate Authority, excluding accommodation and overhead costs, for all types of appeal is £375.

  Court Sittings (Judges)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the recommended amount of time per day that judges should sit in courts. [138864]

  Jane Kennedy
  There is no single recommended or prescribed sitting time for judges, as they are required to work outside sitting hours for other purposes, for example, reading or preparing case papers, preparing reserved judgments, dealing with listing directions, liaison with magistrates and chairing meetings of local user committees.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average amount of time per day spent sitting in court by judges(a) nationally and (b) at courts in Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [138865]

  Jane Kennedy
  Information relating to the average length of courtroom sitting days in given in the table.

  Average sitting days (hours)

  Area

  Crown court1

  County court2

  1997

  Gloucestershire

  3.94

  5.08

  England and Wales

  4.46

  4.74

  1998

  Gloucestershire

  4.12

  5.59

  England and Wales

  4.44

  4.77

  42W

  Average sitting days (hours)

  Area

  Crown court12

  County court2

  1999

  Gloucestershire

  3.77

  5.98

  England and Wales

  4.45

  4.74

  20003

  Gloucestershire

  4.08

  4.28

  England and Wales

  4.39

  4.75

  1 Figures are expressed as decimals—e.g. 4.75 hours = 4 hours 45 minutes

  2 The Crown court figures relate to all types of judge. The county court figures cover only circuit judge level sittings

  3 Period covers January to September 2000

  Notes

  1. Only Gloucester Crown court sits within Gloucestershire.

  2. Only Gloucester county court hears circuit judge level trials within Gloucestershire.

SCOTLAND

  Government Expenditure and Revenue (Scotland)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish the Government Expenditure and Revenue (Scotland) report for the year 1998 to 1999. [138525]

  Dr. Reid
  The next report on Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland, in common with previous reports, is being prepared by the Government Economic Service and Government Statistical Service. No date has been set for publication.

HEALTH

  Alder Hey Hospital
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for (1) Health if he will make public the reports of Professor Robert Tinston, Chief Executive of the NHS North West Regional Office, in respect of the inquiry into the disposal of children's organs at the Alder Hey Hospital, Liverpool; [131651]

  (2) how many parents of deceased children have been consulted by the Redfern Inquiry; what form that consultation has taken; if he will extend the time of the inquiry; and if he will make a statement; [131649]

  (3) if he will call for an interim report from the Redfern Inquiry into events at Alder Hey Hospital, Liverpool; [131650]

  (4) what extra resources have been provided to Alder Hey Hospital, Liverpool, to enable it to co-operate fully with the Redfern Inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [131652]

  Mr. Denham
  Internal reports between officials and Ministers are normally exempt from disclosure under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information that relates to information that would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion, unless justifiable reasons are presented why they should not be covered by this exemption clause.
  43W
  The independent inquiry should detail in its report the extent and form of parental consultation. The Inquiry has taken longer than first indicated to allow for the work to be completed.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received the Report on 7 November and will study its findings over the next few weeks before publishing his response.

  The National Health Service Executive recognised that extra expenditure would be incurred by the Trust in addressing issues relating to organ retention, including the Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry. The trust has been allocated additional funding in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 to meet these costs and after that any recurring element will be funded from the normal commissioning process.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the operation of his guidelines to local health authorities on the availability of infertility treatment; and if he will make a statement. [135489]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department has not issued any guidelines to health authorities on the provision of infertility treatment.

  However, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has published three sets of comprehensive clinical guidelines for the management of infertility in primary, secondary and tertiary care. These guidelines have been distributed to Royal College's members working in the field.

  We share concerns that have been expressed about the unacceptable variations in the level of NHS funded infertility services across the country. We are examining ways to tackle this problem.

  We also propose shortly to publish a report on the results of a survey the Department undertook last year into health authorities' provision of infertility services.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letters to him dated 22 May, 29 June and 2 August from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. Griffith. [136089]

  Ms Stuart
  A reply to my right hon. Friend's letter was sent on 7 November.

  Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about single dose measles mumps and rubella vaccines, with particular reference to availability of an option for parents to have these vaccines administered to their children singly. [136201]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) on 19 June 2000,Official Report, column 49W.

  Maternity Units
  Sir Archie Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of maternity units in England have no(a) paediatric special care units on site and (b) doctors routinely attached to the units; how often patients have had to be transferred as emergency cases from these units before, during and after labour to hospitals with full maternity and paediatric facilities in the last 12 months; and what was the incidence of child mortality (i) in maternity units in (a) and (b) and (ii) in all hospitals in the last 12 months. [136821]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not available. The latest data available for child mortality in all hospitals for 1998–99 are shown in the table.

  Count of deaths by age NHS hospitals, England 1998–99

  Age

  Died

  Stillbirth

  0

  2,852

  2,249

  1

  184

  —

  2

  102

  —

  3

  62

  —

  4

  47

  —

  5-9

  170

  —

  10-14

  209

  —

  Age not known and others

  262,002

  —

  Total

  267,668

  —

  Notes

  Figures in this table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data

  Source

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Civil Servants Relocation
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [137187]

  Ms Stuart
  The contract for relocation of Departmental staff is held by Cendant Relocation (UK) Ltd. (formerly PHH Relocation plc). The contract was advertised in June 1997 in the European Official Journal and, following a tender exercise, was awarded to PHH to run from 1 January 1998 for a period of three years, with an option to extend for a further two years at the end of the initial period. There is no set value to the contract as Cendant charge for their services on a by case basis.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those projects his Department supports which are engaged in highlighting the dangers of drug abuse to children and young people. [137339]

  Ms Stuart
  We are committed to a 10-year strategy of joint action to tackle the problem of drug misuse. One of the aims of the strategy is to ensure that young people have access to all the information and support they need in order to resist drug misuse and thus to achieve their full potential in society.

  The Department is contributing to this objective through a wide range of projects and initiatives that are listed in the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-Ordinator's

  45W
  Annual Report 1999–2000, copies of which are available in the Library. One example is the "Primary Care and Primary Schools" programme that was launched earlier this year. This project will enable healthcare professionals to support primary school teachers in the delivery of drug education. We are also supporting drug prevention work in the 26 Health Action Zones. This work is targeted at young people who are particularly at risk of developing problems with drugs.

  Mobile Phones
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the health risks involved in the use of mobile telephones(a) with and (b) without hands-free kits. [137931]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (the Stewart group) was set up at the request of the previous Minister for Public Health to investigate the public health implications of mobile phone technologies. The group's report was published on 11 May and copies are in the Library. The report included a number of recommendations which are being taken forward by the Government. These include a commitment to initiate a comprehensive independent programme of research with a budget of several million pounds.

  Flu
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of stocks of the influenza vaccine in the parliamentary constituency of Brentwood and Ongar. [138059]

  Yvette Cooper
  General practitioners order their supply of flu vaccine direct from manufacturers. This year there are five suppliers of flu vaccine. Unfortunately one of the manufacturers, Solvay, has encountered problems in growing a strain of the vaccine which has led to delays in some deliveries. Solvay have been in touch with the affected GPs to tell them details of any delays, but have confirmed that all ordered vaccine will be delivered by the end of November, in time to protect people this winter.

  Latest figures as at 8 November, show that 9.8 million doses of vaccine have already been distributed. This, along with the amount of vaccine still to be delivered, is a sufficient amount to exceed our immunisation target of 60 per cent. uptake in those aged 65 and over, and to achieve a substantial rise in uptake among those at risk.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what target he has for the number of people over the age of 60 years to receive the influenza vaccine in the parliamentary constituency of Brentwood and Ongar by 31 January 2001; what percentage that is of the population of over 60s; and if there are sufficient stocks of the vaccine to meet his target. [138060]

  Yvette Cooper
  This year, we have extended the recommended groups for influenza immunisation to include everyone aged 65 and over, irrespective of their underlying health, as well as younger people in established high risk groups. This increase has led to record numbers of vaccine being made available—nearly 11 million this year compared to 7.8 million last year, an increase of 40 per cent.
  46W
  For the first time, health authorities have been set a target of achieving a minimum 60 per cent. uptake of immunisation in those aged 65 years and over in their areas. They will be required to monitor this, and have also been asked to supply the minimum data necessary for national monitoring purposes.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his targets for the vaccination programme against influenza by priority groups in the parliamentary constituency of Brentwood and Ongar; and if he will list those groups and indicate what progress he had made to achieve those targets on 31 October. [138061]

  Yvette Cooper
  For the first time, health authorities have been set a target of achieving a minimum 60 per cent. uptake of immunisation in those aged 65 years and over in their areas. They will be required to monitor this, and have also been asked to supply the minimum data necessary for national monitoring purposes.

  Monitoring figures received as at 31 October from South Essex, North Essex and Barking and Havering health authorities, show uptake rates so far of 50 per cent., 49 per cent. and 49 per cent. respectively, in the 65 and over age groups.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contingency plans his Department has (1) implemented for dealing with the possibility of a flu epidemic this winter; on what date such plans were implemented and at what cost to his Department; and if he will make a statement; [137127]

  (2) evaluated for dealing with the possibility of a flu epidemic this winter; and if he will make a statement. [137126]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: Contingency plans for dealing with an epidemic or outbreak of flu are part of the detailed planning process to manage winter pressures. Planning has been taking place across health and social care since May of this year. Communities have been planning appropriately to manage demand, with influenza immunisation a key part of these plans.

  Health authorities have appointed co-ordinators to take overall responsibility for influenza immunisation and to work with general practitioners to ensure that immunisation is made available to vulnerable members of the public.

  This year the offer of immunisation against influenza has been extended to include all those over the age of 65. Funding of £60 million has been made available to support the immunisation of 'at risk' groups and a major publicity programme was launched in September to ensure that at risk groups in the community are aware of the opportunity to be immunised.

  In addition, National Health Service employers are offering immunisation to all staff involved in the delivery of care and support to patients. Social services employers have been asked to consider offering immunisation to their staff, with approximately 75 per cent. of employers choosing to do so.

  NHS Consultation (Taunton)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses he has received to his recent NHS consultation from the Taunton constituency. [138312]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the preparations made by the NHS to combat the increased incidence of hepatitis C. [138318]

  Yvette Cooper
  The incidence of newly acquired hepatitis C infections is not known, as the virus is usually acquired without symptoms. Nevertheless, it is possible that the incidence is falling. Transmissions of hepatitis C through contaminated blood and blood products have now been virtually eliminated. There is also some evidence that the prevalence of hepatitis C among younger injecting drug misusers is less than among those who started injecting before harm minimisation strategies (e.g. needles exchange schemes) were put in place.

  While the number of new infections may be falling, we expect an increase in the number of people diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C over the next 10 years, as individuals who have carried the virus for some time are identified through wider testing of groups who have been at risk.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has recently published recommendations on the use of alpha interferon combined with ribavirin for the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C, and National Health Service funding includes resources for implementing this guidance. Evidence-based clinical guidelines, drawn up by the professions, will be published shortly. The Department is in discussion with the professions, and with healthcare commissioners, about developing hepatology services to uniform standards throughout the country.

  Emergency Contraception
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make emergency contraception available from(a) community pharmacists and (b) school nurses.[137742]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: An application has been received to reclassify levonorgestrel 0.75mg (marketed as Levonelle—2) for emergency contraception from prescription only to pharmacy availability for women aged 16 and over. Public consultation was completed on 30 June. The application has now been considered by the Medicines Commission. If we decide to proceed, an Order will be laid shortly.

  In addition there are pilot schemes running whereby emergency contraception is issued by pharmacists under National Health Service arrangement using patient group direction.

  Sex and Relationship Education Guidance issued by the Department for Education and Employment in July this year states that health professionals can provide pupils with specific and up-to-date information about sexual health and contraception. Health professionals can also
  48W
  play an important part in ensuring young people know about their local advice services. The specific role of school nurses in providing services to young people is at the discretion of school governing bodies, in consultation with parents and the school community.

  Breast Cancer (Genetic Testing)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on genetic testing of women who may be pre-disposed to develop breast cancer; how many genetic tests for BRCA 1 and 2 are carried out each year; and how many of these tests produced positive results. [138340]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 14 November 2000]: Referral for specialist genetic counselling is normally only appropriate for women at high familial risk of breast cancer. Genetic testing for mutations in the breast cancer predisposition genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) may be appropriate for some of these women. In 1998–99, 1,173 tests were undertaken in United Kingdom regional genetic centres for BRCA1 and BRCA2. This compares to 856 in 1997–98 and 458 in 1996–97.

  Information on the number of tests which produced positive results is not held centrally. New initiatives for cancer genetic services were outlined in the National Health Service cancer plan, one of which is that common datasets will be developed for the collection of information by cancer genetic services.

  Primary Care Trusts (Appointments)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many councillors have been appointed as(a) chairmen and (b) non-executive directors of primary care trusts; and how many declared a political affiliation to (a) the Labour Party, (b) the Liberal Democrat Party, (c) the Conservative Party and (d) other parties. [138625]

  Ms Stuart
  We do not collect information about political affiliation. Information about political activity as required to be collected by the Commissioner for Public Appointments is set out in the table.

  Political activity of councillors appointed to the boards of primary care trusts

  Appointed councillors

  Non-Executives

  Labour

  9

  Conservative

  5

  Liberal Democrat

  4

  Other

  1

  Chairs

  Labour

  5

  Conservative

  2

  Liberal Democrat

  2

  Other

  1

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appointees to(a) chairmanships and (b) non-executive directorships of primary care trusts have declared a political affiliation to (i) the Labour Party, (ii) the Liberal Democrat Party, (iii) the Conservative Party and (iv) other parties. [138624]
  49W
  Ms Stuart
  We do not collect information about political affiliation. Information about political activity as required to be collected by the Commissioner for Public Appointments is set out in the table.

  Political activity of candidates appointed to the boards of primary care trusts

  Appointed

  Non-Executives

  None declared

  112

  Labour

  36

  Conservative

  9

  Liberal Democrat

  6

  Other

  3

  Chairs

  None declared

  24

  Labour

  11

  Conservative

  3

  Liberal Democrat

  3

  Other

  2

  North Cumbria Health Authority
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements North Cumbria health authority has made with West Cumbria Health Care Trust to have patients treated in the private ward of West Cumbria Hospital; and if he will make a statement. [138617]

  Mr. Hutton
  The North Cumbria health authority has negotiated a contract with West Cumbria Health Care National Health Service Trust whereby NHS patients, who would otherwise face a long wait for hernia, varicose vein or laparoscopic cholecystectomy treatment in the Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust, are treated in the Cumbria Clinic at the West Cumberland Hospital, Whitehaven.

  The health authority and primary care groups consider this to be an appropriate and effective use of NHS resources to bring waiting times to within more acceptable levels and is entirely in line with the Government's recently announced "Concordat" with the private sector.

  Fertilisation and Embryology
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what ethical considerations the Government will take into account in deciding its policy on embryonic stem cell research; and if he will make a statement. [138668]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 16 November 2000]: All research on human embryos is strictly regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. This Act was introduced following detailed consideration by the Warnock Committee in the early 1980s of the issues raised by developing technologies in this area. The provisions in the Act were subject to considerable debate in both Houses.

  Following the recommendations in the Chief Medical Officer's expert group report: "Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility", the Government announced their intention to introduce regulations to extend the purposes for which human embryos may be used in research. These Regulations will be decided on a free vote. The expert group included members with a wide range of interests, including ethics.
  50W
  We also took account of the joint Report by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and Human Genetics Advisory Commission: "Cloning Issues in Reproduction, Science and Medicine" (December 1998) and reports from other bodies such as the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, as well as views in Europe and elsewhere.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the clinical data recording errors contained in the HFEA February 2000 update. [138671]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 16 November 2000]: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority operates a systems and data audit programme. This is used to monitor the standard of IVF and donor insemination treatment records and provide assurances for the National Audit Office regarding the collection of licence fee income. The HFEA audit is in the fourth year of its five-year programme and has identified areas where errors could be avoided by licensed clinics. It has also provided information and guidance to clinics on improvements in the quality of their information.

  The authority's February 2000 Update reports a number of discrepancies found as part of the audit, such as inaccurate reporting of patients' and partners' full name, patient reference and treatment date.

  The audit programme and publication of the Update series demonstrates the FIFEA's commitment to reducing errors and improving the way that information is recorded.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the granting of a licence by the HFEA in 1996 to the Centre for Genome Research, University of Edinburgh for the culture of multipotential human embryos. [138672]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 16 November 2000]: In February 1996 the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority issued a two-year research licence for a project entitled "Culture of Multipotential Human Embryo Cells" at the Centre for Genome Research, University of Edinburgh. The objective of the proposed research was to establish cell lines from human embryos with a view to analysing the factors that affect the development of embryos fertilised and grown "in vitro" and to assess their development potential. An application was made for renewal in February 1998 and a licence was granted in May 1998 for a further two years.

  The objectives of this research are (i) to promote advances in the treatment of infertility; (ii) to increase knowledge about the causes of congenital disease; and (iii) to develop methods for detecting the presence of gene or chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation.

  The centre is required to provide reports on the progress of the research and is subject to inspection by the authority.
  51W
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on(a) the use of adult stem cells and (b) therapeutic cloning. [138670]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 16 November 2000]: The issues of stem cell research and therapeutic cloning were comprehensively discussed in the report of the Chief Medical Officer's Expert Group—"Stem Cell research: Medical progress with responsibility" published in August of this year, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The report concluded that research on stem cells from all sources provides the possibility of exciting prospects for future therapies for a range of debilitating diseases including Parkinson's, Diabetes, spinal injuries and liver disease. However a great deal of research will be needed to realise such potential.

  We have accepted the recommendations of the report and will introduce Regulations to extend the permitted research purposes under the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act to allow for research on embryonic stem cells. The Regulations will be decided by a free vote. Research involving adult stem cells is not subject to legal restrictions.

  NHS (Disciplinary Action)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many staff were dismissed in the last year from the NHS following disciplinary action, in the last year for which figures are available; [139090]

  (2) how many staff were (a) demoted and (b) suspended, pending investigation, in the last year for which figures are available in the NHS; [139091]

  (3) how many NHS staff were given (a) a first written warning and (b) a final written warning in the last week for which figures are available; [139092]

  (4) how many disciplinary panels were convened in the NHS in the last year for which figures are available; [139093]

  (5) how many employees of the NHS are currently suspended; [139095]

  (6) how many working days were missed as a result of suspension of staff within the NHS over the last year; [139096]

  (7) how many appeals against disciplinary action were made by NHS staff in the last year; and what percentage of those appeals were upheld. [139097]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department does not routinely collect information regarding the disciplinary proceedings carried out in National Health Service organisations. However, it does collect information regarding the suspension of hospital doctors and community dentists which have lasted longer than six months.

  The most recent information collected shows that in the period 1 July to 30 September the total number of hospital doctors and community dentists who had been suspended for longer than six months was 26.

  Overhead Powerlines
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department will publish the work it has 52W
  funded on the impact of electric fields associated with overhead powerlines; and if he will make a statement. [138780]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 17 November 2000]: The Department expects those researchers to whom it provides funds to publish in open peer reviewed scientific journals. The Department has funded work on electric fields from power lines at Bristol University which was published in December 1999 and the United Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study which is expected to be published shortly. The Department also contributes to the World Health Organisation Electromagnetic Fields Project, the progress of which is accessible on its website.

  The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) provides advice to Government on these matters. In 1992, and again in 1994, the NRPB's independent advisory group on non-ionising radiation examined the evidence for an association between the incidence of cancer and exposure to electromagnetic fields and concluded that there was no clear evidence of an adverse health effect at the levels of electromagnetic field to which the public is normally exposed. The advisory group monitors the relevant research and will be publishing a comprehensive review of the more recent studies including those on electric fields in the next few months.

  Ambulance Services (Kent and Sussex)
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will make an announcement about the timetable for the proposed reorganisation of ambulance services in Kent and Sussex. [138905]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 17 November 2000]: The seven ambulance trusts in South East Region of the National Health Service, together with the Isle of Wight Ambulance Service, which is part of the Isle of Wight Healthcare Trust, have conducted a review of how ambulance services are delivered in the region. They have submitted their findings to Ministers and these are under consideration.

  Hospital Waiting Times (Mid-Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Mid Essex Hospital Trust area were waiting(a) for inpatient treatment for the last available month, (b) more than 12 months for inpatient treatment and (c) 13 weeks or more for an outpatient appointment in the last available quarter. [138869]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Total number of patients waiting and the number of patients waiting over 12 months for hospital treatment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust in September 2000

  Month

  Total number of patients waiting

  Number of patients waiting over 12 months

  September 2000

  9,486

  781

  Source:

  KH07 quarterly return
  53W

  Total number of patients waiting 13 weeks or more for an outpatient appointment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust in Quarter 2 2000–01

  Month

  Number of patients waiting over 13 weeks

  Q2 2000–01

  2,836

  Source:

  QM08 quarterly return

  Medical Training
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many students started(a) a diploma in nursing and (b) a degree in nursing studies in each year since 1997; and what the drop out rate was for each year's intake. [138694]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested for England is given in the tables.

  Student commissions

  Nursing

  Midwifery

  Year

  diploma

  degree

  Adjusted diploma

  degree

  total1

  1997–98

  14,429

  297

  572

  224

  16,539

  1998–99

  15,523

  21,314

  597

  255

  17,689

  1999–2000

  16,020

  1,726

  620

  403

  18,769

  2000–013

  16,799

  2,407

  615

  504

  20,325

  Average attrition rates as at December 1999

  Percentage

  Year/cohort

  Diploma

  Degree

  Combined diploma and degree

  1997–984

  15.7

  13.47

  15.48

  1998–99

  6.92

  8.34

  7.07

  1999–2000

  5—

  5—

  5—

  2000–01

  5—

  5—

  5—

  1Forecast outturn commissions based on Q2 2000–01 NMET performance management report

  2Adjusted to take account of Dearing transfer 1,017 places 1992–93 to 1997–98 inclusive

  3The step change in degree commissions in 1998–99 is as a result of the transfer from DfEE to DH following Dearing

  4The data held for 1997–98 only cover the first year of the course, data that include the second year should be available after December 2000.

  5Data not yet available

  Source:

  English National Board

  Data held for the 1995–96 cohort—the majority of these students have now completed their training—shows an attrition figure of 17 per cent. Attrition rates also vary from year to year, from university to university and across nursing branches. The human resources performance framework, published on 4 October 2000 set a target for training intakes from 2000–01 of an attrition rate no higher than 13 per cent. in pre-registration nursing and midwifery training.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many students started medical training and what the drop-out rate was in each year since 1997. [138692]
  54W
  Mr. Denham
  Figures provided by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) on the number of full-time undergraduate entrants to medical schools in United Kingdom higher education institutions since 1997–98 are as follows:

  UK

  England

  1997–98

  5,062

  3,749

  1998–99

  5,069

  3,735

  1999–2000

  15,306

  13,980

  1The 1999–2000 figures are provisional. Awaiting confirmation of July 2000 figures in HEFCE November 2000 Survey.

  Information on the attrition rate of medical students is not collected centrally.

  Dementia
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's expenditure on research into dementia was in each year since 1993–94. [138784]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on 21 June 1999,Official Report, column 289.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress his Department has made in examining the need to review section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968; and if he will make a statement. [138872]

  Ms Stuart
  Section 118 of the Medicines Act is one of a number of pieces of legislation that the Government are currently reviewing to see whether or not it is appropriate to repeal them, once new freedom of information legislation is in place, and a final decision has still to be made.

  Section 118 does not place an absolute restriction on the disclosure of information. The Medicines Control Agency, as the executive arm of the licensing authority, acts on the basis that section 118 allows it to disclose information where to do so is in the performance of its duty to protect public health. Therefore, where there is a risk to public health or safety, the agency has an overriding obligation to remove or reduce that risk even if confidentiality is broken. The agency also complies with the current administrative Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  NHS Retirement Age
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average age at retirement was of(a) all members of the NHS pension scheme in England and Wales, (b) members in normal health and (c) members in ill health between 1 April 1994 and 31 March 1999, or in the last five years for which figures are available, broken down by professional group; and what the total number of retirements over the same period was for each professional group. [138752]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  55W

  Average age at retirement

  Employment group

  All members

  Normal health

  Ill health

  Total retirements

  Administrative Officers and those not in groups below

  58

  60

  52

  22,917

  Mental Health Officers (non-manual), excluding MHOs with special class status not yet doubling membership, Part Time Mental Health Specialists

  55

  58.5

  51

  6,736

  Manual Workers

  58.5

  61.5

  53

  19,677

  Mental Health Officers (manual),excluding MHOs with special class status not yet doubling membership

  59

  61

  54.5

  62

  Hospital Medical Staff (consultants, registrars, junior doctors),Part Time Specialists (non MHO) MHOs and Nurses without special class status

  57

  61

  49

  6,014

  Medical Practitioners

  59.5

  62.5

  53.5

  2,069

  Dental Practitioners

  57

  60.5

  51.5

  964

  Nurses, Physiotherapists, Midwives and Health Visitors with special class status, MHOs with special class status not yet doubling Membership

  55.5

  59.5

  51

  32,763

  GP Practice staff

  61

  62

  46.5

  279

  All Groups

  57

  60

  51.5

  191,481

  1Based upon data available to the Government Actuary, in the form requested, of some 72 per cent. of retirements during the period. The total number of retirements processed by the NHS Pensions Agency between 1994 and 1999 was 127,380. The breakdown of the remaining 28 per cent. is not yet available.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his statement on NHS resources and priorities of 14 November 2000,Official Report, columns 805–08, how many people have been waiting for outpatient treatment for 13 weeks or more; and if he will estimate how many will be waiting by 2002. [138910]

  Mr. Denham
  At the end of September, 435,768 patients were waiting over 13 weeks for a first outpatient appointment. The number of those waiting more than 13 weeks fell by 80,000 over the past year and we expect further falls next year.

  Delayed Hospital Discharges
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish, for the period 1 July to 30 September, figures for delayed discharges from hospital of people aged 75 and over in(a) East Kent Health Authority and (b) England. [138647]

  Ms Stuart
  For that period the rates of delayed discharges for people over 75-years-old were 10.76 per cent. in East Kent Health Authority and 12.99 per cent. in England.

  Health Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in rank order expenditure in each health authority by weighted head of population in each of the financial years 1996–97, 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 in respect of(a) primary care, (b) secondary care, (c) administration and programme and (d) total expenditure. [139387]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Expenditure per weighted head of population for 1996–97 to 1999–2000, in rank order, is shown for each health authority in England in the tables. Figures are shown for expenditure on primary care, secondary care, administration and programme, and as a total, in each case.
  56W
  These figures are not comparable between years or between health authorities as a result of changes in accounting practice and other technical accounting differences.

  Euro
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the trusts and health authorities which have submitted to the NHS South East Regional Office their estimates of the cost of changing over from the pound to the euro; and if he will list in respect of each such trust and health authority the estimated cost of the changeover in terms of(a) staff days and (b) non-staff costs. [139366]

  Mr. Denham
  The position on National Health Service bodies is given in Treasury's Fourth Report on Euro Preparations, published on 6 November 2000.

  It is not possible at this stage to provide estimates of the costs of a changeover to the NHS because they would reflect the timing and nature of any future implementation. For example, NHS bodies will as a matter of routine be upgrading systems as they become obsolete and this could provide them with euro compliant systems at minimal cost.

  Health Authority Allocations
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the total health authority allocations for 2001–02 for each health authority in England on a per capita basis. [138863]

  Mr. Denham
  Health authority allocations for 2001–02 per weighted head of population in each health authority in England are given in the table.

  2001–02 allocation per weighted head of population

  Health authority

  £

  Avon

  724

  Barking and Havering

  743

  Barnet

  714

  Barnsley

  719

  Bedfordshire

  703

  Berkshire

  708

  57W

  2001–02 allocation per weighted head of population

  Health authority

  £

  Bexley and Greenwich

  786

  Birmingham

  742

  Bradford

  735

  Brent and Harrow

  735

  Bromley

  745

  Buckinghamshire

  712

  Bury and Rochdale

  737

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  740

  Cambridgeshire

  710

  Camden and Islington

  747

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  748

  County Durham

  727

  Coventry

  730

  Croydon

  724

  Doncaster

  749

  Dorset

  754

  Dudley

  732

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  720

  East and North Hertfordshire

  725

  East Kent

  755

  East Lancashire

  739

  East London and the City

  686

  East Riding

  751

  East Surrey

  748

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  756

  Enfield and Haringey

  726

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  743

  Gloucestershire

  760

  Herefordshire

  738

  Hillingdon

  726

  Isle of Wight

  792

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  657

  Kingston and Richmond

  739

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  734

  Leeds

  750

  Leicestershire

  717

  Lincolnshire

  734

  Liverpool

  764

  Manchester

  763

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  759

  Morecambe Bay

  768

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  757

  Norfolk

  729

  North and East Devon

  742

  North and Mid Hampshire

  733

  North Cheshire

  752

  North Cumbria

  740

  North Derbyshire

  740

  North Essex

  725

  North Nottinghamshire

  731

  North Staffordshire

  732

  North West Lancashire

  748

  North Yorkshire

  727

  Northamptonshire

  735

  Northumberland

  746

  Nottingham

  729

  Oxfordshire

  709

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  736

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  758

  Rotherham

  737

  Salford and Trafford

  758

  Sandwell

  740

  Sefton

  771

  Sheffield

  761

  Shropshire

  726

  Solihull

  739

  Somerset

  739

  South and West Devon

  755

  South Cheshire

  744

  South Derbyshire

  718

  South Essex

  723

  South Humber

  755

  58W

  2001–02 allocation per weighted head of population

  Health authority

  £

  South Lancashire

  743

  South Staffordshire

  723

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  736

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  737

  Stockport

  729

  Suffolk

  740

  Sunderland

  738

  Tees

  736

  Wakefield

  740

  Walsall

  723

  Warwickshire

  741

  West Hertfordshire

  732

  West Kent

  738

  West Pennine

  724

  West Surrey

  746

  West Sussex

  730

  Wigan and Bolton

  715

  Wiltshire

  736

  Wirral

  767

  Wolverhampton

  735

  Worcestershire

  734

  England

  736

  Care Workers (Child Protection)
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the vetting of child care workers required by the Protection of Children Act 1999 is operational. [139161]

  Mr. Hutton
  Yes. The requirement contained in the Protection of Children Act 1999 for child care organisations to check child care workers came into effect on 2 October 2000.

  Council of Health Regulators
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated annual cost of the proposed establishment of a UK Council of Health Regulators; and if he will make a statement. [138467]

  Mr. Denham
  We proposed in the National Health Service Plan that a United Kingdom Council of Health Regulators should be established to provide formal co-ordination between the health regulatory bodies which would, in the first place, act as a forum in which common approaches across the professions could be developed for dealing with matters such as complaints against practitioners. Its role will depend on the willingness of the regulatory bodies to reform. We are therefore still considering the proposed form, functions and cost of this new body.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the financial consequences of abolishing community health councils and replacing them with patient advocacy and liaison services (PALS), patients' forums, local advisory forums and all party scrutiny committees. [138468]

  Ms Stuart
  The National Health Service Plan sets out a programme of investment and reform to modernise NHS. Chapter 10 of the Plan announced the introduction of a new system of public and patient involvement to
  59W
  strengthen the voice of the patient at every level of the NHS. As a consequence, Community Health Councils are to be abolished, subject to legislation.

  The aim of the new system is not to cut costs, but to transform the NHS, so that health care services are built around the needs of the patients who use it and citizens that pay for it. The current CHC budget is £23 million per annum, and an additional £10 million per annum has been made available from 2001–02 specifically to assist with the introduction of a Patient Advocacy and Liaison Service.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will invoke the precautionary principle in respect of bovine TB by permitting a cull of badgers in affected areas; [137555]

  (2) what measures he proposes to arrest the spread of bovine TB. [137553]

  Ms Quin
  The Government fully recognise the economic and financial costs which cattle TB imposes on the farming industry. We are pressing ahead with a comprehensive strategy first detailed in 1998 and on which regular progress reports are given to the House. The Government are keeping the need for additional measures under constant review.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the risk to cattle of ingesting grass contaminated by badger urine and excrement. [137583]

  Ms Quin
  Research is being carried out by the Moredun Research Institute and the Scottish Agricultural College examining the potential routes of M.bovis transmission from pasture contaminated with infected excreta to cattle under controlled conditions. Results will be published when available.

  Sugar Beet Regime
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the value was of the ex-farm sugar beet crop in each of the past five years; and what is the estimated comparable figure post implementation of the proposed new EU sugar regime. [137588]

  Ms Quin
  The value of the UK sugar beet crop in the last five years was as follows:

  £million

  1995

  355

  1996

  358

  1997

  329

  1998

  295

  1999

  291

  The future value of the crop will depend on a number of factors, including sugar beet yields and the level of sugar production quotas. Quotas are expected to continue
  60W
  to be constrained by current WTO limits on export subsidies; the extent of the constraint will be determined in part by future world market prices.

  Seed Purity
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many spot checks have been undertaken in the last six months to ensure seed purity. [137347]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 November 2000]: Between 1 May and 31 October 2000, MAFF arranged for 611 samples to be taken and tested from seed offered for sale. These were tested to ensure compliance with the minimum standards for analytical purity and 'other seeds content' required by the EU seeds directives. Of the samples tested, two failed to reach these minimum standards due to excessive presence of ergot or other seeds.

  In addition, the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) has delegated powers under Section 125 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to carry out inspection and enforcement with respect to the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms. CSL inspectors have audited 11 main seed importers to ensure that appropriate checks and tests are being carried out to prevent unapproved GM seed varieties being released.

  In response to a Government request for information, the seeds industry has advised that they have reviewed their seed production methods and, where a risk assessment deems it appropriate, seed companies are having samples of seed tested to detect any presence of GM material.

  BSE
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) undertaken into the possibility that cow dung used as a fertiliser could transmit BSE in cattle to humans as CJD; what were the findings; and what advice he has issued on the matter. [137624]

  Ms Quin
  No work has been commissioned to demonstrate directly that cow dung used as fertiliser could transmit BSE to humans as CJD. In studies commissioned by MAFF, BSE infectivity has been found in the wall of the gut of cattle that were given BSE infected cattle brain by mouth, but none has been seen in the gut of natural cases of BSE. Analysis of data from the epidemic (by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) and other groups) suggests that horizontal transmission between animals does not occur, by any route. It has proved difficult to test faeces directly for infection, as it is highly toxic to mice, but no infection has been transmitted to mice from the faeces of cattle experimentally infected with BSE.
  61W
  Although MAFF has not issued advice on this matter, SEAC have considered and issued advice on the disposal of excreta from experimentally infected cattle. The Committee's advice applies specifically to experimentally infected cattle and SEAC has not issued broader advice on this question.

  Swine Fever
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the first payments under the new pig welfare compensation scheme will be paid to farmers in areas affected by swine fever. [138274]

  Ms Quin
  Producers with welfare difficulties as a result of being subject to movement controls due to the classical swine fever outbreak in East Anglia are eligible to enter their pigs into the Pig Welfare (Disposal) Scheme. Payments under that scheme since its inception on 29 August and up to 13 November have amounted to £1.5 million. Changes to the payment structure of the scheme, announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister on 1 November, may result in a few minor adjustments to those payments.

  Million dozen

  Country

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  United Kingdom

  791

  80

  791

  772

  770

  752

  761

  76

  754

  726

  Netherlands

  47

  2

  19

  22

  31

  29

  30

  3

  25

  31

  France

  12

  —

  6

  13

  17

  15

  17

  1

  20

  19

  Germany

  8

  —

  8

  5

  4

  6

  7

  —

  7

  8

  Belgium

  3

  —

  3

  4

  6

  5

  7

  —

  3

  5

  Denmark

  2

  —

  3

  3

  4

  4

  3

  —

  3

  3

  Italy

  0

  —

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2

  —

  3

  1

  Irish Republic

  0

  —

  0

  0

  2

  3

  2

  —

  1

  0

  Others

  0

  —

  0

  2

  2

  2

  4

  —

  3

  2

  Total

  864

  85

  831

  821

  837

  818

  833

  83

  819

  795

  0 = less than 0.5 million dozen eggs

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise; MAFF

  Poultry
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what forecasts he has made in respect of the economic prospects of the poultry sector for the next 12 months. [138433]

  Ms Quin
  Income forecasts for pig and poultry farms, year ending February 2001, will be published in a Statistical News Release on 31 January 2001. More detailed information underlying these forecasts will be published in "Farm Incomes in the UK, 1999–2000" in March 2001.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will receive the report from CBD Porton Down on the dose effect profiles for organophosphate sheep dips on brain electrical activity and sensitive behaviour indices in non-human primates; and if he will make a statement on the progress of organophosphate research. [138049]
  62W
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the causes of the outbreak of swine fever in East Anglia. [138096]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: The most likely source of infection is still thought to be consumption by a pig or pigs of an infected pork product. However, epidemiological investigations are continuing and the results of these investigations will be reported in full in due course.

  Eggs
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries of origin of eggs sold in the UK in each of the past 10 years. [138271]

  Ms Quin
  The table shows the country of origin of eggs sold in the UK. For imported eggs the country of dispatch is given. Some of these eggs may have been produced in another country, but such information is not available on a reliable basis. The data include the shell egg equivalent of whole (dried, frozen and liquid) egg, egg yolk, and albumen.

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 November 2000]: The research project at CBD Porton Down commenced in April 1998. This is a particularly exacting study and progress is such that the final report may not be available before April 2002.

  On the broader range of organophosphate research, following the publication of the Report of the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, a government funded programme of research is being put in place. The issues to be addressed were discussed in a Scientific Workshop on 28 March and a Research Requirements Document was published on 20 July. Concept notes submitted in response to this document have been evaluated by independent scientists and 18 proposers have been invited to submit full proposals. We expect that full proposals will be evaluated in December and our aim is to complete the commissioning process by February 2001. We are also funding a review of data on suspected health complaints in humans held by the OP Information Network, the Pesticides Action Network and the Northern Ireland OP Sufferers Association which will be carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
  63W
  A database of Government-funded OP research generally since 1995 has been prepared and is available on-line to the public at www.csl.gov.uk/ops (passwords are "public" then "access".

  Farming
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farming businesses(a) closed and (b) went bankrupt in each year between 1990 and 2000. [139025]

  Ms Quin
  Statistics on the number of farming business closures are not available. Data on farming bankruptcies are available only for England and Wales, and only up to 1999. These data are presented in the table.

  Number of bankruptcies in the agricultural and horticultural sector: England and Wales 1990–99

  Year

  Total bankruptcies (including insolvencies1)

  1990

  309

  1991

  401

  1992

  504

  1993

  434

  1994

  397

  1995

  317

  1996

  257

  1997

  206

  1998

  222

  1999

  224

  £Companies and Partnerships

  Source:

  Department of Trade and Industry

  LEADER + Programme
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he has made for the implementation of the LEADER+ Programme in England. [139447]

  Mr. Morley
  MAFF has submitted the draft England LEADER+ Programme to Brussels; similar arrangements are being made for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  I have arranged for copies of the Programme document to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  GM Feedstuffs
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide updated information on the project to feed GM maize and corn to chickens, including the date on which the project commenced, the date it will finish, the date when its results will be available and who is undertaking it. [136485]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The design of this project is still being considered and hence it has not yet started. The objective of the research is to establish if DNA molecules from GM feed ingredients can be detected in poultry meat at slaughter. When the experimental protocol has been finalised the research is expected to last about 18 months. The findings will be published once the experimental data are analysed at the end of the research phase. It is envisaged that the project will be undertaken by ADAS Consulting Ltd.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the value of compensation clawback from(a) Scottish and (b) UK ex-miners as a result of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997. [135119]

  Mr. Bayley
  We do not have a current estimate of the amount of benefit that will be recovered from the Department of Trade and Industry in respect of UK ex-miners cases as a result of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997.

  The number of claims settled to date has been relatively small. Claims by ex-miners against the former British Coal Board are a unique situation, and we will be able to prepare reliable estimates only once more robust information regarding the numbers of potential claims, and the potential amounts to be recovered, becomes available.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the estimated average delay arising from the need to assess recovery of compensation under the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 was in the last 12 months in payment of compensation to ex-miners suffering from respiratory diseases. [135122]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Compensation Recovery Unit has a statutory obligation to advise compensators of the amount to be recovered, within 28 days of a request for this information. This obligation is being met in 99.8 per cent. of cases. In cases where the information is not sent within 28 days, the Unit loses its right to recover and the compensator is entitled to settle without further reference to the Unit.

  Compensators (including the Department of Trade and Industry) apply to this Department for details of the amount to be recovered well in advance of making any settlement, and apply periodically for revised details. Thus they are in possession of current details on the date that an agreement to settle is made, and compensation may be paid without delay.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the recovery of compensation payments under the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 is applicable if the recipient of compensation is the widow of the original claimant. [135120]

  Mr. Bayley
  Yes. The requirement to recover compensation payments applies in respect of the benefits paid to the person who suffered the accident, injury or disease, irrespective of whether the actual recipient of the compensation payment is someone other than the person who suffered the accident, injury or disease. Recovery is made at source from the compensator, never from the recipient.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many certificates have been issued by the Compensation Recovery Unit to reclaim benefits from damages received under the miners" compensation settlement; what was the original amount earmarked that could be reclaimed under these certificates; and what is currently the estimated amount. [136430]
  65W
  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Income Support
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of Income Support who are (i) unemployed and (ii) single parents have been in receipt of the benefit for(a) up to one year, (b) one to two years,(c) two to three years, (d) more than three years and (e) other periods for which information is available. [137094]

  Angela Eagle
  Income-based Jobseeker"s Allowance replaced Income Support as the income related benefit for unemployed people with effect from October 1996. Recipients of Income Support may however, work part time for up to 16 hours per week. Their partner, should they have one, may work up to 24 hours per week without affecting entitlement to Income Support.

  Income Support lone parents by duration, Great Britain, May 2000

  Thousand

  Duration

  Number of claimants

  Under 1 year

  213.0

  1–2 years

  150.9

  2–3 years

  104.2

  3 years and over

  442.0

  Total of all cases

  910.1

  Notes:

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

  2. Based on 5 per cent. sample (therefore subject to sampling error)

  3. Lone parents are single claimants with dependants who are not receiving the disability or pensioner premium

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 2000

  Income-based Jobseeker"s Allowance claimants by duration, Great Britain, May 2000

  Thousand

  Duration

  Number of claimants

  Under 1 year

  562.6

  1–2 years

  113.5

  2–3 years

  50.3

  3 years and over

  98.1

  Total of all cases

  824.5

  Notes:

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

  2. Based on 5 per cent. sample therefore subject to sampling error

  3. Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance claimants may have underlying entitlement to benefit via the contributory route

  4. Jobseeker"s Allowance replaced Income Support for the unemployed with effect from October 1996

  Source:

  Jobseeker"s Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 2000.

  Pensions Advisers
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensions advisers at each grade in his Department there were in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000; and what was the relevant staff establishment in each year. [137759]
  66W
  Mr. Rooker
  The Department has no specific pension adviser posts. All staff engaged on pensions work give advice to the public. Staffing information is not held on specific areas of work.

  Disability Living Allowance (Appeals)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those claimants who are successful at disability living allowance appeal tribunals have had to wait in excess of(a) one month, (b) two months and (c) three months for arrears to be paid in the last 12 months. [138055]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Appeals Service Tribunal
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what factors underlay the decision to replace the Independent Tribunal Service with the Appeals Service Tribunal. [138300]

  Angela Eagle
  The Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) was a tribunal non-Departmental Public Body under a Presidential system. The President was responsible not only for judicial functions but also for the administration of the five tribunals. As a member of the judiciary, the President was not accountable to Parliament for the performance of ITS, and it was not possible to set targets relating to appeals administration.

  The Social Security Act 1998 provided the legislative framework to introduce a more streamlined and efficient appeals system. The President remains the judicial head of appeal tribunals and is responsible for their independent functions.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State assumed responsibility for the administration of appeals from 1 June 1999 and the Appeals Service agency, headed by a Chief Executive, was established on 3 April 2000. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set the agency key financial and performance targets which are detailed in its published Business Plan for 2000–01.

  Basic Pension
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what increases in the basic pension for 2001–02 and 2002–03 would result if the 0.3 per cent. reduction in employers" contribution rates was cancelled and the money spent on the basic pension. [138351]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 15 November 2000]: The 0.3 per cent. reduction relates to the climate change levy and therefore has no relevance to Social Security policy issues.

  Pensioners (Over-75s)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the impact on pensioners approaching 75 years of the obligation to purchase annuities or risk losing their pension; and if he will make a statement. [138542]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have received various representations on the requirement to use tax-approved pension funds to purchase an annuity by the age of 75. These are
  67W
  long-standing rules which ensure that such funds are used to provide secure lifelong pensions in retirement. We are considering the points that have been made and an announcement will be made in due course if it is decided that any changes to the current rules are needed.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 22 June 2000,Official Report, column 254W, what is the average time taken to process Housing Benefit claims by Chelmsford Borough Council; and what proportion of new claims for which all the relevant information has been provided are not dealt with within the 14 day guidelines to process applications. [139076]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested about the average time taken to process Housing Benefit claims is not currently available. So far very limited information has been provided by local authorities on performance against Best Value indicators for the period April to June 2000. This information is currently being considered and analysed by the Department. Full year results will not be available until late summer 2001.

  Between April 1999 and March 2000, the latest period for which data are available, Chelmsford Borough council cleared 57 per cent. of its new Housing Benefit claims within 14 days of receipt of all necessary information.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 22 June 2000, Official Report, column 254W, on Housing Benefit, what is the average length of time taken to determine new Housing Benefit claims by each local authority in England. [139075]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not currently available. So far very limited information has been provided by local authorities on performance against Best Value indicators for the period April to June 2000. This information is currently being considered and analysed by the Department. Full year results will not be available until late summer 2001.

  Pensioner Income
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of(a) single and (b) married couple pensioners have an income of £20,000 a year or more; and if he will list for those groups the main sources of income. [139301]

  Mr. Rooker
  Some 398,000 pensioner couples have an annual net income of more than £20,000. This represents 15 per cent. of all pensioner couples. Corresponding information for single pensioners is not available since the sample size is too small to provide statistically reliable estimates.

  The main sources of income for pensioners who have an annual net income of more than £20,000 are benefit income (including pensions), Occupational pensions, investment income, earnings and other income.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security at what level of income entitlement to the pension credit would run out in the case of a single pensioner receiving the basic pension at(a) 20 per cent., (b) 30 per cent., (c) 40 per cent., (d) 50 per cent.,
  68W
  (e) 60 per cent., (f) 70 per cent., (g) 80 per cent., (h) 90 per cent. and (i) 100 per cent. of the full rate. [139311]

  Mr. Rooker
  The pension credit does not work in this way. The aim of the pension credit is to reward savings income of up to £135 a week for a single pensioner and £200 a week for couples.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the additional cost which would result from increasing the stakeholder exemption limit to 20 employees. [137443]

  Mr. Rooker
  Exempting employers of less than 20 people from providing access to Stakeholder Pensions could affect over one million businesses and 1.89 million employees. There would be no additional cost.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research has been carried out by his Department to estimate the additional costs of introducing stakeholder pensions to be met by smaller scale employers with numbers of employees just above the proposed exemption limits. [137442]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Regulatory Impact Assessment published with the Stakeholder Pension Scheme Regulations 2000 (SI 1403) set out estimates of the range of costs likely to be faced by employers in providing access to a stakeholder pension scheme. A copy of the Assessment is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the organisations consulted on the implementation of the proposals for stakeholder pensions; what proportion of those consulted raised concerns about the additional administrative work involved; and what changes were made as a result of the consultation. [137440]

  Mr. Rooker
  Over 400 organisations were consulted on our proposals for stakeholder pension schemes. There was a specific consultation on proposals for the employer access requirement on which more than 100 responses were received. These included responses from the Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses.

  Several responses, by or on behalf of employers, expressed concerns about the likely administrative burden. The consultation proposals were subsequently amended to exempt employers with fewer than five employees from the requirement. An exemption was also added for employers who offer their employees at least a 3 per cent. contribution to a personal pension which meets certain conditions.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recent representations he has had from employers and their representatives on the administrative work involved in the introduction of stakeholder pensions. [137441]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have not received any formal representations from employers or their representatives on the administrative work involved in providing access to stakeholder pension schemes since the consultation exercises (proposals for the employer access requirement
  69W
  were issued in June 1999, and the draft regulations in May 2000). However, we continue to receive inquiries from employers seeking clarification on the ways in which the employer access requirement will work.

  Winter Fuel Allowance (Carers)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of extending the Winter Fuel Allowance to carers in receipt of ICA where there is no one in the household over 60; and how many beneficiaries there would be. [138909]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is estimated that the cost of extending Winter Fuel Payments to carers in receipt of Invalid Care Allowance, where there is no-one in the household over 60, would be £50 million in the winter of 2000–01, with approximately 250,000 extra recipients.

  Notes:

  1. Based on survey information, subject to sampling error.

  2. Cash prices, to the nearest 10 million.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that respondents to the Minimum Income Guarantee take-up campaign who are not eligible for Minimum Income Guarantee but might be eligible for the pensioner credit are notified of their entitlement. [138693]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are considering what steps are needed to do this.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of incomplete national insurance records on the NIRS2 computer system for the financial year 1997–98; and if he will make a statement on the implications of these incomplete records on the benefit and pension entitlements of those effected. [137694]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  At the end of each year we receive contributions details for approximately 50 million individual employees, some of whom have had several jobs during the year. We have updated over 98 per cent. of individual records for which we have received 1997–98 details.

  Of the remaining two per cent., in the majority of cases the information we have received is incomplete, or in a format that we cannot use to update the individual record. This is a feature of any year and we are continuing to work with employers to put this right. The remaining details are currently being entered into NIRS2.

  By the end of November we estimate that we will have updated over 99 per cent. of records on NIRS2 for which we have received 1997–98 contributions details.

  The effect on an individual's benefit or pension entitlement of their 1997–98 National Insurance contribution record being incomplete varies from case to case.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  "Charging with Care"
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her oral answer of 11 May 2000,Official Report, column 1015, on the Audit Commission report "Charging with Care", what the basis was of her statement concerning the Commission"s findings about Liberal Democrat councils. [138015]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Policies (Gorton)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Manchester, Gorton constituency, of his Department"s policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [136174]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department does not maintain statistical information down to constituency level.

  Constituents in Gorton, like many others in Manchester, will have benefited from my Department"s Employment Rights policies, which include the National Minimum Wage, the Working Time Directive, Part-Time Working Regulations and improved Maternity Leave.

  The Ward of Got-ton, North has been included in the revised Assisted Area map for Regional Selective Assistance and all of the Wards are included for the Enterprise Grant Scheme.

  In the North-West we are also promoting regional innovation including the use of new technology, supporting small business, and developing Manufacturing Centres of Excellence.

  Miners" Compensation
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many medical assessment procedures in respect of miners" compensation claims for chest disease were completed(a) in 1999, (b) January to June, (c) July, (d) August, (e) September and (f) October. [137072]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Since the beginning of 1999, Healthcall, the company contracted to carry out both the first stage medical assessments (spirometry) and the full Medical Assessment Process (MAP), have completed a total of 59,277 spirometry tests, and 6,059 MAP assessments broken down as follows:

  Spirometry

  MAP

  1999

  37,169

  2

  January to June

  17,887

  1,163

  July

  1,878

  714

  August

  2,154

  942

  September

  1,440

  1,408

  October

  1,324

  1,830

  Post Offices
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many mergers of sub-post offices are estimated by the Performance and Innovation Unit to result from its recommendation to create bigger outlets. [138043]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]The Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit report on the Post Office network did not contain such an estimate.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post masters and mistresses are qualified and registered with the Financial Services Authority to offer financial advice on retirement pension provision. [138036]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: There are no proposals from the government or any other body including the National Federation of Subpostmasters for subpostmasters and mistresses to offer financial advice on retirement pension provision.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the formula proposed by the Post Office for calculating a social network payment for sub-post offices. [138038]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: The Post Office network submitted its business plan to me on 19 September. The plan contains commercially sensitive information and was submitted to me in confidence.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations he has received regarding modified post offices. [138417]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 14 November 2000]: Written representations regarding modified sub post offices have been received from four Members of Parliament and from 6 individual subpostmasters.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to ensure that those running modified sub-post offices receive (a) the minimum wage and (b) other employees' statutory rights, following the decision in the case of H. & V. Patel v. the Commissioner of Customs and Excise. [138410]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 14 November 2000]: It is the responsibility of the Post Office to ensure compliance with any employment legislation applicable to sub-postmasters.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many parishes do not have a post office(a) in the latest year for which figures are available and (b) 10 years previously; and if he will place a list of those parishes in the Library. 139061]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that they do not hold data at parish level.

  Late Payment
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many invoices the Ministerial Parliamentary 72W
  Support team paid in 1999–2000; and what percentage of these were paid within 30 days of receipt or from the date a supplier dispute was resolved. 138400]

  Ms Hewitt
  In 1999–2000, 93 per cent. of invoices for expenditure incurred by the Department, including the Ministerial and Parliamentary Support Team, were paid within 30 days.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will explain the reasons for the shortfall in performance against his departmental target of paying 100 per cent. of all currently presented bills in 1999–2000 within 30 days of receipt of goods and services or a valid invoice. [138399]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department has been introducing a Resource Accounting and Budgeting system, including a new electronic measure of the bills received and paid. The transition to the new system has temporarily affected the bill paying process across the Department.

  Waste Packaging Regulations
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the cost of the Waste Packaging Regulations to(a) consumers and (b) business. [138497]

  Ms Hewitt
  Assessments of the costs of these Regulations have been made at every stage of their development. In August 2000, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions published a consultation paper on the recovery and recycling targets in the Regulations. This paper included a draft Regulatory Impact Assessment which estimated that the cost to the UK for 2001 would be in the region of £150 million. It is for businesses to decide what proportion of these costs will be passed on to consumers.

  IBM UK
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support the Government provides in the form of(a) regional grant and (b) other measures to IBM UK. [138495]

  Mr. Caborn
  Since May 1997, IBM UK has received Regional Selective Assistance for new investment in Great Britain and assistance from the Renfrewshire Enterprise Company for training associated with that investment.

  As an inward investor, IBM has also received advice from Invest UK and Locate in Scotland concerning their activities in the UK.

  Biwater (Clay Cross) Ltd.
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer to the Competition Commission for investigation under the Fair Trading Act 1973 the takeover of Biwater (Clay Cross) Ltd. by Saint Gobain. [137975]
  73W
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 November 2000]: The Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) advised me on 21 June 2000 that I should not refer this merger to the Competition Commission under the Fair Trading Act 1973. I accepted this recommendation on 29 June 2000 and cleared the merger.

  Subsequently, my hon. Friend and others raised issues which they felt amounted to material information which should lead to the case being re-opened and referred to the Competition Commission.

  I submitted this information to the DGFT and asked him to consider whether it was material information.

  The DGFT wrote to my hon. Friend on 23 October 2000 to say that he had concluded that the additional information provided was not material. Therefore he saw no grounds for re-opening the case.

  After taking into account all the relevant considerations and the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 I have accepted the advice of the DGFT.

  Nissan, Sunderland
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with Nissan over the future of its car plant in Sunderland. [138690]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 November 2000]: The Department is in regular contact with senior executives from Nissan both from the UK and Japan to discuss issues affecting the development of the car plant in Sunderland. Officials are also working closely with the company to help secure the assembly of the new Micra model at the Sunderland plant.

  Universal Banking
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the high street banks which(a) are working with the Post Office to develop the concept of Universal Banking services and (b) have declined to do so. [138513]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 November 2000]: The Post Office is working with the High Street banks, other financial institutions, the British Bankers' Association and the Building Societies Association to develop the concept of Universal Banking services. No bank has declined to do so.

  EC Merger Regulations
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the French presidency's proposals for EU-wide mergers and acquisition legislation. [138679]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 November 2000]: EC legislation on mergers and acquisitions has existed since 1989 in the form of the EC Merger Regulation (Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064–89, since amended by Council Regulation (EC) 1310–97). Mergers which meet the thresholds in the Regulation fall to the consideration of the European Commission rather than to that of national competition authorities.
  74W
  The French Presidency has not made any proposals regarding the amendment of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the European Commission has begun a review of the Regulation following a report to the Council of Ministers on the operation of its thresholds. The report can be found on the Commission's website at: www.europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/review and copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Offshore Oil Industry
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to the European Commission concerning the impact of the EC Directive on large combustion plants on the off-shore oil industry. [139155]

  Ms Hewitt
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has represented the views of Her Majesty's Government in discussions on this Directive. Under the Common Position reached at the June meeting of the Environment Council, the Directive would not apply to plant used on offshore platforms.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he intends to take to provide assistance to businesses based in areas not scheduled for coverage by BT's ADSL roll-out programme. [139071]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 17 November 2000]: The Government will stimulate and promote industry investment in higher bandwidth services so that as many people as possible can get faster access to the Internet and other information services. For this reason, we are encouraging a range of higher bandwidth technologies, such as cable modems, third generation mobile phones, broadband fixed wireless and satellite services, as well as ADSL. To cover the areas that the market does not reach, we will work through the development agencies in the regions, and in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales to develop effective strategies for the rollout of higher bandwidth services.

  Business Regulations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many regulations on businesses were in existence in 1997; and how many there are now. [136418]

  Mr. Stringer
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not kept in the form requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Existing regulations with the potential to affect business may originate far back in history and cross a great spread of departmental responsibilities.

  Since 1998, every regulation with an impact on business is required to undergo a regulatory impact assessment to ensure that all the alternatives have been considered and that the benefits justify the costs. Regulatory impact assessments can be obtained from the Libraries of the House.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Servants (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will end the requirement for civil servants to retire at the age of 60. [137621]

  Mr. Stringer
  Departments have authority to set the normal retirement age for their own staff, with the exception of those in the Senior Civil Service, and some already operate retirement ages above 60. The normal retirement age for members of the Senior Civil Service is currently 60.

  In the light of the Performance and Innovation Unit report "Winning the Generation Game" Departments are considering, as recommended in the report, whether changes to their retirement arrangements would be practicable, and the Cabinet Office will consider whether to change the retirement age for the Senior Civil Service.

  Drug Misuse
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the Government's strategy to reduce unlawful drug use. [137448]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Government's 10-year strategy for tackling drug misuse, "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain", was published in 1998. The strategy is proactive and wide-ranging. It aims to create a healthy and confident society, increasingly free from the harm caused by the misuse of drugs, particularly Class A drugs such as heroin and cocaine.

  The UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator published his Annual Report for 1999–2000 on 7 November 2000. The report shows that we are making progress towards meeting the challenging targets we have set. My hon. Friend will be interested to read the written answer that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on 7 November 2000, Official Report, column 153W, which highlighted areas of work where the drugs strategy is having a positive impact.

  Copies of the Annual Report for 1999–2000 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

TREASURY

  Regeneration Schemes (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to Cm 4917, if he will make a statement on the participation of people with disabilities in his proposals for tax reliefs for regeneration schemes. [138201]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: The Government are determined that disabled people have the opportunity to lead fulfilling and independent lives and play a full and active role in society.

  The Government have been encouraged by the work of the first three Urban Regeneration Companies (URCs)Liverpool Vision, New East Manchester, and Sheffield One-in developing a clear vision and strategy for key
  76W
  areas of these cities. The Government will continue to monitor the URCs carefully, and will consider how a tax relief could help to promote their development. At present no decisions have been made on the details of any possible tax relief.

  Pensions/Taxation
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to Cm 4917, if he will update his answers to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) of 3 July 2000,Official Report, column 15W, on pensions, and the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell of 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 1011W, on capital gains tax, and 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 1016W, on taxation of incomes; and if he will make a statement. [138326]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Responsibility for pensions policy rests with the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Updated estimates, consistent with the November 2000 pre-Budget report, are as follows:
  The full year cost of reducing the top rates of income tax (including dividends) by 10 percentage points is £8 billion in 2000–01.The yield from introducing a 50 per cent. rate on taxable income over £100,000 is given in another written answer which I am today giving to the hon. Gentleman (137844).
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 515W, on taxation, by what method the underlying assumptions of his answer of 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 1011W, and the Survey of Personal Incomes were used to produce his answer; and if he will update his answer using the new assumptions which will be published in the pre-Budget report. [137844]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 1 November 2000, Official Report, column 515W.

  Introducing a 50 per cent. rate of income tax on taxable income of over £100,000 would yield £2.9 billion in 2000–01 and for later years this figure will increase by on average £300 million per year. These estimates include tax on dividends, and taxable income has been defined as income after deducting the personal allowance.

  These latest estimates are now based on the 1998–99 survey of personal incomes and are consistent with the November 2000 pre-Budget report.

  Post War Credit Claims
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of those who are entitled to repayment of post war credit have not yet claimed; what is the estimated value of the money owed; what measures the Government are taking to locate those whose claims are outstanding; and if he will make a statement. [138702]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The total sum of post war credits remaining unclaimed is estimated at £33 million. Figures for the numbers entitled to make a claim are not available. Substantial publicity campaigns have been mounted and approximately 95 per cent. of the original credit has already been repaid.

  Enterprise Management Incentives
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlay the estimate in the Pre-Budget report, page 47, Paragraph 3.60, that 2,500 companies will use enterprise management incentives over the next three years. [138620]

  Mr. Timms
  The target population for EMIs is broadly the same as that for the Enterprise Investment Scheme, which has attracted over 3,000 companies in its first six years. EMIs are simple to operate, and the potential benefits from being able to attract and retain high quality employees suggest that EMIs will be popular.

  Fuel Tax (Farmers and Horticulturists)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the impact of a tax on fossil fuels on farmers and horticulturists. [137142]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 November 2000]: The Government have received representations on tax on fuel from a large number of organisations and individuals, including farmers and horticulturists. Farmers are entitled to use 'red diesel' for off road use, with a duty rate of just over 3p/litre. The Government have announced that this rate will be frozen in Budget 2001 in cash terms.

  The Government announced in the pre-Budget report that they intend to abolish vehicle excise duties on tractors. Also, in recognition of the unique position of the UK horticulture sector, the Government announced in the March Budget that they intend to offer a special package of support under the climate change levy.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the yield from abolishing the child care tax credit element of the Working Families Tax Credit. [139059]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 17 December 1998,Official Report, column 753W. The Government have no plans to abolish the child care tax credit element of the Working Families Tax Credit.

  British Film Industry
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans there are to renew the section 42 tax relief scheme in relation to the British film industry. [139066]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have no plans to renew the section 42 tax relief scheme in relation to the British film industry because there is no time restriction in the Finance Act (No. 2) 1992.

  EU Tax Harmonisation
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from(a) Ministers and (b) institutions of the European Union concerning proposals for discussion at Nice of the need to harmonise further (a) direct and (b) indirect taxation; and if he will publish such proposals. [139057]
  78W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have made it quite clear that they will insist on retaining unanimity for decisions on taxation. Published Commission communications will have been subject to the normal parliamentary scrutiny procedures.

  Euro
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies his Department has undertaken on the effects of the euro on competition; and if he will make a statement. [139077]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 3 February 2000,Official Report, column 687W.

  Brit Discs
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the annual vehicle excise duty of a 40 tonne truck will be reduced as a result of the proposed introduction of a Brit disc on foreign hauliers. [139300]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government announced in the pre-Budget report that they intend to introduce a 'user charge' or `vignette' scheme in the UK for lorries. The Government would intend that UK hauliers would face no additional costs as a result.

  No decisions on the detailed arrangements of such a scheme have been taken. The Government will consult on the operational implications. In addition the Government announced that they plan to reform vehicle excise duty for lorries in Budget 2001. They are consulting on this reform.

  Debt Management Office
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 8 November 2000,Official Report, columns 315-27, and the pre-Budget report, paragraph B66, when the Debt Management Office will publish the range of instruments in which it may invest surpluses. [138786]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The revised Debt Management Office list outlining additions to the range of instruments in which the DMO can transact on a bilateral basis for cash management purposes was published at 3:30 pm on 9 November 2000. It was issued by way of a screen announcement to the major electronic newswire services. A copy of the announcement can be found on the Debt Management Office's website at: http://www.dmo.gov.uk/cash/index.htm.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 8 November 2000,Official Report, columns 315–27, and the pre-Budget report, if he will estimate VAT receipts for financial year 2001–02, assuming a stable ratio VAT receipts to consumption; and if he will make a statement. [138785]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The impact of the National Audit Office audited assumption on VAT receipts to 2005–06 is contained in paragraph B42 of the November 2000 pre-Budget report.

  Industrial Diseases (Death Certificates)
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many death certificates were issued for each of the years 1990 to 1999 which mention(a) cryptogenic fibrosing alveolitis, (b) extrinsic allergic alveolitis and (c) asbestosis. [139303]

  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 Ms Chris McCafferty, dated 20 November 2000:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of death certificates issued for 1990 and 1999 which mention cryptogenic fibrosing alveolitis, extrinsic allergic alveolitis and asbestosis. (139303)

  Since 1993, all conditions mentioned on the death certificates have been coded routinely and figures requested for those years are presented in the attached table.

  In earlier years, while the underlying cause of death was routinely coded only a selection of the other causes mentioned in the death certificate were identified for coding purposes. Asbestosis was identified in this way but alveolitis was not separately identified. For 1990, 1991 and 1992 the number of certificates mentioning asbestosis was 155, 135 and 148 respectively. These figures are however not comparable with those for later years because of the different methods used.

  Mentions of asbestosis, extrinsic allergic alveolitis and cryptogenic fibrosing alveolitis, England and Wales 1993–99

  Cause of death and ICD91 code

  Extrinsic allergic alveolitis (ICD 495)

  Asbestosis (ICD 501)

  Idiopathic fibrosing alveolitis (ICD 516.3)

  1993

  36

  293

  1,348

  1994

  34

  265

  1,322

  1995

  43

  207

  1,376

  1996

  25

  260

  1,414

  1997

  26

  224

  1,521

  1998

  29

  186

  1,558

  1999

  36

  211

  1,633

  1 Deaths are classified according to the WHO International Classification of Disease Ninth Edition.

  Note:

  The terminology used in the table follows that in the WHO volume

  Employee Statistics
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many constituencies the number of(a) male and (b) female employees has decreased since (i) 1997 and (ii) 1999. [139305]

  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. Frank Field, dated 20 November 2000:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of Parliamentary Constituencies that have seen a fall in employee jobs since 1997 and 999. (139305)

  The Annual Employment Survey (AES) is the current source of data on the numbers of employee jobs in Parliamentary Constituencies. Limited post-1997 information may be obtained by comparing the AES results for 1997 and 1998. These can be
  80W
  accessed from the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. Estimates for 1999 will not be released until April 2001 and will be based on the Annual Business Inquiry, the AES's successor.

  VAT (Church Repairs)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he expects his proposal of a 5 per cent. rate of VAT on church repairs to come into effect; [138823]

  (2) what advice the Treasury intends to give to organisations intending to carry out repairs on churches about when the reduction in the rate of VAT will come into effect; [138832]

  (3) when he expects to receive an answer from the European Commission to his request to set a lower rate of VAT on church repairs; [138833]

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his timescale is for implementing his proposal for reducing VAT for listed buildings that are places of worship. [138840]

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive a reply from the European Commission to his application for a change to VAT on churches. [139267]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have requested that the European Commission should consider making early legislative proposals to include repairs, maintenance and improvements to listed places of worship in the list of permissible reduced rates annexed to the Sixth Directive. The European Commission is currently considering this request. It is too early to discuss the date when any reduced rate could come into effect.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Chancellor's proposal on the VAT levied on church repairs will also apply to mosques, synagogues and other places of worship. [138831]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Yes. Places of worship are listed religious buildings such as cathedrals, churches, chapels, meeting-houses, synagogues, mosques and temples.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Stasi Agents
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on recent discoveries in the Berlin Stasi archive about paid Stasi agents in the United Kingdom. [137460]

  Mr. Straw
  As I said to the House on 21 October 1999,Official Report, columns 590–91, it would be wholly improper to denounce anyone without their having been convicted of an offence. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), also explained to the House in a debate on British Stasi agents on 21 December 1999, Official Report, column 188WH, that the fact of a name appearing in the East German intelligence records is not, of itself, proof of any wrongdoing. The records need to be treated with caution.
  81W
  The Security Service continues to investigate cases arising from the Stasi records. Where the criteria agreed with the prosecuting authorities are met, cases are referred to the prosecuting authorities to decide whether a prosecution should be mounted.

  Safer Communities
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the relationship between Neighbourhood Wardens and the police in promoting safer communities. [137463]

  Mrs. Roche
  Neighbourhood Wardens provide a reassuring presence in high crime neighbourhoods. They have no additional powers. They will promote community safety and respond to anti-social behaviour, enabling police to deal with crime. Neighbourhood Wardens will work in and with communities to reduce the fear of crime, strengthen community spirit, and report incidents to the police.

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans for implementing the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. [137464]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Subject to the timing of Royal Assent, we intend to commence a substantial part of the Bill, including the controls on donations and campaign expenditure, on or around 16 February 2001. The implementation of these provisions will give effect to the Government's manifesto commitments to require the disclosure of the source and value of donations of £5,000 or more and to ban the foreign funding of political parties.

  Police (Investment)
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what real increase in investment in the police service has been earmarked for the financial years 2001–02 and 2003–04. [137466]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Total provision for the police will be £8.5 billion in 2001–02, £.9.0 billion in 2002–03 and £9.3 billion in 2003–04. In real terms, these are annul increases of 7.4 per cent. 3.5 per cent. and 0.6 per cent. respectively. Spending will rise by almost £1.6 billion by 2003–04 against provision for this year. That is a rise of 11.8 per cent. in real terms.

  Licensing Laws
  Mr Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department When he expects to publish the outcome of his Department's consultation on the proposed changes to the licensing laws in England and Wales. [137467]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are considering the responses to the White Paper. We hope to announce decisions on the way forward very soon. I am pleased by the level of support for the proposed modernisation of the system.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to increase police numbers; and if he will make a statement. [137469]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Crime Fighting Fund will enable police forces to recruit 9,000 officers over and above the number previously planned in the three years 2000–01 to 2002–03.

  To help forces meet their recruitment targets the first-ever National Recruitment Campaign was launched on 30 August.

  The Metropolitan Police Service and the City of London Police have been experiencing particular problems in attracting new recruits. To address their problems in this area, I have agreed to an increase of £3,327 per annum in the London Allowance paid to those officers in each force who were recruited on or after 1 September 1994 and who are not in receipt of housing allowance.

  The Government want to see police numbers rising. The spending plans I announced on 19 July 2000, Official Report, columns 376–91, are intended to achieve that. These plans make generous provision intended to meet the major pay, pensions and other pressures on forces as well as providing ring-fenced funding to increase recruitment through The Crime Fighting Fund. We anticipate that these measures will enable forces to increase police officer numbers to record levels by March 2003.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date he expects the police forces in England and Wales to have replaced the number of police officers they have lost since March 1997; and if he will make a statement. [137479]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We anticipate that with the crime fighting fund, the additional allocation of resources for the police service in the Budget last March and the additional funds to be provided as a result of the Spending Review 2000, police numbers should surpass their March 1997 level by the end of March 2002.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders convicted of offences of violence were released from prison early on the home detention curfew scheme; and if he will make a statement. [137470]

  Mr. Boateng
  Of the 26,607 prisoners released up to 30 September 2000 under the Home Detention Curfew scheme, 6,141 were convicted of offences of violence.

  Army Training (Police Facilities)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training facilities are offered by the police to the Army. [137471]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  National Police Training liaises with the military on a regular basis and there is some overlap in training provision, especially in relation to exercises with specialist areas of military activity. A
  83W
  senior officer from the Armed Services generally attends the Strategic Command Course at Bramshill and senior military personnel attend other seminars and events from time to time.

  Apart from this there are few other arrangements for shared training. We are aware of some instances where army dog-handlers have been trained alongside police dog-handlers and we understand that some army staff have attended courses at the National Training Centre for Scientific Support to Crime Investigation in County Durham.

  Crime Trends
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on trends in the levels of crime since 1997. [137473]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The most recently published information comes from the British Crime Survey published on 17 October. It shows that there was an overall fall of 10 per cent. between 1997 and 1999 in the crimes which the British Crime Survey measures.

  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on trends in(a) recorded crime and (b) victimisation rates recorded in the British Crime Survey, between 1993 and 1995. [137477]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  On the basis of offences that can be compared across both sets of figures, crime recorded by the police fell by 8 per cent. between 1993 and 1995. The number of comparable crimes measured by the British Crime Survey (BCS) rose by 4 per cent. The divergent trend is consistent with two results from the BCS. The first is that the proportion of offences reported to the police victims fell between 1993 and 1995. The second is that the proportion of the reported crime that was recorded by the police also fell, according to BCS evidence.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to regulate the private security industry. [137474]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We outlined our proposals to regulate the private security industry in the White Paper "The Government's Proposals for Regulation of the Private Security Industry in England and Wales", which was published last year. The proposals allow for the establishment of a new Authority which will be responsible for licensing people employed in specified sectors of the industry, and maintaining and improving standards within the industry. We intend to introduce legislation to give effect to these proposals as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  Travellers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to enable the swift eviction of travellers illegally occupying local authority land. [137475]
  84W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides powers for the police and local authorities to remove travellers who are camping on unauthorised sites. Section 61 allows the police to direct them to leave, and failure to comply with a direction is an arrestable offence. Section 77 allows the local authority to direct unauthorised campers to leave; failure to comply is a criminal offence, and the local authority may apply to the magistrates court for an order allowing them to take reasonable steps to achieve compliance. The Home Office/DETR guidance document "Managing Unauthorised Camping" has recently been revised to reinforce the message that unauthorised camping which involves criminal or antisocial behaviour should not be tolerated.

  Passports
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on European Commission proposals relating to the design of passports in EU member states. [137478]

  Mrs. Roche
  The European Commission has not yet put forward any proposals on passport format, although it announced its intention to do so in September. We have made clear to the Commission that we would not agree to the removal of the Royal Coat of Arms from the cover of the passport. Nor would we agree to any other amendments which were not justified on security grounds.

  The Commission has said that there is, and will be, no proposal to replace the Royal Crest with stars on the front of passports, or to change the message on the inside cover.

  We will inform Parliament more fully of our reactions to the proposals when they emerge.

  Prisoner Numbers
  31. Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were imprisoned on the most recent date for which figures are available; and how many prison places were available on that date. [137480]

  Mr. Boateng
  The latest data available are for Thursday 9 November 2000, when the population was 64,004.

  The uncrowded capacity of the prison estate is 63,456 and the crowded capacity is 71,131.

  Metropolitan Police Personnel
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many uniformed Metropolitan police personnel were based within the Greater London area on 1 November(a) 2000, (b) 1999, (c)(d) 1997 and (e) 1996. [137481]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the number of officers available for duty in the Metropolitan police on 1 November for the years in question is as shown in the table.
  85W

  Year (as at 1 November)

  Number of police officers (full time equivalents)

  1996

  27,013

  1997

  26,519

  1998

  26,084

  1999

  25,808

  2000

  124,715

  1On 1 April the Metropolitan Police District was reduced in size following boundary changes with the counties of Essex, Hertfordshire
  and Surrey.

  Hendon Police College
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers began basic training at Hendon in 1996; and how many he estimates will do so in 2000. [137482]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the number of officers who began basic training at Hendon in 1996 was 1,065. Since January 2000, 703 recruits have commenced training at Hendon, a further 134 are due to commence on 12 November 2000, and the December intake is estimated to be 150. Should these estimated numbers be achieved the total for the full year would be 987.

  Internet-related Crime
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide resources to police forces in England and Wales to enable them to combat internet-related crime. [137483]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on 13 November 2000,Official Report, column 530W.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of drug treatment and testing orders on reoffending rates. [137456]

  Mr. Boateng
  Evaluation of the three pilots found that the number of crimes committed by offenders subject to Drug Treatment and Testing Orders fell from an average of 137 offences in the month before arrest to around 34 per month after only six weeks on the order. These reductions were largely maintained over time. Those who have completed the order were reported to have stopped offending.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a royal commission on drug misuse; and if he will make a statement. [137461]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government have a comprehensive and challenging 10-year National Drug Strategy to tackle all aspects of the drugs problem in this country. The Government have no intention of establishing a Royal Commission, which would serve only to distract from the Strategy.
  86W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the availability of drugs in prisons; and what steps he is taking to reduce that availability. [134821]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are no direct measures of the availability of drugs in prisons. Random mandatory drug testing figures provide an indirect measure—the latest figures indicate that on average 12.5 per cent. of prisoners test positive for drugs (down from 24.4 per cent. in 1996–1997).

  There is a comprehensive series of measures in place to reduce the availability of drugs; including: Closed Circuit Television surveillance of visits areas (118 establishments);

  Drug detention dogs (nationally 121 passive and 195 active dogs); visit bans initiative (from 1 April 1999–30 June 2000, 2,991 visitors were banned on suspicion of trafficking and 401 placed on closed visits); low level fixed furniture is now in use in many prison visit areas to inhibit smuggling; and Police and Prison Services have agreed protocols to enhance mutual co-operation and effectiveness.

  Remedial Orders
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the procedure for approving remedial orders under the Human Rights Act 1998. [137459]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The procedure is set out in full in Schedule 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The procedure allows an opportunity for representations to be made on the proposed changes to the law.

  Parenting Orders
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parenting orders have been granted under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; and how many are currently being processed. [137476]

  Mr. Boateng
  The parenting order under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was implemented nationally on 1 June 2000 following successful pilots. Reinforcing parental responsibility is a key objective of the Government's youth justice reforms and the order provides a new means of supporting parents in exercising proper responsibility for their children's behaviour.

  Information from the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales indicates that between 30 September 1998 and 31 March 2000, 284 parenting orders were made in the pilot areas. Information on the number of parenting orders currently being considered is not available centrally.

  Postal Ballots
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) security and (b) integrity of postal ballots. [134878]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: I have no reason to believe that the existing safeguards in respect of the security and integrity of postal ballots have been compromised, but I am always ready to consider representations as to how the system may be improved.

  New Deal for Young People
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are employed by his Department under the New Deal for Young People. [137964]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 14 November 2000,Official Report, column 551W.

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the financial penalties imposed on carriers for carriage of third country nationals lacking necessary documents broken down by EU member state. [138086]

  Mrs. Roche
  Not all European Union member states currently impose financial penalties on carriers for the carriage of third country nationals who arrive without the required documents. Where member states do impose such provisions, the systems for imposing penalties and deciding the amount to be charged differ. The definitive position could only be obtained by direct reference to the authorities of each individual State—therefore I regret that the information requested could only be ascertained at disproportionate cost.

  So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the prescribed sum payable under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 is £2,000.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to assist voluntary youth organisations by meeting the cost of Criminal Record Bureau charges from public funds. [138301]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It has always been the intention that, when the Criminal Records Bureau comes on stream, it will be expected to recover its costs through charges that it makes in relation to the certificates that it issues, on application, to individuals. Voluntary organisations, and employers, will be able to reimburse applicants if they so wish. Waiving charges in respect of those applying from the voluntary sector, or from part of the sector, would inevitably increase the cost to the public purse or for other applicants. We have made clear our determination to keep fees as low as possible. An impact assessment will address the implications for the voluntary sector and others.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the regulatory impact assessment on the Criminal Records Bureau was commissioned; and when it will be published. [138047]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: A compliance cost assessment (a forerunner of current regulatory impact assessments) was carried out in 1996 in advance of the introduction of the Police Bill. A further regulatory impact assessment is to be conducted to provide an up-to-date evaluation of the implications for those applying for certificates of the fees to be charged by the Criminal Records Bureau. The exercise will be carried out before regulations are made which prescribe such matters as the level of fees, in advance of the Bureau becoming operational in around July 2001. Officials will
  88W
  contact a cross-section of affected organisations before the end of November in order to seek information about those organisations and about the implications for them of the charging of fees. This information will be collated in the regulatory impact assessment document which it is hoped it will be possible to make public for wider consultation before the end of February. I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as the detailed timetable, which is the subject of continuing discussions, has become clearer.

  Police Training
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the companies authorised by his Department to organise tuition and examinations for promotion in the police force. [138658]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The only qualifying examinations for promotion to Sergeant and Inspector (known as OSPRETM) are organised on behalf of the Police Promotion Examinations Board by the Examinations and Assessment unit of National Police Training (NPT), who are assisted in the administration of the examinations by the Improvement and Development Agency.

  The only authorised training package is the Candidates' Development Programme (CDP) produced by NPT. The CDP, which only addresses Part II of the examinations, has been made available to every police force in England and Wales together with a training workshop for their nominated training staff. In addition, three private training providers were awarded a franchise to deliver the CDP:

  IODA based in Nottingham;

  VECTRA based in Bradford; and

  QSEC based in Liverpool.

  No company or individual is authorised by NPT to provide tuition for Part I of the examinations which is based on Blackstone's Police Manuals published by Blackstone Press Limited.

  Pakistan (Expropriated Funds)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what help he has offered to the authorities in Pakistan who are seeking to recover funds expropriated from that country illegally. [138520]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Over the past four years, the Home Office has received only two formal requests for assistance in connection with funds appropriated illegally from Pakistan. However, these were requests for evidence relating to the misappropriation of funds, not requests for confiscation of assets.

  The first request, issued in October 1997, asked for evidence relating to Senator Asif Ali Zardari, the husband of Benazir Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, in connection with allegations of drug trafficking. A large amount of evidence was gathered, but its transmission to Pakistan was hindered by legal challenges both before and after the coup of 12 October 1999. The Secretary of State has taken a decision to transmit the evidence, but this is still subject to an appeal against a decision of the court that leave to apply for a judicial review should not be granted.
  89W
  The second request, issued in August 1999, concerned a fraud allegedly perpetrated by members of a former government. This request was subsequently withdrawn following the death of one of the principals.

  Home Office officials have had several meetings with officials from Pakistan to advise them on how to seek recovery of funds alleged to be in the United Kingdom. On 18 February 2000, the then head of the Judicial Co-operation Unit (JCU) met General Amjad, head of the National Accountability Bureau, and provided detailed advice on the assistance that the United Kingdom could offer, following this up with copies of published information. On 6 March 2000, another official from the JCU met with officials from the National Accountability Bureau and the High Commission to review the assistance that could be offered, and to take note of some of the points they wished to raise in the Zardari case.

  On 22 September 2000, members of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development (DflD), and the Home Office met with General Amjad and other officials from the authorities in Pakistan to explore the scope of the assistance available to Pakistan from the United Kingdom.

  On 13 November 2000, the Head of the United Kingdom Central Authority, the section within the Home Office that deals with letters of request from overseas, travelled to Pakistan for a five-day visit sponsored by the DflD to meet prosecutors, judges and officials of the National Accountability Bureau and provide advice on the assistance the United Kingdom can offer and on our requirements in terms of letters of request.

  Firearms (Disabled People)
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State (1) for the Home Department for what reason his Department requires information on physical disabilities from applicants renewing firearms certificates; [139006]

  (2) if he will list the disabilities for those participating in shooting as a sport which are considered by his Department to put other shooters at risk. [139005]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  One of the recommendations on firearms licensing made in Lord Cullen's Report into the Dunblane tragedy was that the police should be able to seek and consider information on the medical history of any person applying to possess firearms.

  In order to implement this and other recommendations, the Firearms Rules were amended in 1998 to require applicants for the grant or renewal of a firearm or shot gun certificate to declare whether they suffer from any medical condition or disability including alcohol and drug related conditions, and if so to give details.

  It is not possible to provide a comprehensive list of conditions or disabilities that might have a bearing on this issue. Were any such list to be attempted, there is a real risk that it would exclude conditions that might affect an individual's fitness to possess a firearm, if only because of the medication which may have to be taken. It is for the police to consider each applicant on an individual basis, seeking medical advice where appropriate. It is open to any applicant aggrieved by the refusal of a chief officer of police to grant or renew a certificate to appeal to the Crown Court or in Scotland, the Sheriff's Court.

  Fuel Protests
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has received of extremist political involvement in the organisation of the recent fuel protests; and if he will make a statement. [139019]

  Mr. Straw
  It is the policy of successive Governments not to comment on such issues.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost will be to the Crime Fighting Fund of recruiting an additional 9,000 police officers over the next three years. [137465]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The recruitment of 9,000 police officers through the Crime Fighting Fund is expected to cost £454 million in the three years 2000–01 to 200203. An additional £272 million has been made available through the Spending Review 2000 to meet the continuing costs of employing the 9,000 in 2003–04.

  Victim Support
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to provide further support to the victims of crime. [137462]

  Mr. Straw
  From next April, the annual Home Office grant to Victim Support will rise from £18.3 million to £19 million. This represents an increase of more than 50 per cent. since we assumed office in May 1997. The enhanced grant has enabled Victim Support to improve their existing services and to introduce new ones, including witness services in all magistrates courts.

  Immigration and Asylum
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to develop an inspection and reporting centre for asylum seekers in Horley. [139309]

  Mrs. Roche
  Plans for the establishment of an immigration office in Horley are currently on hold following difficulties in agreeing the terms of the lease with the landlord of the premises. The Immigration Service is currently pursuing alternatives but no final decisions have yet been made.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost in the latest year for which figures are available of asylum seekers awaiting a decision on whether they have a right to remain in the UK; and how many asylum seekers who have been refused permission to remain in the UK have not been removed from the country(a) because they are awaiting removal and (b) because they cannot be traced. [138870]

  Mrs. Roche
  In 1999–2000, the Home Office took over financial responsibility for asylum support costs, although asylum seekers continued to be supported by either the Department of Social Security (DSS) or through local authorities. In 1999–2000, the cost of supporting asylum seekers in the United Kingdom, while they awaited an initial decision, appeal or removal, was £537 million—including £315 million paid to the DSS and £222 million paid to local authorities for single adult and family grant
  91W
  payments. The Department of Health also incurred an additional cost of £52 million for supporting unaccompanied minor asylum seekers in the United Kingdom, bringing the total cost in 1999–2000, for supporting asylum seekers to £590 million. Cost figures for supporting asylum seekers, which exclude cases awaiting removal, are not currently available.

  I regret that current information on the number of asylum seekers who have been refused permission to remain in the United Kingdom and have not yet been removed from the country is not available.

  All cost figures are rounded to the nearest £1 million.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum from people who came to the United Kingdom from Kosovo under the United Nations Humanitarian Evacuation Programme and medical evacuation programmes have been determined; in how many cases the claim was(a) accepted and (b) refused; in how many such cases the applicant was granted exceptional leave to remain; how many such cases now await (i) an initial decision and (ii) an appeal; and if he will make a statement. [139383]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information is not available in the precise format requested. A total of 514 principal applicants have submitted applications for asylum which, because they also encompass general humanitarian reasons for wanting to stay here, are being considered as dual applications for asylum and further exceptional leave. Of these, 103 principal applicants have been decided with two being granted asylum along with five dependants, and 101 have been refused. No applicant who had applied for asylum has yet been granted exceptional leave. A total of 411 principal applicants are awaiting an initial decision on their cases.

  Information on asylum appeals is not separately available but 93 principal Kosovan Humanitarian Evacuation Programme applicants have outstanding appeals against various refusal decisions.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many and what percentage of appealed asylum and in-country immigration applications in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 to date the decision of his Department was upheld. [139363]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information is given in the table.

  IND decisions upheld by Adjudicators at the Immigration Appellate Authority

  Asylum appeals

  Non-asylum appeals

  Determined

  Upheld

  Determined1

  Upheld1

  1999–2000

  Number

  15,635

  8,455

  8,805

  n/a

  Percentage

  100

  63

  —

  —

  April to September 2000–01

  Number

  8,455

  6,950

  3,455

  1,990

  Percentage

  100

  82

  100

  58

  1In-country and entry clearance cases are not separately identifiable in the statistics

  Note:

  Figures exclude any subsequent appeals
  92W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-asylum offenders have been removed from this country during 2000–01 to date. [139386]

  Mrs. Roche
  Between 1 April and 30 September 2000, 2,440 immigration offenders who had not made an asylum application at any stage were removed from the United Kingdom. This figure is provisional.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his current target date is to clear the backlog of asylum cases awaiting an initial decision; what plans he has to review that target date; and if he will make a statement. [139365]

  Mrs. Roche
  We have no present plans to review our current objective of reducing the backlog of these cases to frictional levels by April 2001.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the cost to his Department of asylum seeker support in(a) 2000–01 to date and (b) the financial year 2000–01 in total; what the cost to public funds was of asylum seeker support in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [139368]

  Mrs. Roche
  Expenditure by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate for asylum support from 1 April 2000 to 30 September 2000 was £317.4 million. For the financial year 2000–01, the Home Office has a provisional allocation of £604 million for supporting asylum seekers, excluding provision for supporting unaccompanied asylum seeking children.

  The comparable cost in 1999–2000 to the Home Office budget of supporting asylum seekers in the United Kingdom was £537 million. The Department of Health incurred an additional cost of £52 million for supporting unaccompanied asylum seeking children, bringing the total cost in 1999–2000 for supporting asylum seekers to £590 million.

  All cost figures are rounded to the nearest £ million.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many decisions case workers at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate made on average per week in(a) asylum and (b) immigration cases, in each quarter of (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999 and (iv) 2000 to the end of the third quarter. [139369]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Average weekly decisions

  Period

  Asylum cases1

  Immigration cases2

  1997

  1st quarter

  750

  5,320

  2nd quarter

  785

  5,030

  3rd quarter

  715

  4,910

  4th quarter

  645

  4,240

  1998

  1st quarter

  705

  4,580

  2nd quarter

  580

  5,040

  3rd quarter

  615

  5,660

  4th quarter

  525

  5,190

  1999

  1st quarter

  380

  4,070

  2nd quarter

  1,040

  4,990

  3rd quarter

  600

  5,680

  93W

  Average weekly decisions

  Period

  Asylum cases1

  Immigration cases1

  4th quarter

  575

  7,040

  2000

  1st quarter

  1,790

  7,720

  2nd quarter

  2,375

  8,300

  3rd quarter

  2,060

  8,600

  1Including pre-1996 applications decided since 1999 under the backlog clearance exercise

  2Covering after-entry extensions of stay (including cases dealt with by the Public Caller Unit which did not involve a decision), European cases, travel documents, citizenship and right of abode

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how may asylum applications from nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are awaiting(a) an initial decision and (b) an appeal. [139378]

  Mrs. Roche
  The specific information required is not available. However, as at the end of 1999, 15,720 nationals of the Former Yugoslavia, which includes the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, were awaiting an initial decision.

  The number of applications received from Federal Republic of Yugoslavia nationals between January and September 2000 was 5,065.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average unit cost in 1999–2000 was and what the average unit cost is for 2000–01 of(a) asylum after-entry casework, (b) nationality casework and (c) enforcement casework, expressed in (i) cash and (ii) real terms. [139371]

  Mrs. Roche
  For the purposes of monitoring the performance of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate under the terms of the Casework Programme contract with Siemens Business Services, the unit cost of a basic casework decision is determined each month. The unit cost excludes some overheads. The costs of more complex decisions may be estimated by combining the cost of the basic decision was £38.66 for the period April 1999 to March 2000 and £34.75 for the period April 2000 to September 2000. The costs of more complex decisions may, therefore, be expressed as given in the table.

  £

  1998–2000

  2000–01

  2000–01 Real terms

  Type of output

  Cash

  Cash

  Real terms (1999–2000 prices)

  After Entry Casework

  49.19

  44.13

  43.69

  Asylum Casework

  350.26

  314.84

  311.72

  Nationality Casework

  58.76

  52.82

  52.30

  Deportation Casework

  1,382.10

  1,242.31

  1,230.01

  Illegal Entry Casework

  636.73

  572.33

  566.66

  These costs exclude any productivity-related payments that may subsequently be due to Siemens Business Services.
  94W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers have been removed by(a) the Ports Directorate and (b) the Enforcement Directorate during 2000–01 to date; how many failed asylum seekers were removed by each Directorate in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [139362]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information available on the number of failed asylum seekers removed from the United Kingdom, in the financial year 1999–2000, and from 1 April to 30 September in the current year is given in the table.

  The Government have made clear their determination to increase substantially the number of such removals and significant additional resources are being allocated to achieving this. We have set a target of 12,000 removals in the current financial year and 30,000 for the financial year 2001–02.

  Asylum seekers removed1 from the United Kingdom

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 20001,2

  1 April to 30 September 20001,2,3

  Port asylum removals

  5,080

  3,020

  Enforcement asylum removals

  2,830

  1,850

  Total

  7,910

  4,870

  1Includes voluntary departures

  2Excludes dependants

  3Figures are provisional and subject to revision

  4Includes Port and Enforcement departures under the Voluntary Assisted Returns programme

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what percentage of initial asylum decisions taken since 1 April 2000 the decision was taken within eight weeks of the application being lodged; in how many of those cases the decision to reject the application was on non-compliance grounds; and if he will make a statement. [139370]

  Mrs. Roche
  Of all applications lodged between 1 April 2000 and 30 September 2000, 32 per cent. had an initial decision within two months, of which 57 per cent. were refused on non-compliance grounds. This is on course to meet the target of making initial decisions in 70 per cent. of cases by March 2001.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his target for April 2001 is for the percentage of initial asylum decisions to be decided within eight weeks of the application being lodged. [139367]

  Mrs. Roche
  The target, published in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate Business Plan for 2000–01, is to decide 70 per cent. of new substantive asylum applications within two months by March 2001.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have been granted(a) refugee status and (b) exceptional leave to (i) enter and (ii) remain since 1 May 1997. [139377]
  95W
  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested on grants of asylum and exceptional leave to remain is given in the table.

  Nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia granted asylum and exceptional leave to remain

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of ELR

  1997

  January

  75

  *

  February

  150

  *

  March

  160

  *

  April

  140

  *

  May

  95

  *

  June

  90

  40

  July

  100

  35

  August

  100

  45

  September

  120

  40

  October

  145

  40

  November

  85

  *

  December

  95

  5

  Total

  1,355

  210

  1998

  January

  120

  *

  February

  95

  *

  March

  100

  15

  April

  100

  20

  May

  120

  10

  June

  110

  5

  July

  50

  20

  August

  50

  —

  September

  40

  —

  November

  80

  —

  December

  10

  —

  Total

  935

  75

  1999

  January

  n/a

  n/a

  February

  n/a

  n/a

  March

  n/a

  n/a

  April

  n/a

  n/a

  May

  n/a

  n/a

  June

  n/a

  n/a

  July

  n/a

  n/a

  August

  n/a

  n/a

  September

  n/a

  n/a

  October

  n/a

  n/a

  November

  n/a

  n/a

  December

  n/a

  n/a

  Total

  6,290

  85

  2000

  January

  n/a

  n/a

  February

  n/a

  n/a

  March

  n/a

  n/a

  April

  10

  165

  May

  20

  50

  June

  25

  20

  July

  30

  35

  August

  45

  40

  September

  30

  70

  Total to date

  160

  385

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to the nearest 5, with '*' = 1 or 2

  2. Includes some who arrived in the UK under the Humanitarian Evacuation Programme
  96W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-asylum after-entry decisions were made(a) in 1999–2000 and (b) in 2000–01 to date. [139364]

  Mrs. Roche
  The numbers of non-asylum after-entry decisions, excluding those in respect of European Economic Area cases, were 230,000 in 1999–2000 and 140,000 in the period April to September 2000. These figures include cases dealt with by the Public Caller Unit which did not involve a decision, such as the return of a passport following a withdrawn application and the transfer of conditions from an old to a new passport.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of detailed non-asylum immigration examinations have culminated in refusal during 2000–01 to date. [139360]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at 31 October, 20,972 cases of detailed non-asylum immigration examinations have resulted in refusal since 1 April 2000. This is 64 per cent. of the total number of cases where detailed examinations have occurred.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationality decisions were taken in 1999–2000, how many have been taken in 2000–01 to date; and if he will make a statement. [139381]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of decisions taken in nationality cases in the period April 1999 to March 2000 was 66,499. As at 31 October 2000, 53,480 decisions have been taken in the period April to October 2000.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his latest estimate is of the gross expenditure, receipts and net expenditure of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate(a) during the financial year 2000–01 to date and (b) for the entire financial year 2000–01; what were the equivalent figures for the financial year 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [139385]

  Mrs. Roche
  Gross expenditure for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate for the period 1 April to 31 October 2000 was £355.5 million, receipts were £14.2 million and net expenditure was £341.3 million. For the full financial year 2000£01, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is provisionally forecasting gross expenditure of £1,292 million, receipts of £33.5 million and net expenditure of £1,258.5 million.

  For the period 1 April to 31 October 1999, gross expenditure was £128.8 million, receipts were £5.5 million and net expenditure was £123.3 million. For the financial year 1999–2000, gross expenditure was £804.6 million, receipts were £10.5 million and net expenditure was £794.1 million.

  Information for the financial year 2000–01 is not directly comparable with that for 1999–2000. There has been a substantial increase in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate"s budget for processing asylum

  97W
  applications, expanding the detention estate and for supporting asylum seekers, including some costs that fell elsewhere in 1999–2000.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the backlog in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is for(a) general and settlement cases, (b) European cases, (c) deportation and illegal entry cases and (d) nationality cases. [139375]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Cases awaiting initial consideration at 1 October 2000

  Type of case

  Number

  General and settlement

  400

  European

  10

  Deportation and illegal entry

  19,700

  Nationality1

  276,000

  1Total cases awaiting a decision

  2Provisional figure

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many airline liaison officers are in post. [139358]

  Mrs. Roche
  On 1 November 2000, 21 airline liaison officers were in post at 20 different locations around the world.

  Port Checks
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average unit cost is of an immigration port check in 2000–01; and what the average cost was of an immigration port check in 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 expressed in(a) cash and (b) real terms. [139357]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested for 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 is set out in the table. Comparative figures are not available for 1997–98.

  £

  Real terms 1998–99

  Cash terms

  1998–99

  Comparative baseline

  5.68

  5.68

  1999–2000

  Target

  5.43

  5.55

  Outturn

  5.17

  5.30

  2000–01

  Target

  5.17

  5.41

  Outturn1

  4.35

  4.55

  1April to September

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in 2000–01 to date non-European Economic Area passengers have had to wait more than 30 minutes for immigration port checks. [139359]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at 31 October 2000, there have been 1,742 occasions since 1 April 2000, where non-European Economic Area passengers have had to wait more than 30 minutes for immigration port checks.

  Deportation
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number and percentage of non-asylum refusals have culminated in removal during 2000–01 to date. [139361]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at 31 October 2000, 17,387 non-asylum refusals have culminated in removal since 1 April 2000. This is 89 per cent. of the total number of non-asylum refusals.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people evacuated from Kosovo to the United Kingdom under the United Nations Humanitarian Evacuation Programme and medical evacuation programmes(a) remain in the United Kingdom, (b) have applied to extend their stay on medical or humanitarian grounds, (c) have been granted permission to extend their stay, (d) have applied for political asylum or exceptional leave to remain and (e) have an address which is known to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [139384]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information is not available in the precise format requested. Of the 4,346 people evacuated to the United Kingdom under the United Nations Humanitarian Evacuation Programme, 2,439 have made permanent voluntary returns to Kosovo. Of the remaining 1,907, 182 principal applicants have submitted applications for further leave within the Immigration Rules. Short extensions were granted on a temporary basis to 89. A total of 514 principal applicants have submitted applications for political asylum and exceptional leave to remain of whom two principal applicants and five dependants have been granted asylum.

  A number of applicants have made voluntary departures following refusal of their applications and others have returned to Kosovo while their applications remained outstanding.

  The vast majority of those who came on the United Nations Humanitarian Evacuation Programme are accounted for, either having made applications to remain here or having left voluntarily. Those who sought to remain are in contact with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken to grant British citizenship was in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 to date. [139382]

  Mrs. Roche
  On 1 April 1999, the average waiting time was 20.6 months. This had reduced to 19.9 months by 31 March 2000.

  As at 31 October 2000, the average waiting time is now 14.1 months.

  Senator Pinochet (Legal Fees)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost to public funds was of the legal fees concerning Senator Pinochet. [138871]

  Mr. Straw
  The total cost to public funds of the legal fees concerning Senator Pinochet was £2,204,595.60. The breakdown is as follows:
  99W
  Costs incurred by the Home Office

  Treasury Solicitor"s fees £63,1501

  Disbursements (mainly Counsels" fees) £284,3151

  Costs of the Kingdom of Belgium and Amnesty International £150,725

  1Of these two amounts £28,500 was recovered from Senator Pinochet under costs orders made against Senator Pinochet by the High Court.

  Costs incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service

  Counsels" fees £425,077

  Costs incurred by the Lord Chancellor"s Department

  The Law Lords ordered that Senator Pinochet's costs should be met from central funds for the first two hearings before the House of Lords in the unusual circumstances of the case. The costs paid from central funds were as follows:

  for the first hearing in the House of Lords £270,935.89; and

  for the application to set aside the judgment following the first hearing in the House of Lords £151,361.30.

  The costs of those Divisional Court hearings in which Senator Pinochet was successful or which did not proceed, were also ordered to be paid from central funds. The cost of Divisional Court hearings was £787,477.86.

  All these costs were ordered to be paid under Section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and they fall to be paid out of the Lord Chancellor"s Department"s portion of central funds. The total is £1,209,775.05.

  Senator Pinochet received no legal aid funding in any of the proceedings against him.

  Treasury Solicitor"s Fees

  Amicus Curiae (costs and disbursements including Counsel"s fees) £71,029

  Other costs and disbursements £29,024.76 All these figures include Value Added Tax where appropriate.
  100W
  The figures are for legal fees only. They do not include other costs—for example, the medical examination of 5 January 2000 and staff costs. I will inform the House of these costs once they have been finalised.

  Speeding
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many speeding convictions for HGV drivers there were in each of the last 10 years. [139306]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information collected centrally does not distinguish the type of vehicle involved in speeding offences.

  Curfew Orders (Tagging)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take in respect of electronically monitored curfew orders for 10 to 15-year-olds following the pilots in Greater Manchester and Norfolk. [139446]

  Mr. Straw
  I am pleased to announce that, following successful trials, electronically monitored curfew orders for 10 to 15-year-olds will be available to the courts from 1 February 2001.

  The curfew orders will be a means of keeping young offenders at home, off the streets and away from shopping centres and other places where they may get into trouble. By keeping young offenders out of harm"s way we believe the curfew order should be able to prevent young offenders from re-offending and help protect the public.

  The roll-out of electronically monitored curfews for 10 to 15-year-olds should be seen within the context of the youth justice reforms as a whole. Tackling youth crime and reforming the youth justice system remains a key priority.

  The evaluation report of the trials is being published today, and I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library.

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

Cleaner Vehicle Fuels
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the measures proposed in the Pre-Budget Report to encourage the use of cleaner fuels for road vehicles, they can estimate the rate of reduction in air pollution caused by road traffic over the next five years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we expect that the take up of ultra-low sulphur petrol, which will increase considerably as a result of the Chancellor's announcement, will result in a reduction in urban areas in 2004 of 1 per cent of emissions of oxides of nitrogen, 1 per cent of volatile organic compound emissions and 4 per cent of carbon monoxide emissions.
We are not able to carry out a comprehensive review of the impact on air quality and some of the other measures announced because the detail requires further work. The Deputy Prime Minister announced today the publication of the Government's response to the final report of the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force, which contains further measures to improve air quality and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, including £69 million of funding to accelerate the take up of cleaner fuels and cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Perhaps I may ask him two questions. The first relates to ultra-low sulphur petrol, which he has indicated will be available in increasing quantities. Can he state whether the price at which that petrol will be sold will be in line with the price of normal unleaded petrol? What will be the designation of such petrol? I understand that filling stations label it under different names. That could be confusing for the motorist.
My second question relates to the promotion of road fuel gases, to which I believe the Government are also committed. To what extent are liquid petroleum gas and compressed natural gas already used? What are the prospects for the future? Does the Minister accept that a determined effort to convert lorries and taxis to compressed natural gas would have a major impact on the reduction of noxious emissions, especially particulates, which cause respiratory diseases?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord asked more than two questions, but I shall
518
attempt to reply. Somewhat to the surprise of many people, one-third of all petrol delivered is already ultra-low sulphur petrol. It is labelled in different ways in different garages. Certainly by April we would expect there to be a pretty comprehensive supply. The branding is obviously a matter for the oil companies. However, I have no doubt that they will take account of recognisability, to which the noble Lord referred.
As regards price, although the Government are not into price controls, we have had an indication from UKAEA, the trade association for the oil companies, that the price of ultra-low sulphur petrol will follow the tax reduction and there will be relativity, therefore, with other unleaded petrol. As regards gas fuels, the market for LPG in particular is growing. Over 20,000 vehicles already use LPG and the infrastructure for that is developing, as is, to a lesser extent, that for compressed nitrogen gas. There is scope for considerable benefits from cleanliness of petrol and fuel efficiency. As regards conversion, through the Powershift programme, the Government already provide significant support for the retrofitting of buses and taxis in particular. In some cases, particularly for cars, conversion tends to be expensive. There may be other appropriate routes. However, the Government already support such conversions.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a more rapid usage of gas and electric powered vehicles would have significant environmental benefits over and above those of ULSP? Does he further agree that incentives such as exemption from congestion charging and abolition of parking charges would be a quick way of doing that? Will he discuss such proposals with local government?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, there are a few broad national exemptions. However, exemption from road user charges and car park charges would be a matter for local authorities. I believe that there are more direct ways of encouraging a shift to electric cars, which provide a niche market and for which VED is very low, and of trying to ensure that the environmental benefits of LPG and CNG for both cars and lorries are more widely understood. Certainly, both can make a significant contribution towards improving air quality and reducing noise and carbon dioxide emissions.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that, as the labelling of petrol is very misleading at present, ordinary consumers will not know whether or not the 3p reduction is being passed on to them because they will not know the name of the fuel which is supposed to be reduced?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I suspect that the oil companies will now ensure that branding is more apparent. In any case, over recent weeks it has been clear that the motorists' consciousness of petrol pricing has significantly increased and, were petrol stations not to indicate the better bargain as a result of the Chancellor's changes, consumers would move to

519
other suppliers which did brand clearly. However, noble Lords may be aware that BP and Jet are already introducing branding and advertising for those petrols.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, in response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on the pricing and supply of low sulphur fuel, the Minister said that up to one-third of present supplies were in fact low sulphur fuel. If that is so, and if the tax reduction of 3p per litre will be available once all supplies of low sulphur fuel are available, should not at least one-third of the 3p—that is, 1p—be deducted from the 81.9p a litre that we are all paying for unleaded fuel at the moment? That would bring the price down to 80.9p per litre.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Pre-Budget Statement did not immediately introduce the change in tax. That change will come into effect in April. At that point ultra-low sulphur petrol which is going through the general system will be charged at the lower rate of duty.

Tax Complexity
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to respond to the Tax Manifesto published recently by the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as with other representations he receives on tax, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give due consideration to those proposals in making his Budget decisions.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I should declare an interest as a council member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Does the Minister agree, to select one of the institute's 10 tenets for a better tax system, that the tax rules should be simple, understandable and clear in their objectives? Does he agree also that, with Finance Acts of 600-plus pages as we had this year, the current tax system is far from simple, understandable and clear?
The Government introduced a system of setting out their main objectives, aims and targets in public service agreements and service delivery agreements covering what they are trying to achieve. Will the Minister please explain why no mention of achieving simplicity, understandability or clarity in the tax system can be found anywhere in those agreements for either the Treasury or the Inland Revenue? Does this mean that the Government are not in any sense committed to simplification?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with several of the 10 tax tenets set out in the appendix to the ICA report. It is an interesting, worthwhile and constructive report. However, the length of a Finance Bill is not necessarily an indicator of whether or not it is a good Bill. The first project of the tax law review body chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, is the draft capital allowances Bill, which is substantially longer than the legislation it replaces. But that is not necessarily a bad thing if it is also much clearer.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as a member of the tax law review committee, can I ask the Minister whether he agrees that, although sheer length may not be a test, what we have had in the past three Budgets and seem likely to get in the next is a great many pages taken up with little bits and pieces with no specific theme behind them? Does he agree that items such as little reliefs for, let us say, venture capital tend to be largely useless and clutter up the statute book appallingly?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot accept any assumptions which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, may make about the next Budget. But it is true that there has to be a trade-off. If we are responsive to those who point out defects in the tax system and try to deal with such defects quickly, inevitably some of that will add to the existing tax structure without a fundamental reform. We have to make a choice as to whether it is important to be responsive to legitimate pressure, or whether we say that we cannot do anything because we have a longer-term project to simplify taxes. There is no ideal solution to this problem.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the main recommendations that the institute makes in its report is that this second Chamber could perhaps play more of a role in the scrutiny of financial legislation? Will he therefore consent to join myself and other interested Peers in an attempt to see if we can obtain cross-party consensus to examine ways in which the procedures of your Lordships' House can be modernised in the area of tax and other Treasury affairs?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I welcome the return of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, to a theme which he has pursued quite legitimately for a considerable period of time. He will understand that, whatever I might say as a citizen, it is not easy for me to respond when I speak on behalf of the Treasury in this House. It would be difficult therefore for me to join a group of the kind he suggests.
However, perhaps I may say that I feel I was somewhat abrupt in my response to the noble Lord when he raised the issue of simpler tax structures in the debate on the Pre-Budget Report. I was over-simplistic in my replies. The noble Lord deserves a fuller response at some stage, which I hope I shall have an opportunity to give him.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, as someone who has put much complex tax legislation on the statute book, I declare an interest. Can my noble friend tell the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, that, while a number of us may be interested in joining such an all-party committee, the plain fact is that most tax legislation, under any government, will be complex? It would be foolish to pretend, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, pointed out in his excellent report, that tax legislation is other than complex and, therefore, by its nature, difficult for any committee, however good—even one chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi—to simplify.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I share with my noble friend Lord Barnett admiration for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and his chairmanship of the steering committee of the tax law re-write project. The project goes back over tax laws for a period of 200 years. Inevitably there will be an accretion and matters to be put right. It rather reminds me of the bursar of an Oxford college who rejected the college's investment policy on the grounds that the past 200 years had been wholly exceptional.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, will the Minister admit that under the current Government capital gains tax was made much more complicated by the introduction of the taper relief? If he will not admit that, will he explain how it has become simpler?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the taper relief replaced the previous relief, which was not called "taper". There was no addition in complexity. There was a short-term addition in complexity when the two forms of relief operated concurrently, but that time passed quickly.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that one of the reasons why tax legislation is so complicated is the huge tax avoidance industry operated by many members of the accountancy profession who continuously call for tax simplification?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, tax experts, both accountants and lawyers, are paid substantially more than those in the Inland Revenue and the Treasury who have to counter their attempts to minimise the tax burden of business and individuals. It is in taxpayers' interests that we should continue effectively to counter them.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the major benefits of having a complex tax system is that it is easier for any government to introduce stealth taxes?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, I am not a supporter of stealth taxes, and I shall not be trapped into the suggestion that I am.

European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
2.52 p.m.
Lord Blackwell Lord Blackwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will undertake that the Prime Minister will not agree any significant changes to the powers and decision processes of the European Union at the forthcoming European Council unless they have been debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the treaty to be agreed at Nice will require ratification by all member states before it can enter into force. The necessary legislation must be passed in the UK before we can ratify the treaty. Parliament will therefore have its chance to decide whether or not to accept the result we achieve at Nice.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and ask her to go a little further. Does she accept that there are significant changes on the table at Nice which have not yet been agreed by governments; for instance, the extension of qualified majority voting, reweighting of votes in the Council and so forth? Does she also accept that experience has often shown that the preamble to treaties turns out to be as important as the articles themselves and in many cases opens the door to the extension of Community competence? In the light of that need for scrutiny, will she give an undertaking on behalf of her colleagues on the Front Bench that this House will not be told that we do not have the right to debate or vote on details of the treaty as it is brought to us?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree that it is likely that some changes will be made at Nice. The whole purpose of the negotiations is for us to find a way forward. It is right that the matter will come before the House—indeed, both Houses will have an opportunity to debate the issue. The Nice treaty will have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, by the passage of a Bill, before ratification. It is anticipated that an oral Statement will be made on 11th December by the Leader of the House on the outcome of Nice. Therefore, we will have a proper opportunity to discuss the matters.
Perhaps I may remind the House that the Amsterdam treaty was discussed for some five months before it was finally ratified.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if, following the Nice summit, there is no agreement on, for example, qualified majority voting and the extension of that principle, the size of the Commission and the weighting of votes in Council, we shall have failed the applicant countries which are seeking to join the EU, those changes at Nice being the imperative precondition to an EU which can accommodate such an enlargement?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my noble friend is right in saying that those are extremely important issues. The House will know that Her Majesty's Government have been at the forefront in arguing for a proper enlargement, and the new countries are anxious that we should be in good form before they join us.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it necessary for all the member states to ratify the treaty before it comes into effect? If it is not, what is the status of those countries which do not ratify it?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is important for countries which may at Nice agree in outline a draft treaty to ratify it thereafter. Parliament will have to approve the treaty so, in theory, it would be possible for this House and the Parliament of any other country to reject it. If that were to happen, there would be a partial or incomplete renegotiation of the text with other member states, as happened when the Danes rejected the Maastricht Treaty in their referendum. Therefore, it is possible for countries to do that, but we are hopeful that the arrangement we arrive at in Nice will prove capable of being ratified by all member states.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister accept that as we intend to continue to be a full and co-operative member of the EU, with some Conservative sniping from the sidelines, the most important point is to ensure that national parliaments are able effectively to undertake their scrutiny role? Does she recognise that there have been a number of occasions, particularly in the past year, when the Government have accepted decisions within the Council of Ministers without allowing for national scrutiny? Are the Government considering how they can improve their relations with Parliament in discussing the agenda of the meetings of the Council of Ministers?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the premise on which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, makes his statement but I do not necessarily agree with it. We have had an opportunity to discuss these issues and it will be important after the meeting at Nice to have a proper opportunity to debate the matter. As I have already said from the Dispatch Box, we shall have such an opportunity and I am sure that, like Members of the other place, noble Lords in this House will feast themselves on that opportunity.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can my noble friend give an assurance on behalf of the Government that, notwithstanding any question of the consideration by both Houses of Parliament of any significant changes, the right of the appropriate Standing Committees to examine European legislation will not thereby be prejudiced in any way? Will she also give an assurance that any proposed legislation will come before the appropriate Standing Committee both in this House and in another place?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that all the usual processes will be adopted in relation to scrutiny and that the Nice treaty will be given the same attention as was given to the Maastricht Treaty when it passed through both Houses.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when my noble friend Lord Cranborne asked a similar Question on 1st November her answer was a little fuzzy? Can we assume that today's Answer is the Government's definitive view on this important issue? Furthermore, can she assure us that when any treaty Bill comes before this House, there will be no question of being asked to approve of powers, or to reduce our power, over our national taxation or foreign policy? Will she accept that we on this side of the House are very much in favour of the enlargement process? We believe that the common agricultural policy is the chief obstacle to that, but there does not seem to be much about it in the Nice document.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that, whatever fuzziness befell me on the previous occasion, clarity now reigns. I can also say that the areas of veto will be retained and that there will be no change in terms of our taxation. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord is reassured on those issues.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, will my noble friend assure me on an adjacent point? Will agreements reached on the militarisation of the European Union and the creation of a rapid reaction force also be submitted to both Houses of Parliament for approval, or will it be taken as read that we should go through the transformation of the EU into a military alliance?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not know what we must say from this Dispatch Box to reassure my noble friend that there is to be no European army. If there is to be any change in legislation, it will come before both Houses of Parliament in the proper way. This Government will ensure that legislation comes before both Houses so that they can comment, as is proper.

Nuclear Waste
3.1 p.m.
Lord Winston Lord Winston asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the management of nuclear waste.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government's policy is that radioactive wastes should be managed in ways that protect, now and in the future, the safety of the public, the workforce and the environment. The UK Government and the devolved administrations are about to publish a consultation paper to set out

525
detailed proposals. This will begin the process which will lead to the implementation of a radioactive waste management policy that is capable of commanding widespread support across the UK.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Does the Minister accept that the need to research a suitable site, or sites, make option appraisals and commission and construct deep repositories, if that appears to be the most favourable solution, means that disposal will take at least 50 years? Does my noble friend agree that there is a need for urgency in decisions on this matter, given that we need to protect our children and our children's children?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, deep disposal was the preferred option in the report of the Select Committee, but other options will be covered in the consultation. As to timescale, the Select Committee indicated that it would take over 20 years to establish the policy and perhaps up to 50 years to implement. This is an extremely complex area with very long-term implications. It is important that all of those complexities are addressed, and the consultation paper will begin that process.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I am pleased to hear that a consultation paper is to be published, because the Select Committee made its recommendations a long time ago. As the Minister indicates, if we are to achieve the right solution for the future, the consultation period will be very long. Will the Government hasten to provide a Green Paper and a commission? Does the Minister agree that those building blocks need to be put in place as soon as possible if the consultation process is to succeed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this is a complex matter. The Government will shortly produce a consultation paper which will begin the process which the noble Baroness seeks.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the long delayed consultation paper will clearly indicate the various options, and their pros and cons, so that a decision after consultation can be reached once and for all and action taken?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the consultation paper will be primarily about the way in which to reach conclusions and how to achieve the widest possible consensus on the options. Clearly, it will refer to the options but will not make recommendations. Considerable further work and input from all the parties will be required before we can be clear about the best options for what is a very long-term process.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, bearing in mind the reported cost of £4 billion to decommission Dounreay, what is the estimated cost of
526
decommissioning all nuclear establishments and managing the subsequent waste over a very long period of time?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the cost of decommissioning and managing the waste thereafter depends on both the programme for decommissioning and the option adopted to manage the waste. I do not believe, therefore, that I can give my noble friend a clear answer, even if I sought further advice upon it. In any case, we are dealing with nuclear waste that already exists and is being produced by the current generation of nuclear power, irrespective of future decommissioning costs. We must find a solution for that as well as any additional costs caused by decommissioning.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, does the nuclear waste to which the noble Lord refers include the three nuclear submarines which Her Majesty's Government will make available to the rapid reaction force, otherwise known as the European army?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not believe that the Question has much to do with a European army. I do not believe that we propose either a European army or navy. It is intended that the programme for managing nuclear waste should, as far as is compatible with national security, deal also with military nuclear waste.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how much nuclear waste is imported from other countries for reprocessing here? Does the Minister have any plans to reduce that nuclear waste, at least until we have a proper plan to dispose of our own?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we do not import nuclear waste in the sense in which my noble friend puts it. We take fuel for reprocessing. In each of the contracts with other countries for reprocessing that fuel there is an option to return the waste so created to the country of origin. It is our policy that that option should be exercised.

Disqualifications Bill
3.7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Amendment of section 1(1)(e) of the Disqualification Acts]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, after ("than") insert ("the Republic of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 is a modest amendment which seeks to correct what I hope is an oversight. In proposing to amend the House of Commons Disqualification Act, the Bill refers only to Ireland. In common English that normally means the whole of the island of Ireland. Those who come from Northern Ireland are just as much Irish as those

527
from the south. The Government of the Republic claimed the whole of Ireland as their territory, although they modified the Irish constitution following the Good Friday agreement. They have conventionally referred to themselves as the Government of Ireland so as to imply a claim to the whole island and that they speak for all of it. But that is no reason why our legislation should do the same, particularly since the Good Friday agreement.
Amendment No. 1 refers to the House of Commons Disqualification Act. The other amendments in the group, Amendments Nos. 5 to 7, 9 to 11, 13 and 15, make the same correction to later references to Ireland where the intention is to refer to the Republic of Ireland. When one refers to the parliament of the Republic, as do most of the later amendments, it might be thought more acceptable to omit the words "Republic of" so as to preserve the translation of the official Irish name of the parliament, which also appears quite properly in the Bill, even though that would be just as objectionable given the underlying principle. I believe that Amendment No. 1 is slightly more important because that alters only our legislation and does not refer particularly to the parliament but to the House of Commons Disqualification Act. I beg to move.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Cope. The noble and learned Lord the Minister will remember that before the Italian Risorgimento Metternich used to refer to Italy as a geographical expression. I think that Ireland is still a geographical expression and perhaps also a cultural expression. This is a highly political Bill. Like my noble friend, I am certainly not in favour of the principle of the Bill, a point which the noble and learned Lord will no doubt by now have gathered. But if he is going to do this foolish thing, it would be sensible if the wording of the Bill reflected the political realities of the island of Ireland, in which there are still two polities rather than one, however much the government of the day may be pushing us in the latter direction.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I have always taken the view that a rather more accurate description would be the "Irish Republic". I base my thinking on the wise words of a much respected former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the late Clem Attlee. When, after the Act had been passed in the Dail, he was confronted on the issue of what the international title should be, he said, "Call themselves what they like. They remain what they are". That was very wise guidance.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I rise to oppose this series of amendments. The advantage of a six-hour journey to your Lordships' House rather than one of fewer than three hours has meant that I have been able to read the entire Committee stage of the Bill. It is quite interesting that during the Committee stage the word "republic" was not used by any speaker. That begs another question as to where this series of amendments
528
has come from. We all know that when we talk about Northern Ireland language is incredibly important. It is no less so in the South.
I have in my hand a copy of the constitution of Ireland. Article 5 states:
"Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state".
Nowhere between the pages of the document does the word "republic" appear. It seems to me that when other countries—other states—use English, whether as a first or second language, there is a certain courtesy in using the names of their states as they use them. I cannot believe—I have not looked this up—that in any double taxation agreements with the United States of America we refer to that country as the Republic of the United States of America. Therefore, looking at good accord with people nearby, we should stick to what they use. They use "Ireland" and in certain cases "the Government of Ireland".
Lord Laird: My Lords, I rise to support the amendments. Our problem is that the government of the Irish Republic always seek to have everything both ways. It is all very well saying in the constitution that they have a jurisdiction over the entire island of Ireland. As chairman of the Ulster Scots Agency, I talk to the people in Dublin about quotas for the Garda Siochana in the same way as the House approved the other day for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Yet when I point out to them that, according to their definition—not my definition—20 per cent of the population of the island of Ireland are ethnic Ulster Scots and so we want 20 per cent representation on the Garda Siochana, we suddenly discover that when they refer to Ireland they are referring only to 26 counties; so it is then down to 2 per cent.
We need clarity and honesty on this matter. What we have is a government in the Irish Republic for whom words are cheap—words mean whatever you want them to mean. It is an Alice-in-Wonderland world. Therefore, I should like clarity and I support the amendments.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the term "Ireland" is used correctly, is unambiguous and is in accordance with established practice. Since the conclusion of the British-Irish agreement in 1998 it has been the practice of both the British Government and Irish Government to refer to "Ireland" rather than "the Republic of Ireland" when the reference is in an international context. To accept the amendments would make the drafting of the Bill inconsistent with the practice of the Government in other legislation. Therefore, we oppose the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the other amendments in the group.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, how does he

529
reconcile what has been said with the fact that new Article 2 of the constitution of the Republic of Ireland states:
"It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation"?
Article 3 goes on to refer to the,
"firm will of the Irish nation … to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland".
and,
"recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people".
It seems to me that those phrases in themselves make it quite clear that the government in Dublin do not yet think that they represent the whole of Ireland. That is the point we are making. We are not raising any minor issue. It is an issue of whether we are talking about a part of a nation or a whole nation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with respect, there is no inconsistency between the extracts from the Irish constitution read out by the noble Baroness and the approach taken by the United Kingdom Government and, to avoid confusion, the Republic of Ireland Government that when in an international context "the Republic of Ireland" is referred to, it is referred to as "Ireland". That is the approach taken by both governments, including this Government, in legislation. It is right that that practice, having been adopted in legislation, should be continued; otherwise, there would be inconsistencies between this piece of legislation and other legislation. Whether that was the right or wrong course from the point of view of drafting is not quite the issue. From the point of view of a sensible approach to legislation, one should be consistent. I do not think that there is any inconsistency between that and the extracts from the constitution read by the noble Baroness.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he not agree that the real prize here is that, with the repeal of Articles 2 and 3, any constitutional claim by the Irish Government on Northern Ireland will pass; and as it passes so it ensures that the people of Northern Ireland have the right to continue to determine their own affairs? That is the prize at the end of the process. For those of us who claim to be Irish as well as British and hold passports from both countries, there is no conflict here. Following this debate, it is beholden on everyone to realise that you can love one country while refusing to hate another.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I quite agree with the sentiment of the noble Lord's remarks. I repeat, as I have done on every occasion and as everyone involved knows, the principle of consent remains enshrined in the relations between the countries.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that it is some time since I looked at double taxation agreements or had to
530
do so for any purpose. As far as I can recollect, those that involve what we know as America refer to it as the United States of America, which is a very precise description of part of that continent; just as "the Republic of Ireland" is a very precise description of part of that island. Therefore, the noble Lord's point is not effective in that respect. There is no double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and America—only with the United States of America or with other states on that continent.
I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Articles 2 and 3 have not quite been repealed. They have been modified, as my noble friend Lady Park pointed out.
The Minister accused us of wishing to see inconsistency. I do not wish to see inconsistency. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Laird Lord Laird moved Amendment No. 1A:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("() At the end insert "is a Minister in the government or chairman or deputy chairman of a committee of the legislature, of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom; or"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regard this as an important amendment. I do not believe that one person should be permitted to sit here at Westminster and in another sovereign legislature, or in any one of our devolved parliaments or assemblies. The issue of the inevitable conflict of interest was elucidated in Committee in this House. However, the Government continue to listen with deaf ears.
If the Government, for reasons they still have not disclosed satisfactorily, cannot accept that a person should not be able to sit in two sovereign parliaments, does the Minister accept that a person who is in government in another nation, or is the chairman or deputy chairman of a committee of another national legislature, should not be able to sit at Westminster or in any of the devolved assemblies?
That is the purpose of this amendment; namely, to exclude a government Minister of another nation from sitting here at Westminster or in one of our devolved assemblies and to exclude a committee chairman or deputy chairman of another nation's legislature from sitting here at Westminster or in any of the other devolved assemblies.
Why should a Minister of another state be permitted to take a seat in this legislature of the United Kingdom? As has been pointed out before in this House, members of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland have not demanded this piece of legislation. Indeed, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, informed the House of this when he said that he "went to Ireland" and "contacted all" his,
"friends in the Irish Parliament, in Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, the two major parties, and in the Democratic Left".
He asked,
"whether any of them put forward the idea of serving in both parliaments".

531
The noble Lord clearly stated that he did not receive a positive response. He continued:
"The members of Fianna Fail to whom I spoke were very cagey about this. Those of Fine Gael were very annoyed about it. Those in the Democratic Left laughed".—[Official Report, 6/11/00; col. 1257.],
I always attach great weight to comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. In this case, from what he has said, it seems clear that there is no demand for this measure from parliamentarians in the Irish Republic. Furthermore, opposition to this Bill is the more probable opinion.
As I sure noble Lords are aware, the Ulster Unionist Party has been vocal in its vigorous opposition to this legislation. That opposition has not lessened. I am not aware of any support for the measure from the Democratic Unionist Party or from the SDLP. However, some party or group may have prompted the legislation; or, in the case of the party I have in mind, it may be more accurate to say that it has demanded this legislation.
I should like to ask the Minister: of all the political parties consulted about the measure, how many were in favour of the proposals that appear in this Bill? Would the Minister consider a party to be a consultee if, in fact, it was the originator of the Bill? If a party puts forward a proposal, will it still be consulted? If it is, would the proposal be acted upon in full? Perhaps Sinn Fein/IRA was not a consultee as regards the proposals, but rather was the genesis of the measure.
Perhaps I may remind the Government that the Belfast agreement was designed to remove the latent influence of Sinn Fein/IRA on government policy and to create complete transparency. Undoubtedly, with the agreement, Sinn Fein/IRA has a transparent influence and is accountable. However, this legislation serves to confirm what many unionists suspect; namely, that the latent influence of Sinn Fein/IRA still exists. Furthermore, that influence is sufficiently strong to dictate to the Government that it wishes to see a Bill passed through Parliament for its sole benefit. How do the Government intend to bring about the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons when they permit Sinn Fein/IRA to maintain its latent influence? One can suggest only that the Government do not wish to ignore the demands of people who retain a paramilitary capability.
I stated my opposition to this Bill at the outset of our deliberations. However, it would be at least less offensive, if not more acceptable, if it could be accepted that the Ministers of other national governments and the chairman or deputy chairman of other national legislatures should be barred not only from holding office in the government of the United Kingdom, but should also be barred from membership of the assemblies and parliaments of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the world is not quite as simple as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Laird. His argument that people should not be able to
532
hold office in two separate sovereign states has a certain apparent persuasiveness. However, let me ask him to consider the case of King William III, a name not without honour in Northern Irish Protestant circles. That king was the King of England and the King of Scotland when they were two independent, sovereign states. He was also the Stadtholder of the Province of Holland. I believe that benefit accrued to all three from that relationship.
Lord Laud: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that it is better to look forward to the future than it is to look back to the past?
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord has stated an absolute principle. I merely stated that there are exceptions to that principle, from which his Province has benefited.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I enter into this discussion with the greatest diffidence, knowing that the noble Earl is an enormous authority on 17th century and other history. However, would he not draw a distinction between a sovereign and one of his or her Ministers? After all, we seem to have in place a perfectly satisfactory arrangement as regards the Commonwealth. Our present monarch is the head of state of a number of Commonwealth countries, but also head of a supranational organisation which includes a number of republics. Is that not a qualitative difference from that of the position of a Minister?
Earl Russell: My Lords, when we try to draw distinctions, we move in an area which may become interesting. However, it appears to be a point that should rightly be debated in Committee. Regrettably, we have now passed that stage.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that one consequence of unity of monarchs, namely, one throne for two countries, has often been that of political unification? That is precisely the point being made from the Benches opposite.
Earl Russell: My Lords, that was subsequently the consequence; namely, with the full consent of both countries, in which circumstances and in which circumstances only one might regard it as proper. It does not appear immediately to be on the table here, but my understanding of the Good Friday agreement suggests that that is the only way in which that could come about. That I regard as one of the good elements of the agreement.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has taken us back to the 17th century; perhaps I may move forward two centuries. Noble Lords will recall that Mr Gladstone's Home Rule Bill came before your Lordships' House and was defeated. It attempted to create a united Ireland within a United Kingdom. If that Bill had passed through all its stages, perhaps many of the tragedies of the 20th century might have been avoided.

533
I believe that at the end of the First World War, Mr Churchill observed that although much else had changed in Europe, what remained were the "dreary steeples" of Ulster. What this Bill has been trying to do is to put in place a more creative set of circumstances in which people living on the island of Ireland, as well as those living on this island, can learn to coexist in far more interesting ways which do not require us constantly to name call or to abuse.
If the noble Lord considers the matter, even his own party has moved in that direction and I commend it for that. We should recall that the Ulster Unionist Party in the European Parliament had their former Member of the European Parliament sitting in the same group in the European People's Party with members of Fine Gael. It would have been impossible to achieve that in this House or in another place. The former leader of the Alliance Party in Northern Ireland, Mr John Cushnahan, a British citizen, now sits as a Fine Gael member representing the Limerick area in the European Parliament. There are other examples of former Northern Ireland politicians who sit in the Dail. Already a more creative and fluid relationship is being built.
We need to think rather more imaginatively than perhaps we have done over the past 70 years. However, what is certain is that if we merely turn around the bloodbath and hide behind slogans like, "a united Ireland" or, for that matter, even the phrase, "a united kingdom", that will not take us anywhere.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I was not going to speak in the debate but I have been brought into it by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, who has quoted me repeatedly from a previous debate.
At this stage it is right that we should sympathise with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. It has been reported that he is a friend of the Prime Minister. In recognition of this, the Prime Minister has given him responsibility for the Dome, the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill and the Disqualifications Bill. If that is what he does for his friends, I should not like to be one of his enemies.
Perhaps I, too, may mention a little bit of history. It was not the 1998 Act which brought about the term "Republic of Ireland and the island of Ireland". It was brought in by the Conservative government who initiated the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985. I remember very well having the British text and the Irish text of the agreement delivered to my office in this building. The British text stated that it was an agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Irish Republic. The Irish text stated that it was an agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom. So there, from the word go, was the reason for the conflict.
Prior to that, when for many years I was a member of the parliament in Northern Ireland, no one had ever heard of Articles 2 and 3. It was the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 which first brought that term into
534
the political arena of Northern Ireland. That was the first time it was seen and heard. Since then, there has been a natural progression.
I shall repeat very shortly what I asked in the previous debate: who asked for this Bill, with all its ramifications? I have spoken to many members of Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the Democratic Left and other minor parties in the Republic. I asked them whether they had asked for the Bill. The answer I received was no; they do not want it. They will find the Bill an embarrassment. Given the residence qualification in this country, it is highly unlikely that any member of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael will come to England and take up residence in Hackney or anywhere else to qualify for a vote and to sit here. That will not happen—it is not feasible—but it could have an effect on Sinn Fein.
Sinn Fein now claims to be an all-Ireland party. It has been rumoured—no one can say whether or not ii is true—that Sinn Fein intends to have a Member in this House. Given the probable timing of the election next year, Sinn Fein could have a candidate elected to this House in May, in addition to the two people who are currently elected.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord is referring to the other place rather than to this House.
Lord Fitt: Yes, my Lords; I am. Sinn Fein could have someone elected to the other place, in addition to the two who are currently there. Given the emotion that would surround such an event, Sinn Fein could then fight a seat in the Republic. It could go to the electorate in the Republic of Ireland and say, "We are the only all-Ireland party, unlike Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the Democratic Left and the SDLP".
I followed very carefully the progress of the Bill through another place. No SDLP Members spoke to the Bill or voted on it. I believe that they were highly embarrassed by the Bill. Whatever we envisage will happen, it will not be to the benefit of the SDLP I have heard only today that, at this late stage of the proceedings, the SDLP supports the Bill. It is very late in the day for it to take this attitude. One wonders what has happened between the Committee stage and now to compel the SDLP to support the Bill. I shall he glad to hear from the SDLP that it does support the Bill.
I have said already that all major political parties in the island of Ireland are opposed to the Bill. Until I am convinced that there is a genuine need for the Bill to improve relations in Northern Ireland, I shall have to express my serious misgivings about it.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as this is Report stage, I shall defer to another occasion asking the noble Earl, Lord Russell, why he omitted the original sovereign title of William III, "the Prince of Orange", from his list.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for my error, which I realised I had made only a few moments ago.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I shall defer also my comments on the general arguments which have been aired to the debate on the next amendment, which covers them more fully.
As to this amendment, the Government claim—inaccurately, in my view—that the purpose of the Bill is to correct an anomaly. The amendment draws attention to the fact that, unless the amendment is accepted, the Bill will create a new anomaly. The amendment is valuable from that point of view.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for drawing the attention of the House to the fact that we are at Report stage. Repetition is not helpful to your Lordships, despite the charms and historical perspective of the noble Earl.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, a number of points have been made—in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Laird and Lord Fitt—which deal with the principle of the Bill. I have also been asked about who supports the Bill and the position of the SDLP in relation to the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, perhaps I may deal with those questions when we get to the next group of amendments, which raises the question of whether or not Clause 1 should remain in the Bill. That would appear to be the appropriate point at which to deal with those issues and I would thus avoid the necessity of having to repeat myself.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, seeks, in effect, to prevent a Minister of any Commonwealth country or of Ireland being a Member of the legislature here. The Bill is not intended to remove a qualification which already exists for members of the Commonwealth, which would be the effect of accepting the amendment. It is already the case that office holders in any Commonwealth country are able to stand for election to any UK legislature and are not barred from accepting any post within that legislature.
The Government are seeking to extend the qualification to stand for election to UK legislatures to include Members of the Irish Parliament, while at the same time ensuring that measures are in place to prevent situations where conflicts of interests may occur and the selection procedure for certain kinds of posts does not allow for the use of discretion, as is the case with ministerial positions in the Assembly, which are selected by d'Hondt. The amendment does not do this—that is, it does not deal with the case where there is no discretion—and the Government therefore ask the House not to accept the amendment.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. I shall have to consider it. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment. I very much respect the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the role he has played over the years. However, I am a little confused as to his exact point; it was not very clear. Perhaps he and I might discuss the matter further.
536
I make the point that, as an Ulster Unionist, I am seeking to work the Belfast agreement. Those of us who do so split our community and everything else and put ourselves at personal risk. Yet, what happens? As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, says, legislation is pushed through this House which only makes our discomfort that much worse. It does nothing in Northern Ireland to further the Good Friday agreement.
The amendment that I propose seeks to exclude members of the Dublin Government from being Members of the Westminster Parliament. Perhaps this House could spend a bit more time examining the failures of the Dublin Government to implement the Belfast agreement in terms of human rights. Nearly three years after the signing of the agreement, the Dublin Government have not moved in any shape, sense or form on human rights, which lag considerably behind those of the United Kingdom. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 1.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to leave out Clause 1. This clause is the heart of the Bill. If we pull it out of the Bill, the Bill will not live. It does not deserve to live, because it is a dangerous Bill.
I shall pose two questions to the Minister at the start in order to give him and those who advise him the maximum opportunity to reply in full. They are not new questions; they have already been hinted at this afternoon. They are entirely straightforward, but we have not received answers.
First, does the Minister accept that the Bill will mean that Sinn Fein members could be elected both to the Dail and to Westminster, and could claim to speak in the Dublin Parliament for United Kingdom constituencies? Secondly, why do the Government want that? Those questions are directed to the Minister, but they are also for other noble Lords to consider—for the Liberal Democrats and anyone else.
The first question addresses the practical effect of the Bill. As we have set out previously, we simply do not believe the Minister's explanation of the Bill's purpose. It has been said that it is a Home Office-inspired Bill, thought up entirely by our own Government to bring the Republic of Ireland into line with the Commonwealth and to allow people to hold seats in the two sovereign Parliaments at the same time.
As I reflected on this, it conjured up to me a picture of civil servants sitting in the Home Office and spotting this so-called "anomaly". One assumes that, once they realised it existed, they sat down and wrote an internal minute: "Sir Humphrey, we have just realised that when Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1949 we did not provide for Members of its Parliament to sit as Westminster MPs at the same time as being Members of the Dail, which they were able to do up until then.
We have identified three courses of action available to deal with this anomaly now that we realise it exists. Course A: we could simply keep quiet. No one complained about this at the time and, over the 50 years since, no one has mentioned it, so we do not need to mention it now. Course B: we could propose a Bill to Parliament that Commonwealth MPs should not in future be able to sit simultaneously at Westminster and in their own Parliament. That would bring Ireland and the Commonwealth into line and remove the anomaly. No one in history has ever sat in a Commonwealth Parliament and been a Member of the Westminster Parliament at the same time, and no one is ever likely to do so; so the Commonwealth should not be too concerned. Or, of course, we could take Course C: we could extend this peculiar privilege to the Republic of Ireland as well. Which course would you like us to recommend to the Home Secretary, Sir Humphrey?"
Presumably, Sir Humphrey then said something to this effect: "Having discovered this dreadful anomaly, in these days of open government we have to expect that its existence will leak, so Course A is not available. The Foreign Secretary would not want to take away a privilege from the Commonwealth—even one that it does not use—so Course B won't do either". That brings us to the Bill. "That means that we must legislate along the lines of Course C and extend the privilege to the Irish".
"But Sir Humphrey, how are we going to get that through the Parliament". "Oh, tell them it's urgent". "Urgent, Sir Humphrey—after 50 years?". "Do as you are told. Waste Parliament's time, not mine". "But we've already got 12 Home Office Bills this Session". "Well, then, this is No. 13"—and it is the 13th Home Office Bill in this parliamentary Session.
We find that scenario ridiculous. It is just as ridiculous as the government explanation of the purpose of the Bill, whether expressed by the Home Secretary in another place or by the noble and learned Lord in earlier debates. It must be the feeblest reason ever for any Bill to be presented to Parliament.
Of course, that is not the actual reason for the Bill; it is a cover story. The real reason is not ludicrous, but sinister. All the indications are that the Bill is wanted by Sinn Fein/IRA. They want to be able to have members elected for both Westminster and Dail constituencies—not to sit in both Parliaments; they do not recognise the validity of the Westminster Parliament, they do not take their seats and never have done—they want to claim to represent United Kingdom constituencies in the Dail. That would be a huge step towards a United Ireland by stealth.
So far, I cannot make out from our debates whether the Government agree that Sinn Fein will use the Bill in the way that I have set out. That is why my first question was whether they accept the likelihood, or even the possibility, of that outcome. I cannot believe that they are näve enough not to realise such a possibility; nor can we think of anyone else who is likely to want this Bill. But if they accept that possibility, why do the Government want the Bill?
Which part of the Government wants the Bill? ft is supposed to be a Home Office Bill; Home Office Ministers introduced it into another place. But I do not believe that the Home Office thought of this all by itself. So perhaps it is the Northern Ireland Office that wants it. But I have to say that the indications we have received are that the Northern Ireland Secretary wants nothing to do with the Bill—in spite of the fact that it was described to this House by the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms as part of the "choreography" of Northern Ireland. That makes me think that my noble friend Lord Cranborne was right to suggest the other day that this measure springs from a deal done by No. 10. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, remarked, it is an interesting fact that the noble and learned Lord is taking the Bill through this House.
However, looking to different parts of the Government is fruitless speculation. We all know that we shall be told that the Government are all good friends; that they agree on everything; and that what we read to the contrary in the newspapers is rubbish. I can see why Sinn Fein/IRA would want the Bill, but not why the United Kingdom Government or any other Member of this House would want it. I think it can only be because they, too, secretly want to advance the cause of a united Ireland by stealth, or because they have done a deal and think that they will get something in return. The Government got nothing from Sinn Fein/IRA in return for the release of prisoners, so I am not sure why they should expect to get anything from this measure, significant as it is.
Perhaps the Irish Government believe that this would be one way to appease Sinn Fein, which still has its old agenda at the back of its mind. This device might serve its purposes and help to destabilise Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. But, if so, what has it offered that is remotely comparable in return? As far as we know, the answer to that question is nothing. Indeed, its own constitution, the Irish constitution, would restrict this curious dual mandate to Irish citizens, because only they can stand for election in Ireland. That makes it all the more curious that the British Government should want to grant this special privilege of sitting in the two sovereign parliaments at once, not to British citizens but only to Irish citizens, or those with dual nationality. If Her Majesty's Government want it for some unexplained reason, why should this United Kingdom Parliament want it? That is the question for us to consider.
We have been told of no deal; indeed, we are told that it is solely the policy of the United Kingdom Government. We in this Parliament should stand by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement that Northern Ireland will remain fully part of the United Kingdom, as the majority of its people want for as long as they want it. We remember that part of the agreement, even if the Government want us to forget it. In our previous debates, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said that he did not understand the Government over this Bill: what is more, he thought that he was not meant to understand. I feel exactly the same. Anyone who accepts this clause and the Bill today will, I believe, have cause to regret it

539
when it is used against our constitution. However, they cannot say that they were not told what the effect would be.
We shall not acquiesce in the weakening of our Parliament by stealth, and we shall not accept the undermining of our United Kingdom by stealth. That is why we should defeat this clause. I beg to move.
Lord Laird: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly express my support for this amendment. In view of my earlier remarks today, will the Minister indicate clearly in his response whether he thinks that this Bill is a plus or a minus for the Belfast agreement?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think it is a plus. The Government support the Belfast agreement. The British/Irish agreement in 1998, which followed the conclusion of the Belfast agreement, put on a formal basis the arrangements—
Lord Laird: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Can he explain to us how it is that they can support the Belfast agreement? It is not in the Belfast agreement; indeed, it is nothing to do with the that agreement. No one who is a signatory to the Belfast agreement, except Sinn Fein/IRA, seems to be in favour of it. The point is that it causes considerable confusion in Northern Ireland. So how can they be in support of the Belfast agreement?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is what I was seeking to explain. Perhaps I may now do so—
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord replying to the debate or intervening in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Laird? If he is replying to the debate, does he wish to speak early or to close the debate now?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, after the noble Lord, Lord Laird, sat down, my understanding was that he had concluded his speech. No one rose to speak at that point, so I decided to do so. I profoundly apologise to any noble Lords who wished to speak. I looked around the Chamber and no was standing up.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord mistook my natural diffidence. I heard a question addressed to the noble and learned Lord from the noble Lord, Lord Laird. I thought that the noble and learned Lord, with his customary courtesy, would want immediately to explain why he could not answer it.
With no disrespect whatever to the present distinguished occupant on the Woolsack, I, for my part, regret the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not present today. I believe that the Lord Chancellor is chairman of the legislation committee of the Cabinet. I should have liked to give the noble and learned Lord the opportunity to tell us a little, in these days of transparent government, about
540
how it is that this Bill, which did not feature in the manifesto, has, notwithstanding that, managed to find a place in the Government's programme. All chairmen of the legislation committee of the Cabinet are very jealous of government legislative time.
Perhaps I may follow the scenario suggested by my noble friend Lord Cope. It would be diverting to know how the Home Office Minister charged with bringing forward this proposal would have put the matter to the legislation committee of the Cabinet, especially to the Lord Chancellor. There would have had to be a very good reason given as to why precious government time in legislation was taken up in this way. Unfortunately, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not in a position to respond today, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is. He has had plenty of time to think about this, because several noble Lords addressed the question in Committee.
A substantial constitutional change is being proposed. It is a very significant one. Any change to the disqualification rules that Parliament has previously approved for itself, and for the House of Commons in particular, is also important constitutionally. The Minister has said, "No, we don't anticipate that any member of the Commonwealth legislatures will avail themselves of this privilege; indeed, they have never done so in the past and we see no reason to suppose that they will do so in the future. Yet we think it is important that members of the Irish legislature should be able to avail themselves of it. No, we don't say that anyone we know will do so. It is just that we don't like these funny old anomalies".
Noble Lords do not need to have particularly sensitive noses to smell a rat here. All that the noble and learned Lord would say when I asked him this question in Committee was that it was not an appropriate question to ask. I have considered that curious doctrine and I am afraid that I still consider it to be an appropriate question. I hope that it will receive an appropriate answer today.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, has both complained of anomalies. I do not think that there is any question that we have an anomaly in front of us today. However, I happen recently to have read the book of Mr David Willetts on civic conservatism. Mr Willetts quotes Voltaire, with strong approval, about the contribution of anomalies to the preservation of liberty. On this matter, I happen to agree with Mr Willetts rather than the noble and learned Lord or the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley.
It is a fact, as well as an anomaly, that throughout history those who live within the same physical border have not always had the same identification of their nationality. If that is not compatible with peace, then all the perfumes of Arabia will not cleanse their ethnicity. So some way of living with the situation is, I believe, desirable. Perhaps I may recommend the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, to another anomaly; namely, the state of Andorra, where some people believe that they are Spanish, some

541
people believe that they are French and some people believe that they are neither. The people have an elected assembly and their affairs are presided over jointly by the local French préfet and the local Spanish bishop. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, may be reassured to know that that is where events have stopped for as long as I can remember. I believe that that precedent is relevant to this Bill.
4 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this amendment, which I strongly support. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was slightly on the wrong tack. It is not a question of creating anomalies; indeed, the unnecessary rectification of an anomaly without good reason is at the root of our objections.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to the phenomenon of dual passports. He also made the observation, with which no one could disagree, that it ought to be possible for someone to love his own country without hating another country. Of course one accepts that. There are, of course, those who disagree with the principle of dual passports. I am not one of them. It is not a question of loving one's own country and not hating another; it is a question of whether one can perform one's duties which contradict each other in two countries simultaneously. It is the essence of the argument on this side that it is difficult to imagine someone being able to do that in two sovereign parliaments simultaneously. That is perhaps possible in a sovereign parliament and a devolved assembly in another country, but is it possible in two sovereign parliaments where one has to swear two oaths of allegiance? It might be difficult but not impossible to represent two different sets of constituents. However, where one's function as a Member of Parliament is both to sustain and occasionally to bring down governments, that could lead to enormous conflicts of loyalty.
I am in no doubt that the principle of this Bill is highly objectionable. But what I think is much more serious is the way in which this measure has been justified. It has been put forward and justified on a basis which is utterly implausible. Initially the noble and learned Lord presented the measure as simply bringing Ireland into line with the Commonwealth as though that were a statement which had any justification because Ireland is not a member of the Commonwealth, even though there is some talk of it becoming one. However, it quickly emerged that there has been no example in history of a Member of Parliament of a Commonwealth legislature sitting simultaneously in the House of Commons. Therefore the whole basis on which the measure was justified simply did not stand up.
Then there is the extraordinary timetable of the Bill. I think I am right in saying that the Bill was first presented to the House of Commons on 22nd December, just before Christmas, when no one could pay it arty attention. It was reintroduced when Parliament came back after the Christmas break. Then we had the turn for the worse in the negotiations in
542
Northern Ireland and the measure was dropped. It was then reintroduced in the Commons in June. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, referred to it as consultation with the House of Commons. He used the words "very intensive scrutiny". It comprised an angry all-night Sitting in the House of Commons who protested that there was no Report stage and that the whole thing was rushed through. Then it was presented to this House on the second day, I believe, before we rose for the Recess. The way in which this Bill has beer handled is truly shocking because it is of such significance. We strongly suspect that the real reasons have not been given.
Mention has been made of the close relationship between this country and Northern Ireland. That because it is, typically for the noble and learned Lord, a narrow basis on which to stand—rather more convincing. However, it does not tell us much simply to say that we need the measure because we have a close relationship with Northern Ireland. The measure is being put forward as if the Sinn Fein submission to the all-party committee of the Irish Parliament on the constitution had never been published. The document refers to the changes that were made to Article 2 of the Irish constitution. The claim to Northern Ireland has been dropped. Article 2 now reads:
"It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born on the island of Ireland, which includes its island and seas, to be part of the Irish nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland".
Sinn Fein argues that these rights include,
"the right of citizens in the Six Counties to send representatives to the Irish legislature".
That is a freely available published document. It is extraordinary that the measure put forward by the Government does not refer to that document at all. I find that shocking. I do not believe that the Government's proposals have nothing whatever to do with the proposals of Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein's purpose is to make the relationship of Northern Ireland with the United Kingdom more ambiguous; to make the Dublin Parliament appear equi-distant from the Northern Ireland Parliament; and to make it appear as though a person elected in a constituency in Northern Ireland can equally sit in the Dail or in the House of Commons because both Parliaments have an equal right to pass laws referring to the internal affairs of Northern Ireland.
It has been said that this proposal was not mentioned in the Belfast agreement. That is an important point. This Bill is a significant measure in two ways. First, I submit that it constitutes a constitutional outrage. Secondly, it constitutes a significant addition to the Belfast agreement, if its purpose is as the Sinn Fein document states. I say with great respect to the Minister that I strongly object to the lack of candour and frankness with which the measure has been put forward. Ministers have

543
described it as a small step. In a sense it is a small step; it is another small step in the betrayal of Northern Ireland.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, the amendment that is before us has no other purpose than to scupper the Bill. The Bill makes further progress in the closer ties being forged between the two countries. It constitutes a natural evolution following the progress, admittedly sometimes halting, that has occurred since the Good Friday agreement. If only one or two people take up this measure, it could be of help to the fragile and delicate nature of that agreement. I can envisage circumstances in which it could help tremendously for someone from the unionist tradition to be present at debates in the Dail. But it is up to electors in constituencies, both North and South, to decide whether or not to vote for candidates who are also representatives of another body.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I know nothing about the background of this Bill but I believe that noble Lords are going a little over the top. I have heard expressions such as "united Ireland by stealth" or "betrayal of Northern Ireland". Frankly, these seem disproportionate to what we are discussing here. There is no question of a united Ireland by stealth. The Belfast agreement made it perfectly clear that a United Ireland would come about only if the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wished it. That is not a process by stealth; it is part of an explicit process. I do not see how Northern Ireland would be betrayed if a politician representing a constituency in Northern Ireland were also to be elected to the Dail or were to be in the Senate in Dublin. I do not consider that a betrayal. It may not be as tidy as some noble Lords would wish, but I do not consider that it would be a betrayal of Northern Ireland and I consider it mischievous to construe it as such.
What we are talking about surely is the uniqueness of Northern Ireland in terms of the relationships between Northern Ireland and the Republic which are explicitly recognised by a variety of structures which arose through the Belfast agreement. All we are doing here is to recognise the uniqueness of Northern Ireland. I appreciate that there is an anomaly at present as regards Commonwealth countries and Ireland. However, I prefer to put the argument in terms of the unique position of Northern Ireland. If John Hume were to be elected to the Dail while retaining his seat in the other place, would that be the end of Northern Ireland? I do not understand why that is considered such an anomaly. If Seamus Mallon were to be elected to the Dail while retaining his parliamentary seat in the other place, would that be the end of Northern Ireland? I do not see that those are such enormous matters that the whole House should say that they constitute a betrayal of Northern Ireland.
It seems to me that this is a relatively minor matter. Members of this House may not like it. They may not feel that it accords with the way in which they see
544
things but I believe that we should get this in proportion. It is not a revolutionary change; it is a fairly minor matter, even if it has been vested with enormous significance in some of the speeches we have heard. Put in those terms, it is not that important, but let us at least get on with the matter and pass it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who has tried to put the debate into a reasonable context. There has been an edge to much of what has been said this afternoon that will not help the process in Northern Ireland. I always listen to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, with great regard and I believe that he has a significant contribution to make to these debates. However, on this occasion his talk of betrayal has not done us a great service.
His noble friend Lady Thatcher took the first historic steps in 1985 to try to engage the Dail and the authorities in Ireland in a constitutional programme for change so that people in these islands could live alongside one another. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, I supported the Conservative Party's brave initiatives, led by the noble Baroness, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, and their right honourable friend Mr John Major, in trying to engage Sinn Fein/IRA in the constitutional process. We all knew that that would lead to many dilemmas.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, was right to remind us that we have duties. It is not just about affections or loyalties. Those who are elected to the House of Commons or to the Irish Dail have duties, but it is not impossible to reconcile the different duties. After all, Rev. Ian Paisley sits in the European Parliament and the British House of Commons. Some Members of the Irish Parliament are British citizens and have sat previously in Northern Ireland.
Our objective should be to engage Sinn Fein in proper constitutional dialogue. When I was a member of a political party—for some of those years I was an Irish affairs spokesman—I refused adamantly to engage with Sinn Fein. I refused to meet them at any stage. I took on my own political party at a party conference when there was an attempt to mandate the Irish affairs spokesman to meet Sinn Fein. Quite properly, conference refused to pass that resolution. It was improper to seek such a requirement and I would not have been prepared to do it while Sinn Fein was engaged in a process that also relied on violence.
I recognise that, as the Unionists and others have said, the decommissioning process has not been transparent enough to determine whether violence has been totally disavowed. That issue is still on the table. Any return to violence would undoubtedly ensure that the process stopped. That would be an historic tragedy, leading to the return of violence on the streets.
If the worst result of this provision was that members of Sinn Fein took their seats in the British House of Commons and started to put their arguments where they should always have put them, I cannot see why that would be a betrayal of the people of Northern Ireland.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the longer that we engage in this discussion, the more glaringly obvious it becomes that it will be impossible to work the legislation. What does it mean to be an elected Member of Parliament? A Member of Parliament is elected to represent the voters of a constituency. It would be impossible for anyone to represent the interests of their constituencies in both the Dail and Westminster, because their electors would want a constituency service from their representative. The two Parliaments have different electoral systems. The Republic has proportional representation.
Can anyone imagine any member of the major political parties in the Republic—Fianna Fail, Fine Gael or the Democratic Left—coming over to Westminster to ensure that they had a residence qualification? They are not going to be elected to Westminster. The provisions will apply only in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The main parties in the Republic have had adequate opportunity since the Bill was introduced at the other end of this building to voice their support for it, but they want nothing to do with it. Why has no elected Member in the Republic—Back-Bencher or otherwise—stood up and spoken in favour of it? I asked the same question in Committee. The Minister has said that he has had consultations with Dublin. I should have preferred to hear a voice from the Irish Parliament saying that they wanted the Bill. So far that has not happened. Only this afternoon did I hear that, at this late stage, the SDLP has expressed its support for the Bill. I have not yet read that officially and I would be more satisfied to see it in print. Why did no SDLP Member speak or vote in favour of the Bill when it went through the House of Commons? If the Bill is so important, the three SDLP Members should at least have voted in favour of it, even if they did not speak.
The only party that can gain from the Bill is Sinn Fein. If the Government start appeasing and placating Sinn Fein, they do it to the disadvantage of the other constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. That is a very dangerous road to travel.
As a learned member of the Bar, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, knows the value of words. He would probably deny this, but I think that he is probably highly embarrassed at having to push the Bill through the House, because he cannot muster a logical argument in favour of it. If he cannot do so, I do not think that many of your Lordships can do so either.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have three comments to make. First, many of those who support the Bill have suggested that, by moving against it, we are endangering the links that are developing. That is an extraordinary argument. Are they seriously saying that opposing the Bill would damage a set-up that includes the Council of the Isles, North-South agreements and many other discussions in which
546
people are working together all the time? It is inconceivable that the Bill could change all that and send an unfriendly message.
Secondly, the only people who will benefit from the Bill are Sinn Fein/IRA. Gerry Adams has already been elected to a UK constituency in Northern Ireland. I he is also elected to the Dail, he will be able to say that he represents the whole of Ireland. Other members of Sinn Fein/IRA would do the same. None of the rest: of the Dail could do that.
Lastly, only yesterday the Irish Times reported that there had been a good deal of discussion in the Dail on a proposal to ban the dual mandate that allows TDs and Senators to hold local authority seats. That was recently opposed by Fianna Fail. One TD said that the Dail should reform itself first. He said:
"There have to be changes to allow us to he true parliamentarians rather than the super county councillors we are at present".
Might we not expect that the implications of the Bill would also be of interest to the Dail during such a debate? Nothing was said about it. It is a non-event for everyone in Dublin except Sinn Fein/IRA. I suspect that the reason that we are hearing nothing from Ministers is that in Dublin there is considerable anxiety lest there should be rather a large number of Sinn Fein/IRA people elected at the next election. The Bill is a threat to Dublin as well as to us.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is well known that the British Government strongly support the Belfast agreement and wish to see it work. Following the conclusion of that agreement, the British/Irish agreement was made in 1998 and that put on a formal basis links between Ireland and the United Kingdom governments. Included in that, agreement were new institutions to build on and develop the relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland, which is close and mutually beneficial.
Essential and crucial to this new spirit of cooperation and the foundation of the new relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland was the recognition by the Irish Government and all the parties to the Belfast agreement of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom—the principle of consent. In the case of the Irish Government, acceptance of that principle led them to commit themselves in the British/Irish agreement to changes in their constitution to the territorial claim to Northern Ireland so long objected to by Unionists. The Irish Government sought approval for these constitutional changes in a referendum held on 22nd May 1998, which demonstrated overwhelming support for the Belfast agreement and for the proposed constitutional changes. The changes to the Irish constitution took effect on 2nd December with the coming into effect of the British/Irish agreement and devolution in Northern Ireland.

547
The constitutional changes made by the Irish Government are historic and irreversible. They represent the giving up of what has always been regarded in Ireland as very important constitutional provisions. They were given up in recognition of the new relationship between the two countries. It is in that context that we believe it appropriate to recognise the very close relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland, which is much strengthened and deepened by the new British/Irish agreement and by the Belfast agreement itself.
When the Irish constitutional changes took effect on 2nd December, we believed it only right to follow those changes by removing in this Bill one of the last distinctions made in domestic legislation between Ireland and those other countries with which we have an equally warm and special relationship through the Commonwealth.
I have tried to emphasise on every occasion the very strong relationship that now exists between the two countries. We very strongly believe that placing Irish citizens in the same favoured position as Commonwealth citizens will benefit that relationship both by building good will and by demonstrating the Government's commitment to build on the Belfast agreement in the spirit of co-operation of that agreement. I believe that that will greatly benefit the political process and I cannot accept that it means in any way that the independence of the House of Commons, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the constitutional position of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland will be in any way undermined.
I emphasise that the purpose of this Bill is not to bring about Irish integration by the back-door. The place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom is confirmed by the Belfast agreement, the British/Irish agreement and in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. We already have many mechanisms in place, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, specifically identified in her speech, for North-South and East-West co-operation. This Bill brings the people of Ireland into line with the people of Commonwealth countries with whom we have similar links.
In answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, whether I accept that a Sinn Fein candidate could be elected both to the Dail and Westminster, the answer is yes, he could in theory, as a result of this Bill. As to whether he would be able to speak for his United Kingdom constituents in the Dail and his Irish constituents in the United Kingdom, the answer is no. He would speak for the constituents for whom he had been elected in the appropriate legislature. That is the constitutional position as a result of this Bill.
This Bill came about for the reasons I have given. I earnestly ask Members of the House to consider the Bill on its merits in the context of the Belfast agreement rather than in the context of the various theories which have been proposed in the course of this debate. I earnestly ask Members of the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord able to respond to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and others; namely, to what extent has there been a demand, a campaign or a request for this legislation in the Irish Republic?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this Bill has the support of the Irish Government. They are the elected government of Ireland, which represents very significant support.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, would he care to reflect for a moment that real progress has been possible in the past 15 years because, when his party were in opposition, it quite properly gave full support to the previous government and that progress has been made since this Government came to power because Her Majesty's Opposition have given them great support? If bipartisanship were to break down and we were to begin questioning every single detail of every single Bill in a hostile way, that would undermine the progress that has been made.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I fully recognise the significance of bipartisan support for many aspects of the progress that has been made in the peace process in Northern Ireland. I would very much regret it if such bipartisanship broke down. Perhaps I may make one further point. The SDLP also supports this Bill.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we support the Belfast agreement and we have done so consistently, as the House knows. We support the new Anglo-Irish agreements which have been referred to. But this is a sinister clause in a sinister Bill. I seek the opinion of the House.
4.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 165; Not-Contents, 152.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Bowness, L.

Allenby of Megjddo, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Burnham, L.

Astor, V.

Buscombe, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Butterworth, L.

Attlee, E.

Byford, B.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L

Barber, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Bell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Belstead, L.

Chadlington, L.

Blackwell, L.

Chalfont, L.

Blaker, L.

Chilver, L.

Blatch, B.

Cockfield, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Coe, L.

Boardman, L.

Colwyn, L.

549

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Craigavon, V.

Monson, L.

Cranborne, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Montrose, D.

Cuckney, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Deedes, L.

Moynihan, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dundee, E.

Naseby, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Noakes, B.

Elles, B.

Northbrook, L. [Teller]

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northesk, E.

Elton, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Feldman, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Fitt, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Fookes, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Palmer, L.

Freeman, L.

Palumbo, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Geddes, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Glentoran, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Goschen, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Prentice, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hanham, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Rees, L.

Hanson, L.

Renton, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Higgins, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Holderness, L.

Saatchi, L.

Home, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Seccombe, B.

Howe, E.

Selborne, E.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sharples, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Inglewood, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Jopling, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Slim, V.

Kelvedon, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Kingsland, L.

Stewartby, L.

Kirkham, L.

Strange, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Laird, L.

Tebbit, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Tenby, V.

Liverpool, E.

Thatcher, B.

Lucas, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Luke, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lyell, L.

Trumpington, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Waddington, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wilcox, B.

Marsh, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Young, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Younger of Leckie, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bach, L.

Addington, L.

Barker, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Barnett, L.

Amos, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Andrews, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Berkeley, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L

550

Blackstone, B.

Layard, L.

Borrie, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bragg, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brennan, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brett, L.

Longford, E.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brookman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Christopher, L.

McNally, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Maddock, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mishcon, L.

Crawley, B.

Mitchell, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

David, B.

Newby, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Northover, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

Paul, L.

Desai, L.

Peston, L.

Dholakia, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dixon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dubs, L.

Puttnam, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Elder, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Rea, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Rennard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Richard, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Filkin, L.

Roper, L.

Gale, B.

Russell, E.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gilbert, L.

Sawyer, L.

Goodhart, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Goudie, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Serota, B.

Gregson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grenfell, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hamwee, B.

Simon, V.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harrison, L.

Taverne, L.

Haskel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayman, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Tomlinson, L

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Tope, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Turnberg, L.

Hoyle, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Uddin, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Varley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Walmsley, B.

Islwyn, L.

Warner, L.

Jacobs, L.

Weatherill, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Whitaker, B.

Whitty, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilkins, B.

Judd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.37 p.m.
Clause 2 [Disqualification for Ministerial office in Northern Ireland]:
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. 3:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert (", or
() be nominated under paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (members of the Northern Ireland Policing Board drawn from the Northern Ireland Assembly),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after the feast, we come to a small part of the menu. This group of amendments precludes Ministers, committee chairmen or deputy chairmen in the Irish Parliament who are also Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly from being political appointees to the police board.
This amendment has been tabled in response to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, in the Lords Committee stage of this Bill and a subsequent amendment which he presented for inclusion at the Report stage of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill. Noble Lords will recall that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer undertook to consider the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, in the context of the Disqualifications Bill rather than the police Bill. This amendment has no effect on independent applications or nominations to the police board by office holders in the Irish Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Rogan, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his response and the fact that he has taken heed of the valid case put forward by my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 3A:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("or

(d) stand for election as Presiding Officer or as Deputy Presiding Officer, or to be elected as such, or

(e) be nominated as a Chairman or Deputy Chairman of a statutory committee or ad hoc committee").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3A, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 3B. We have been over this ground before. Therefore, given that there are other matters to attend to today, I do not intend to take up the time of the House.
The amendments have an important effect. They add to the positions within the Northern Ireland Assembly which cannot be held by a person who holds a "disqualifying office". In Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, indicated that the position of the presiding officer is not subject to the potential conflict of interest to which other positions are subject because the presiding officer has no role in policy development or initiating policy. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord was suggesting
552
that a potential conflict of interest does not arise unless both roles in question involve policy—either the development or initiation of policy. I believe that that is a clear distinction. Does such a suggestion adequately explain the intrusion of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission? If the presiding officer is a member of the commission, will he not be excluded anyway from being a member of that commission? If that is so, why do the Government not wish to include this position as one of the exclusions on the face of the Bill?
The issue of deputy chairman and deputy chairman of committees raises its head again. On this issue we have been straightforward in asking if the holding of the position of a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the position of a committee chair in the legislature of Ireland raises a potential conflict of interest. We would be grateful for any clarification that the noble and learned Lord can supply.
I wonder why it is that a Minister in the Government of Ireland holding a position of committee chair in Northern Ireland does not provide the same potential conflict of interest, because, on the face of it, there appears to be some contradiction. If it is conceded that a potential conflict of interest does exist, why has such a position been permitted to appear in the Bill?
All I am suggesting in these amendments is a very small measure of consistency on the three points I have mentioned, which is admittedly a small request in the context of what we all have to regard as a rather shoddy and undesirable piece of legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with the position of Presiding Officer or Deputy Presiding Officer: They have not been added to the list of disqualifying offices because they are elected. Unlike Ministers in the Executive, the Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer are elected by the Assembly voting together. The Assembly may vote to replace the Presiding Officer at any time. Consequently, the Government do not believe it to be right or necessary to legislate to restrict the Assembly's discretion to elect the person whom they believe to be the most appropriate man or woman for the post.
The Bill has now been extended to preclude chairmen and chairmen of statutory committees in the Assembly from holding one of the disqualifying offices in the Irish Parliament. The Bill does not include the chairmen and deputy chairmen of ad hoc committees simply because they are neither appointed by the d'Hondt process nor do ad hoc committees carry out the same role in making policy and legislation as statutory committees. I can confirm the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, at the outset of his remarks that a role in policy initiation could give rise to the sorts of conflict that have been referred to before.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, also raised a question in regard to the Presiding Officer's position as head of the Assembly Commission: that is, if

553
commission members have been excluded, why has not the Presiding Officer? The Presiding Officer's position as head of the Assembly Commission will not be affected by the amendment relating to commission members because, as we have said on previous occasions, the Presiding Officer is elected by the Assembly, and it should be for Assembly Members to decide on who the postholder should or should not be. By virtue of Section 40 of the 1998 Act, the Presiding Officer must be a member of the Assembly Commission, and Members of the Assembly will be able to assess not only a candidate's suitability for the position of Presiding Officer but also for any other post that is automatically awarded to that position, the head of the Assembly Commission included.
The Assembly is also entitled to elect a new Presiding Officer at any time it wishes. This means that, should there be a change in the circumstances of the Presiding Officer, such as having been chosen to join the Irish Government, say, the Assembly itself would decide whether or not this constituted a clash of interests.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, in the light of the clarification provided by the noble and learned Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3B* not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 4*:
Page 1, line 18, at end insert—
("() A person holding office as a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board in accordance with paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 ceases to hold that office on becoming the holder of a disqualifying office.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 not moved.]
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 7A*:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert ("; or
() a member of the legislature of Ireland"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although this amendment covers what has already been referred to and that which has been spoken to on other occasions, I think there is a need for this to be looked at again and perhaps for some consideration to be given to the points in the amendment, but I will not make a long speech on this matter. However, I raise it if only to discern whether the noble and learned Lord has had some further thoughts on this subject. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, very briefly, this amendment seeks to make it impossible for a Back-Bench Member of the Irish Parliament to take up office in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I and my noble friend Lord Bassam have already explained the Government's view on this point a number of times. We do not believe that there is an automatic conflict of interest involved if an individual is a Minister in one
554
place and a Member in another, or if an individual is a Member in one place and a committee chairman in the other. In neither circumstance is that individual required to make executive decisions for two separate jurisdictions but only in one: just as Members of the other place can also be Ministers in any of the devolved legislatures.
The quite reasonable and understandable amendments that the Government have so far made to the Bill have been consistently concerned with situations where there is no discretion in the selection of candidates for certain offices because of the use of d'Hondt. In all other cases the electorate, the legislature or the head of government has the discretion to select the most able individual concerned. The Government do not believe it is right to remove that discretion and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I was travelling hopefully, but I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Amendment No. 8. I have to inform your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 9.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 10, leave out from beginning to first ("chairman") in line 14 and insert—
("() In section 29 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (statutory committees) after subsection (5) insert—
"(5A) A member of the Assembly who is—

(a) a Minister of the Government of Ireland, or

(b)")

The noble Lord said: My Lords this is a redrafting amendment and it achieves the same result as the current draft, but in a rather more straightforward manner. As currently drafted, the Bill defines who may not be the chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee of the Assembly. It precludes a Minister of the Government of Ireland or the chairman or deputy chairman of certain committees of the Irish legislature from holding such offices. It does so at present by requiring Standing Orders to be made by the Assembly to make such provision. On reflection, we consider it better to make this provision directly on the face of the Bill rather than by the more cumbersome method of including provision in the Bill to require such provision to be made by standing order. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert—
("() In section 40 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (which makes provision as to the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission), after subsection (3) insert—
"(3A) A member of the Assembly who is—

(a) a Minister of the Government of Ireland, or

555

(b) chairman or deputy chairman of—

(i) a committee of the Dáil Éireann (House of Representatives of Ireland),

(ii) a committee of the Seanad Éireann (Senate of Ireland), or

(iii) a joint committee of the Oireachtas (National Parliament of Ireland),

may not be appointed as a member of the Commission." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble and learned friend, Lord Falconer gave an undertaking to consider further the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, in Committee to add membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission to the list of disqualified offices at Clause 2.
This we have done, and on the basis that the present membership of the Commission is unelected and the commissioners hold positions of responsibility in the Assembly. Such membership is not open to Assembly Ministers, or indeed the chairman and deputy chairman of Assembly statutory committees. The Government agree that the bar should apply to certain office holders in the Irish Parliament who, if elected to the Assembly, might otherwise have been qualified. Consequently, this amendment ensures that no Assembly member who is also a Minister, a committee chairman or deputy chairman of the Irish Parliament would qualify for membership of the Assembly Commission.
Amendment No. 16 is simply a consequential amendment to the Title. We ask your Lordships' House to reject Amendment No. 17 on the basis that the amendments I have outlined will have exactly the desired effect as those moved by the noble Lords, Lord Laird and Lord Molyneaux. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Laird, I express thanks to the Minister for taking on board some of the points we made. We understand that it is not always easy to concede entirely what we want. However, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the way in which he has endeavoured to meet us on this point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 14:
Line 4, leave out ("Ministerial office in Northern Ireland") and insert ("certain offices which may be held by members of the Northern Ireland Assembly").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment to the Title is consequential to the government amendments including membership of the Police Board and the Assembly Commission in the list of disqualified offices at Clause 2. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I rise only to say that there will be other amendments to the Title, consequential on the earlier decision of the House, which we shall pursue at Third Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 16:
Line 10, at end insert ("or a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
4.52 p.m.
Report received.
Schedule 1 [The Electoral Commission]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 122, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
("(1) There shall be paid to an Electoral Commissioner such remuneration, and any such allowances or expenses, as may be specified in a resolution of the House of Commons.
(1A) If a resolution of the House of Commons so provides in the case of any person who is an Electoral Commissioner or former Electoral Commissioner—

(a) such amounts shall be paid towards the provision of superannuation benefits for or in respect of him as may be specified in the resolution:

(b) (in the case of a former Electoral Commissioner) such pension shall be paid to or in respect of him as may be so specified.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and those grouped with it make a number of essentially technical adjustments to the provisions of Schedule 1. The amendments are concerned with the remuneration of electoral commissioners, deputy electoral commissioners and assistant electoral commissioners. They provide, first, that pension benefits do not have to be paid in every case. Indeed, we envisage that only the full-time chairman of the commission will receive a pension. The second purpose of these amendments is to provide for the payment of expenses in addition, or as an alternative, to the payment of allowances. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 5:
Page 122, line 45, after ("paragraph") insert ("(other than by way of expenses)").
Page 122, line 46, at end insert—
("() Any amount payable under this paragraph by way of expenses shall be paid by the Commission.").
Page 123, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
("(3A) The Commission shall pay to a Deputy Electoral Commissioner such remuneration, and any such allowances or expenses, as may be provided for by or under the terms of his appointment.

557
(4) If the terms of his appointment as Deputy Electoral Commissioner so provide, the Commission shall—

(a) pay towards the provision of superannuation benefits for or in respect of a Deputy Electoral Commissioner or former Deputy Electoral Commissioner such amounts as may be provided for by or under those terms;

(b) pay such pension to or in respect of a former Deputy Electoral Commissioner as may be so provided.").

Page 123, line 44, after ("allowances") insert ("or expenses").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 124, line 13, leave out from ("Commission") to end of line 14 and insert ("by virtue of section 15(1) or by an order under section 17(1), 18(1) or 19(1).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this second group of amendments starts with government Amendment No. 6. I shall speak also to 20 other government amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 8, 16, 31 to 34, 36, 37, 39 to 46, 268, 270, 273 and 275. I shall speak also to two opposition amendments: Amendment No. 35 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and Amendment No. 38 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.
The House will recall that in Committee a number of amendments were made to the Bill to clarify the relationship between the electoral commission and its four boundary committees. These further government amendments address the equally important relationship between the electoral commission and the Secretary of State, or his Scottish or Welsh counterparts.
Clauses 17, 18 and 19 provide for the transfer to the electoral commission of the functions of the Local Government Commission for England, and the Boundary Commissions for Scotland and Wales. If these functions were transferred without further ado, the electoral commission would be required to undertake reviews in accordance with directions made by the Secretary of State, or the equivalent, as is the current position.
We have made clear on a number of occasions that the electoral commission should be as independent of the government of the day as our constitutional arrangements will allow. The purpose of these amendments is therefore to set the parameters for the review of local government electoral and administrative boundaries and structural issues and then to leave it to the commission to get on with the job with minimum interference from Ministers.
Amendment No. 37 is the key provision. New subsection 1A of Clause 17 provides that an order made under subsection (1) may make provision for transferring to the commission any relevant function of the Secretary of State or for terminating or modifying any relevant function of the Secretary of State. We propose to exercise the order-making power in such a way as to confer full responsibility on the electoral commission for keeping under review electoral boundaries and, as appropriate, for giving effect to any changes to such boundaries. That will entail not only terminating the Secretary of State's powers of directions in respect of electoral reviews, but
558
also transferring to the commission the Secretary of State's function of making statutory instruments to give effect to the conclusions of such reviews.
In the case of the review of local authority administrative boundaries or structure, we envisage that under the new arrangement the electoral commission would provide advice or undertake such reviews at the request of the Secretary of State. There will be no power to direct the commission to carry out these reviews. We would expect the Secretary of State and the commission to come to a proper understanding on the timing of any such advice or reviews. But, ultimately, it would be open to the commission to turn down a request if, for example, it had been given insufficient notice to build a particular review into its forthcoming work programme.
Once the commission had completed an administrative boundary or structural review of a particular local government area, it would submit its recommendations to the Secretary of State and it would continue to fall to him or her to give effect to recommendations. We believe that these matters are central to ensuring that there is effective local government with councils which are well placed to discharge their twin roles of community leadership on the one hand and delivery of local services on the other. As such, traditionally, and in our view properly, they have been matters in which the government of the day, whether the party opposite or ourselves, have a proper and legitimate interest. Orders changing the structure of local authorities should, as is now, be matters on which Parliament itself has the final say. It is for those reasons that we are not making provision in these amendments to change the current arrangements for the making of these orders.
That is not to say that the electoral commission, with its expertise in boundary matters, and with the force that its independent scrutiny can bring, should not have a role. Our intention is that no order relating to structure or boundaries should be able to be made by the Secretary of State, or indeed a draft of such an order laid before the House by the Secretary of State, unless he has sought and obtained the electoral commission's advice on the changes concerned.
Moreover, it is our intention to use our order-making powers provided for by these amendments to so modify the existing legislation that it would not be possible for the Secretary of State to propose to Parliament a structural change, or to make a boundary change, which was contrary to the advice he or she had received from the electoral commission.
In that way we seek to maintain the right balance: on the one hand, providing for an appropriate input into decision making on these matters by the Secretary of State and, on the other, ensuring equally that, as appropriate, the independent electoral commission, and indeed this House and another place, can make their input. Our intention therefore is that nothing can be done which runs counter to the advice of the commission or the will of Parliament.
We recognise that as a result of these changes the scope of the order-making power in Clause 17 is such as to warrant the affirmative resolution procedure. Amendment No. 268 makes the appropriate adjustment to Clause 153.
The amendments to Clauses 18 and 19 make broadly equivalent provision in respect of Scotland and Wales. I should emphasise that whether or not the functions of the Local Government Boundary Commissions for Scotland and for Wales are transferred to the electoral commission will be a matter for the Scottish Executive and the Welsh National Assembly respectively.
The amendments to Schedule 3 are in a similar vein. As Section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 stands, the Secretary of State may modify the recommendations of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions before laying a draft order before Parliament giving effect to those recommendations. Again, it would not be in keeping with the independent status of the electoral commission if this power to modify its recommendations in respect of parliamentary constituencies were retained. Accordingly, the amendments to Schedule 3 have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a draft order which gives effect to the committee's recommendations without modifications.
The other government amendments in this group are essentially consequential upon the ones I described. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, will accept that our amendments achieve much the same end as his Amendment No. 38, although perhaps not going as far as he would like. Similarly, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, may be prepared not to move his amendment in favour of our Amendment No. 34, which addresses the same drafting point left over from Committee. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for that explanation, and perhaps for slowing down the tempo of the beginning of this Report stage which was just beginning to run away with at least government Ministers as to exactly where we were.
Perhaps I may dispose of my amendment first. It was tabled because we noticed that the Government had omitted to table an amendment in similar terms. That has now been corrected with the tabling of Amendment No. 34, and I am content. I hope that I receive a letter of thanks for reminding the Government of the need to table this amendment.
I want to make just one point, which is not really one for the noble Lord, Lord Bach, but for others to read. It is that I hope that the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly will transfer the same powers to the electoral commission. I fully understand why it is up to them to make those decisions for themselves, but I hope that the powers will be transferred. That would be a sensible way to have a more uniform position on looking at electoral boundaries throughout the United Kingdom.
560
It is also important because so often decisions about local government boundaries—I am not talking about the boundaries of local authorities, but about the electoral boundaries within local authorities—are followed by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission, sometimes mistakenly. That can lead to considerable numerical imbalances between one constituency and another, which I feel is wrong.
It is important therefore for the electoral commission to have overall responsibility for parliamentary boundaries. It is important also for it to have responsibility for local government boundaries. It will have that in England. I hope that my friends in Scotland and Wales will read what I say and follow suit.
Lord Rennard: My Lords, I welcome the amendments in this group which were tabled by the Government and which concern the relative powers of the electoral commission and the Secretary of State in relation to local government boundary reviews. That relationship is, of course, subject to Amendment No. 38 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McNally.
As originally drafted, the Bill was inconsistent in giving the electoral commission powers over parliamentary boundaries, but leaving the Secretary of State with responsibility for local government and ward boundaries. It is generally agreed that the electoral commission is intended to have substantial independence. Its role will be supervised not by the Government, but by the proposed Speaker's committee. It would therefore have been somewhat incongruous for the committee to be subject to the direction of the Secretary of State with regard to its local government electoral functions.
In the previous Parliament we witnessed manipulation by the Conservative government of local government boundaries in Scotland in a vain attempt to secure for the Conservative Party control of at least one Scottish council and perhaps the parliamentary seat if parliamentary boundaries were then to be redrawn along the lines of local government boundaries.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will explain exactly what he means by his last few sentences. Can he explain where, when and how, if he does not mind?
Lord Rennard: My Lords, I am happy to do so. There was a great deal of controversy about the local government boundaries in Scotland prior to the previous general election campaign and the creation of the new unitary councils in Scotland, and the one based largely around the Eastwood constituency was clearly being created by the then Conservative government to try and create one council which the Conservative Party might be able to hold. Indeed, it failed to do so in the Scottish councils elections, despite the fact that the boundaries had been arranged in such a way as to favour the Conservative Party.

561
My point is simply that the rearrangement of local ward boundaries should not be in the hands of any specific Secretary of State, but in the hands of the electoral commission.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I notice that the noble Lord is introducing a party-political slant to this debate. But will he accept that that particular local authority was already a district council authority and therefore the provision was not as illogical or as politically motivated as the noble Lord seems to think?
Lord Rennard: My Lords, I believe that it is right that at the time there was a suggestion that the Conservative government were interfering with the boundaries in a way that would be improper and it is only right that in future the electoral commission should deal with those issues rather than a government of any party. It would not be right if the commission did not have such powers and it continued to be responsible to the Secretary of State for these matters.
At present the Secretary of State has considerable powers over the local government commission. At present he has the power to direct the commission to undertake reviews and to have regard to guidance he or she may issue, and has the ultimate power to approve, reject or amend the commission's proposals without reference to Parliament. The new commission, established with a wide remit over electoral matters, should not have its work on local government reviews subject to the direction of, and approval by, the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State does not have such powers in relation to the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions. So if modifications to the Parliamentary Boundary Commission proposals are proposed by the Secretary of State, for which there is no known precedent, he or she must not only explain the reasons for them, but also the draft order must be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament. The same principle should now apply for local government.
I thank the Government for thinking again about this issue and changing the commission's remit in this area. I confirm that I shall not move Amendment No. 38.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. As to the issue between them, the Government could not possibly comment—or chooses not to on this occasion. Indeed, it is something of a relief for the Government not to have to comment on such an issue.
I am grateful to both noble Lords, with their experience of local government and elections generally. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will be heard and read in Scotland; and we are grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 124, line 33, leave out ("3(4)(b)") and insert ("3(4)(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed in Committee and agreed that the electoral commission should be and should be seen to be independent of political parties. The whole House will agree with that proposition. That is why in Committee the Government inserted provisions into the Bill which disqualify a person from being appointed an electoral commissioner if he is a member of a political party, or if he is, or has recently been, an officer of, or a large donor to, a political party.
Schedule 1 extends those disqualifications to the chief executive of the commission, who will be the senior paid public official in charge of elections in the whole of the United Kingdom, and to members of the commission staff. The post of chief executive will be significant and will carry significant powers and responsibilities. It is right that whoever holds those posts should be politically neutral, as should the staff of the commission.
However, that extension of the disqualifications to the chief executive and the staff is incomplete. It does not include first and arguably the most important element which will apply to the commissioners; namely, current membership of a political party. In this Bill, we are placing restrictions on the electoral commissioners as to their membership of political parties but are not applying the same rule to members of the commission's paid service. That seems strange. My amendment would apply to the chief executive and the staff of the commission the full range of restrictions which will apply to the commissioners.
When I raised the issue on 11th May (col. 1763), the Minister said:
"My understanding is that staff at all levels with: n the organisation, including the chief executive, may be members of political parties".
He went on to say:
"I shall endeavour to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, with regard to the chief executive having a party affiliation. I take note of the noble Lord's concern. However, I believe that in the real world many chief executives or leading civil servants may have undeclared party memberships. Who are we to say that they should cease to hold party membership?".—[Official Report, 11/5/00; cols. 1767–70.]
I take the noble Lord's point, but I do not believe that there are direct analogies with other areas of the public service and I want to explain why.
To what extent will the staff of the commission be barred from act of involvement in politics? That seems to me to be the main question. It would appear that under the Bill the staff will be able to be members of a political party. Will that allow them to engage in campaign activity or are they to be barred from doing that? It would be preferable for them to be—and, crucially, seen to be—above involvement in party politics.
I hope that the Minister can tell us that during the past six months the Government have given detailed consideration to these issues, as I was promised they would. There is little precedent for the powers that the

563
commission will have: powers which on a day-to-day basis will be exercised on the ground by the chief executive and by other members of the commission staff. They will have the power to go through the accounting records of political parties and to question members of their staff. They will have early sight of reports of donations because they will go to them before being made public. Their opinion about those and other issues will influence the way in which commission members are briefed.
I do not believe that it would be perceived as fair by the political parties if they discover that they are giving detailed confidential and privileged information about their finances to people who are members of rival parties and who therefore may be seen to be possibly biased, even if they are not biased in practice.
There is a compelling reason why the analogy drawn by the Minister on 11th May is invalid. In no other area of the public sector service are such sweeping powers of investigation into and regulation of political parties given to officials who may be members of rival parties. That is what the Bill does. The electoral commission will regulate political parties. It will not be doing other work; it will be directly regulating political parties.
I am sure that Ministers agree that this is uncharted territory. It seems to me crucial that the officials of the commission, as well as the commission itself, are seen to be above party politics. I believe that if they are not seen to be above party politics, confidence in the working of the commission will be reduced. The situation which could be created by the Bill as drafted would be very difficult. I hope that the Minister, from his thoughts since the matter was first raised last May, can give me reassurances. However, I am concerned that without the amendment standing in my name, and even with the Minister's reassurance, it will be a distinct possibility that a political party could be giving confidential information to an official of the commission who is a member of another political party. I do not believe that that is a satisfactory position and I commend my amendment to the Government and the House. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in the debate but I want to support my noble friend most strongly. The most important point is that if the electoral commission is to have respect, it must be, and be seen to be, above reproach. I should have thought that my noble friend's amendment does just that. It will not be popular with the public if, as has happened in the United States, there are seen to be political affiliations which can have a bearing on the result of an election.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, is probably right in saying that the amendment has greater strength since events across the Atlantic where election officers are quickly identified as registered Democrats or Republicans and
564
doubt is cast on their impartiality. The argument against the chief executive being a registered party member has considerable merit.
My only concern is that in recent years we have tried to encourage the participation of public officials in political parties and tried to remove some of the too restrictive rules in various areas of the public service. I wonder whether the noble Lord's amendment, which would apply to staff at all levels, takes matters too far the other way.
Lord Bach: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, explained, the amendment is concerned with whether or not a member of the electoral commission staff can be a member of a political party. He has obviously concluded that the staff as well as the commissioners should be barred from belonging to a registered party. After consideration, we believe that that would be going too far and would be an unnecessary and unjustifiable restriction.
One of the reasons for that belief was given by the noble Lord in the Committee debate to which he referred. The noble Lord advised us to check,
"whether saying that they cannot be members of a political party actually breaches the convention".—[Official Report, 11.5.00; col, 1764.]
We had already considered that point and reached the conclusion that there was no necessity to prohibit party membership as regards the staff such as to justify the undoubted restriction that we would be placing on their convention rights.
The noble Lord draws a distinction between civil servants, however senior or sensitive their posts, who can be members of a political party. That is true about senior local government officials, too. We do not believe that there is a sufficient distinction between the role of, say, a junior member of staff at the electoral commission and a senior civil servant such that the first cannot be a member of a political party but the second can. We do not believe that there is sufficient justification to treat the staff of the commission differently.
I remind the House that local authorities, and no doubt also the Civil Service, have already adopted rules which mean that those who are members of a political party cannot play an active role in its activities. That is also true of the electoral staff of local authorities who are not barred from membership of political parties. Their position in some ways will be parallel to that of the staff of the electoral commission when they take up their posts.
We do not believe there is any doubt that the commission will adopt rules similar to those introduced for civil servants to restrict the political activities of its staff, and for their limited part in this the Government will certainly advise it to do so. A balance must be struck here. Many of the points raised

565
by the noble Lord are valid, but I believe that on balance the line comes down in favour of allowing staff to be members of political parties, and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if I heard the Minister correctly—I found it difficult to follow his argument—he confirmed that if the staff of the commission were banned from political membership that would not be a breach of their convention rights.
Lord Bach: My Lords, perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been. We believe that it may be a breach of their rights and that almost certainly the matter will be tested in the courts. We do not go as far as to say that it would definitely be a breach: that is not the advice that we have received.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if someone who is a member of a political party wants to join the staff of the commission but is not allowed to do so because my amendment is accepted, and he takes the commission, or perhaps the Government, to court because of an infringement of his convention rights, I wonder why such a person is so keen to be a member of staff of the commission.
The Minister tried hard to deal with my points, but he did not answer the real question. This commission is not like any other part of the Civil Service. The commission will send out its staff to obtain information from political parties. It could easily happen that a member of the commission's staff who was also a member of the Labour Party visited the headquarters of the Conservative Party at Smith Square in order to obtain information which might or might not be confidential.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that in some ways members of staff employed in an electoral registration office who were also members of political parties might obtain quite sensitive political information about other political parties? Sometimes they are in a sensitive position but no one has questioned their integrity.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not agree with the Minister. I cannot think of anything that an electoral registration officer wants to discover from a political party that that party may regard as confidential in the sense of its operations, funding or whatever. I do not believe that there is any analogy. I am very unhappy about this matter, especially as I appear to have discovered in passing that the chief executive could also be a member of a political party. I believe that that is beyond the pale. The Government have not thought this through sufficiently carefully. They agree that the members of the commission should not be members of political parties but suddenly stop and do not take the next logical stop. This matter is so important that I must ask the opinion of the House.
5.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 108; Not-Contents, 153.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Liverpool, E.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lucas, L.

Astor, V.

Lyell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Attlee, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blatch, B.

Mancroft, L.

Boardman, L.

Marsh, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Monson, L.

Butterworth, L.

Montrose, D.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Moynihan, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Naseby, L.

Chadlington, L.

Noakes, B.

Coe, L.

Northbrook, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northesk, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Courtown, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Cranborne, V.

Onslow, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Palmer, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Deedes, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Dundee, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Prentice, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elles, B.

Rees, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Fookes, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Freeman, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Geddes, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Glentoran, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Selborne, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sharples, B.

Greenway, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hanson, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Slim, V.

Higgins, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hooper, B.

Strange, B.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Inglewood, L.

Vivian, L.

Jopling, L.

Waddington, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Wakeham, L.

Laird, L.

Weatherill, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bach, L.

Addington, L.

Barnett, L.

Amos, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Andrews, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Berkeley, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Billingham, B.

567

Blackstone, B.

Lipsey, L.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Borrie, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Longford, E.

Bragg, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brennan, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brett, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brookman, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Burlison, L.

McNally, L,

Carter, L. [Teller]

Maddock, B.

Chandos, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Christopher, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Mitchell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Newby, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Northover, B.

Crawley, B.

Paul, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dholakia, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dixon, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dubs, L.

Razzall, L.

Eatwell, L.

Rea, L.

Elder, L.

Rennard, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Richard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Roper, L.

Gale, B.

Russell, E.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gilbert, L.

Sawyer, L.

Goodhart, L.

Scotland of Asthal.B.

Goudie, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Serota, B.

Gregson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grenfell, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hamwee, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Simon, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Harrison, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Haskel, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hayman, B.

Taverne, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Turnberg, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hoyle, L.

Uddin, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Varley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Walmsley, B.

Islwyn, L.

Warner, L.

Jacobs, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Whitaker, B.

Whitty, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilkins, B.

Judd, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Layard, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 126, line 13, after ("by") insert ("the Secretary of State under section 17(6) or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Appointment of Electoral Commissioners and Commission chairman]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 4, after ("officer") insert ("or employee").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 address what appears to be an inconsistency in drafting between Clause 3 and Schedule 1. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that it is an unintended inconsistency rather than anything more sinister.
Paragraphs (a) and (d) of Clause 3(4) provide that a person cannot be appointed an electoral commissioner if he is or has been at any time within the preceding 10 years an officer of a registered party or accounting unit. However, paragraph 3 (3)(b) of Schedule 1 states that an electoral commissioner shall cease to hold office if,
"he takes us any office or employment in or with … a registered party or any accounting unit".
The distinction is made in the schedule between the terms "office" and "employment" but it is not made in Clause 3.
There is certainly a distinction between being an officer of a party, which presumably means someone who holds a quite senior post—perhaps one mentioned in the party's constitution and indeed unpaid—and being an employee. If the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, were in her place, I might say that in the past she had been an officer of the Labour Party whereas Mr Alastair Campbell and Mr Charlie Whelan could have been described as "employees" when the party was in opposition. Under my reading of the Bill, the noble Baroness would therefore be disqualified from appointment to the commission, but Mr Campbell and Mr Whelan, despite their highly political roles, would not be. Are we to conclude that an electoral commissioner may be forced to resign if he takes up employment with a party, but it is all right for him to be appointed a commissioner if he is a party employee, even one with an overtly political role, at the time of his appointment or if he has been employed by a party in the recent past?
I hope that this is just poor drafting and that that is not the Government's intent. I hope that my amendments will be accepted as they seek to make the Bill clearer and more acceptable.
There are other inconsistencies in the Bill which I trust the Minister will address. In the schedule, the list of things that will terminate a commissioner's appointment includes his taking up office or employment with a recognised third party or a permitted participant in a referendum. However, in Clause 3, the disqualification from appointment in the first place applies only to office held in registered

569
parties and their accounting units. Are we to read into that that a commissioner can hold or can have held office with a third party or a referendum participant on his appointment, or is that what I would describe as inconsistent drafting? What about officers of members' associations? Should not they be included in both definitions as well?
Again, the schedule provides that a commissioner's appointment ends if he becomes a candidate at an election. However, there is nothing in Clause 3 to prevent his appointment if he has been a candidate in the recent past; only if he was actually elected would he fall within the provisions of subsections (4)(c) and (4)(d). I should be grateful for clarification from the Minister as to whether he considers that the drafting is correct or whether he considers that there is a loophole.
Amendment No. 11 would extend the disqualification which applies to past political activity to membership of a political party, as well as to that of holding office or donating. We suggest that someone who is a member of a political party should not be appointed, unlike the other criteria for disqualification which do not extend all that far back into the past. The current drafting suggests that it is not necessary for someone to hold office in a party to have a significant political profile, either locally or nationally. For example, someone might be the head of a members' organisation such as the Fabian Society or the Tory Reform Group; that person would not in fact hold office within the party itself. Perhaps the Minister will consider the matter a little further. This amendment is of a probing nature. I wish to understand the Government's thinking here and I seek reassurance that they have drafted this part of the Bill correctly.
I shall turn now to Amendment No. 12. This would provide that no person could hold office as an electoral commissioner for more than 15 years. I accept that that is an arbitrary figure and that commissioners could he appointed for up to 10 years in the first instance in order to achieve the security of tenure intended by the Neill committee. My amendment seeks to establish how long the Government intend that a commissioner should serve and how often he could be reappointed. As the Bill stands, a person could be reappointed for three full terms and thus would serve for 30 years. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that that is rather a long time for anyone to undertake one job. Obviously we need commissioners who have gained experience, but it is equally important to make available to the commission opportunities to introduce fresh talent and expertise at reasonable intervals.
It is important, when we consider the Bill as a whole, to ensure that the role of the commissioners is properly fulfilled. To that end, Amendment No. 12 seeks to clarify the Government's thinking in this important area. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in these amendments. In particular, I wish to add my support to Amendment No. 12, which deals with the length of service of
570
electoral commissioners. The Bill concerns freshness and transparency. To that end, we should like to receive a clear statement from the Government as regards how long they anticipate that electoral commissioners should hold office.
Given that the Government have refused to accept the cogent arguments put forward by my noble friend on the previous amendment, on which we have just divided, we wish to be able to distinguish clearly the lines drawn between those operating within the commission and outside the commission; namely, what they can and cannot do. I look forward to the Minister's response.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, in Committee we discussed the question of whether people should be debarred from being commissioners or members of the commission's staff by reason of political affiliations. The restrictions now contained in subsection (4) of Clause 3, which has been referred to by the noble Viscount, were added to the Bill at our instigation at that stage. Some reservations were expressed about what we are proposing here. However, those reservations seem now to have disappeared.
I shall work through the amendments and explain to noble Lords the Government's thinking on these matters. First, I should say that there is no great gulf between the Government and the Opposition Front Bench as regards the issues raised by these interesting amendments. I shall be suggesting that the majority of the amendments—or perhaps half of them—are unnecessary or mildly undesirable. However, I note that those amendments are of a probing nature in order to establish the Government's point of view on the issues raised. Indeed, it may be that, once he has heard my reply, which will not be overly long, the noble Viscount might not feel the need to press them further if he achieves most of what he seeks here.
Amendment No. 9 would prevent a person from being a commissioner at the same time as being an employee, and not merely an officer, of a registered party. Here, we can change our tune. If I wanted to advise the House to reject the amendment, I would have to explain the difference between an officer and an employee and why one of these things was compatible with being a commissioner but not the other. Both those tasks are well beyond me and therefore I recommend to the House that it should agree with the noble Viscount's amendment.
Amendment No. 10 would make it impossible for a person to be appointed as a commissioner if he or she had been an employee and not merely an officer of a party within the previous 10 years. We have thought a little longer about this amendment because it could be argued that some kind of employment, perhaps as a manager in information technology, for example, would not necessarily connote any real association with the party's political position. However, bearing in mind the generous nature of the Government Front Bench this afternoon, I am not minded to oppose this amendment either.

571
However, as regards Amendment No. 11, I am afraid that the honeymoon is over and I must revert to type; namely, to the posture of the Government defending the Bill—probably rightly so here. The amendment would make it impossible for a person to be appointed as a commissioner if he or she had been a member of a party within the previous five years. We think that that goes too far. We accept that, as the Bill already requires, a commissioner should have to resign from any membership of a party on appointment. We think that that requirement is quite justifiable, for commissioners as opposed to staff members, so as to avoid the possibility of any enduring conflict of interest. But we do not think that previous membership, unaccompanied by the holding of any political office, need be an absolute bar. We think that it would require a great deal of justification to impose a stiffer test in this regard for membership of the commission than, for example, for appointment as a High Court judge, where the same rule would not apply. For that reason, I would ask the noble Viscount not to press his amendment.
I shall turn finally to Amendment No. 12. This would impose an overall limit of 15 years on the period for which a person could serve as a commissioner. I shall say again that there is no great gulf between our attitudes on this point. The Government agree that very long service as an electoral commissioner would be undesirable in most cases. We shall ourselves be following that principle when we put forward those selected for initial appointment. Indeed, if we were to set a statutory maximum—although I should state that we do not support setting such a limit—it might be open to question whether 15 years was not in any event on the long side, as the noble Viscount suggested when he spoke to the amendment. In our view that would certainly send the wrong signal if, as sometimes happens, the maximum came to be regarded as the norm.
On the other hand, there may be cases in which someone has become a lynchpin of the commission and it was agreed all round that it would be of benefit for them to serve longer. We feel that this is a matter best left to the good sense of the government of the day. However, that would apply not only to the government, but to the judgment of another place. I should remind noble Lords that another place has to agree on a reappointment to the commission. Thus, having explained briefly to noble Lords our thinking on this issue, I am sure that it is clear that we are not all that far apart here. However, we do not feel that it is necessary for the maximum period to be set down in law. Given that, I would ask the noble Viscount not to press his amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I may start with Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting these two amendments. I am glad that I have been able to aid him in the drafting of a Bill and I am delighted with the Government's response.
572
I shall turn first to Amendment No. 12. I thought that the Minister's response here was extremely helpful and gave good guidance to noble Lords. I shall not move the amendment because I am happy to accept what he said; it has been most helpful in explaining the Government's position.
As regards Amendment No. 11, I accept that in such instances it is difficult to impose an absolute bar on membership of a political party. I listened carefully to what the Minister said. Perhaps he can help the House on this matter. Often in these cases, membership of a political party may mean only that one gets a card through the post stating, "You are a member of this political party"; on the other hand, it may mean something more. Will there be any guidance in relation to this? Will the Government offer a view of where the cut-off will be? It will be difficult because every instance may be different, but will a person elected to the commission be able to go to someone and say, "This is what I have done in the past; what do you think? Does this go beyond ordinary membership of a party and constitute an active political role?"? It would be useful if the Minister could briefly comment on that issue.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot comment because I have not received any advice on the issue, but if someone had been a member of a particular party and was about to be appointed a commissioner, I think it unlikely that there would not be some questions about what his role had been, when he had resigned from the party, and basically how active he had been. I should have thought that was common sense.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is an extremely helpful answer. I am grateful to the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 9, after ("officer") insert ("or employee").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 25, leave out ("(3)(b)") and insert ("(4)(b)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13, I shall speak also very briefly to Amendments Nos. 124, 135, 136, 144, 161, 162, 190, 191, 207, 208 and 213, which are all government amendments.
These amendments, by and large, simply correct a number of erroneous cross-references which appeared in the changes made to the Bill in Committee. The amendment to Clause 67 in Amendment No. 124 is consequential upon the insertion in Committee of paragraph 3 of Schedule 6, which relates to the information about the identity of a donor which parties must supply in weekly donation reports. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill

  PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES PANEL
  (" .—(1) There shall be a panel (to be known as "the Parliamentary Parties Panel") which consists of representatives of qualifying parties appointed in accordance with this section.
  (2) The function of the panel shall be to submit representations or information to the Commission about such matters affecting political parties as the panel think fit.
  (3) Where the panel submit any such representations or information to the Commission, the Commission shall—

  (a) consider the representations or information, and

  (b) decide whether, and (if so) to what extent, they should act on the representations or information.

  (4) Each qualifying party shall be entitled to be represented on the panel by a person appointed to the panel by the treasurer of the party.
  (5) Subject to subsection (6), a person so appointed shall be a member of the panel for such period as the treasurer of the party may determine when making the appointment.
  (6) A person so appointed shall cease to be a member of the panel if at any time—

  (a) his appointment is terminated for any reason by the treasurer of the party, or

  (b) the party ceases to be a qualifying party.

  (7) The panel may determine their own procedure.
  (8) The validity of any proceedings of the panel shall not be affected by any failure by the treasurer of a qualifying party to make any appointment in accordance with this section.
  (9) In this section "qualifying party" means a registered party—

  (a) to which two or more Members of the House of Commons for the time being belong; or

  (b) to which two or more such Members belonged immediately after the most recent parliamentary general election.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 14 is an important amendment, but one which I am confident will be supported across the House.
  I start with why the new clause is being brought forward. On Second Reading, I signalled the Government's intention to bring forward amendments to ensure that the membership of the electoral commission would consist of people who were not associated with political parties. Those amendments, which were very similar to ones moved by the Official Opposition in another place, were duly brought forward in Committee and were passed into the Bill. Essentially, they constitute what is now subsection (4) of Clause 3.
  I might add that, with the passage of time, our conviction that it ought not to be possible to associate members of the electoral commission with any political party has grown stronger rather than weaker. Events on the other side of the Atlantic have reinforced our conviction. At every twist and turn we have seen someone with a party tag to their name and it has not done a great honour to the electoral process as a consequence. We should not go any further in jumping on the grave of an electoral system; nevertheless the point is worth making.
  Having said that, it was clear both at Second Reading and in Committee that noble Lords were not without some qualms. The concern expressed was that the more impeccable the credentials of the electoral commissioners from the point of view of political impartiality, the less likely they were to have hands-on experience of the political process from the point of view of the parties. That point was echoed on all sides of the House.
  The proposed new clause is designed to meet this point, and to meet it head on. It provides a forum and a legitimate opportunity for the political parties collectively to put their points to the electoral commission and to have them considered. The panel will not, of course, be in the nature of a supervisory body; nor is it considered wise to have it as a formal advisory body in the sense that the commission cannot proceed without consulting the panel and, by implication, clearing its proposals through it. The commission will, of course, wish to consult on general matters, but it will obviously cast its net a good deal wider than the handful of political parties represented on the panel. If we were setting up a formal advisory panel, its membership would have to be expanded rather more widely.
  There would also be a risk of appearing to set up almost an alternative electoral commission. It is for this reason that I cannot accept Amendment No. 14A, which has been brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, as an amendment to the government amendment. The panel is designed simply to allow the parties to discuss matters collectively and to engage with the commission if they wish to do so. No doubt it will take notice of the commission's work programme and decide what input it wishes to make. We have not sought to circumscribe in any way the matters on which the panel can engage with the commission. The commission will have to give due consideration to any points put to it but will not, of course, be bound by them.
  We have not thought it necessary to provide more than a minimal structure for the commission. It will be open to any party with two Members in the House of Commons to nominate a member of the panel. To extend that opportunity to every registered party would make the panel unmanageable. Procedure is to be entirely in the panel's own hands. In the first instance, it would no doubt be helpful if one of the major parties were to get the ball rolling.
  Nor do we think it necessary to provide any logistical or financial support. This is not a new quango. Representatives of the parties get together at present on matters of common concern. The new clause simply provides a new forum for them to do so, and gives a legitimacy to any interaction which they have with the electoral commission.
  I believe that the new clause responds appropriately to concerns expressed at earlier stages of the Bill and I commend it to the House.
  I must also deal with the amendment to the amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. Its effect would

  575
  be to exclude from the club, if I may put it that way, parties whose members have not taken the Oath. We have done that in other contexts in other parts of the Bill but we have not included it here. In case anyone should think otherwise, that is not a mere oversight on the Government's part but a deliberate decision. The panel is not primarily a parliamentary body. The requirement to have two Members in the House is primarily a means of limiting the membership of the panel to manageable proportions compared with opening it up to every registered party. So there is no inherent reason why any party which has had Members elected to another place should be excluded. I beg to move.
  Lord Norton of Louth Lord Norton of Louth moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 14, Amendment No. 14A:
  Line 12, at end of subsection (3) insert—
  ("() The Commission may seek the advice of the panel on matters affecting political parties as the Commission thinks fit.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Government have tabled Amendment No. 14. As the Minister said, it has been brought forward to meet the point made in Committee on 11th May that members of the commission will have no grounding—certainly no recent grounding—in party political activity. I and several other noble Lords made that point and I welcome the amendment brought forward by the Government.
  My amendment to the Minister's amendment is, I think, self-explanatory. Under the Minister's amendment, the parliamentary parties panel will be empowered to submit representations or information to the commission about matters affecting political parties as the panel thinks fit. My amendment confers upon the commission the power to seek the advice of the panel on matters affecting political parties.
  One can see the case for members of the panel wishing to make representations to the commission, but the commission itself may wish to consult on proposals that it is considering. Although the commission is empowered to make reports and to provide advice to different bodies, it is not—at least, not explicitly—empowered to consult other bodies. Contrary to what the Minister said, I believe that it is appropriate to confer such a power, certainly in this case. There may be occasions when members of the commission are considering a proposal on which they would welcome some input from those with knowledge of parties and of fighting elections. The important point is that it may be best for that input to come at the formative stage.
  As I say, my amendment is self-explanatory. The case for it is fairly obvious. I do not recognise the Minister's objection as a compelling one. I do not believe that the commission should be constrained in this way or that it would be in any way tainted by being given the power that I suggest. Such a power is necessary to allow the commission, should it so choose, to consult the panel that is being set up. This is a fairly straightforward and sensible amendment. I beg to move.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I concur completely with my noble friend. I found the Minister's explanation of why the Government do not like the amendment distinctly unconvincing. Subsection (2) of the Government's new clause states:
  "The function of the panel shall be to submit representations or information to the Commission about such matters affecting political parties as the panel think fit".
  There is nothing wrong with the commission saying to itself, "I wonder what the political parties think". The panel would be the right body to ask the political parties what they think. Frankly, I cannot see why the panel should be able to discuss a matter possibly raised by one of the parties and make a view known to the commission, and yet, amazingly, be unable to ask the panel what it thinks.
  I welcome the fact that the panel is to be set up. As the Minister said, the government amendment reflects the concern expressed in Committee over the fact that the commission would not have anyone who was actively involved in politics. It was felt by many noble Lords that there was a vacancy in the information gathering and advice. That has largely been filled by the Government's new clause, and I welcome it. But I do not see why we should stop short of allowing the commission to ask the panel its view. I am convinced by my noble friend's argument.
  Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I, too, am slightly puzzled. It would be perfectly sensible for the commission to be able to seek advice. Surely that is its role. It will not have all the answers. Therefore, I do not understand the objection to Amendment No. 14A. I am sure that the commission will seek advice from all kinds of directions, but this is a particular one in respect of political parties. It answers all the points that were made at Second Reading about the fact that the commission might not be sufficiently experienced in the ways of political parties. I hope that the Minister will give a little more thought to the amendment and perhaps return to the matter at Third Reading.
  Lord Rennard: My Lords, Amendment No. 14A seems at worst harmless and at best extremely useful. The whole purpose of the debate that we had at an early stage of the Bill was that there was a need to involve the parties more in guiding the commission. It was suggested that there was a danger that the commission, working in isolation from the parties, would not know how they worked. I fail to see how the Government can have any real objection to the amendment. As the Minister said, from time to time the Government find it necessary to consult the political parties on matters of election law. Indeed, after every general election the Home Office conducts a consultation among the political parties in relation to lessons that might be learnt from the recent election campaign. I see no reason why the Government should not support the amendment.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Norton in his amendment. There is a

  577
  curious assumption through whole rafts of this Government's legislation that there are some sort of Platonic guardians up there who are repositories of all wisdom and who, by definition, are not only experts but whose views are infinitely preferable and more respectable than the views of the elected representatives in Parliament. It is not difficult to move from that assumption to another curious assumption; namely, that such people are wise almost by birth—dare I say it, in this half-reformed Chamber?—and that they somehow distil their wisdom from cerebration and from air.
  I suspect that the accumulated wisdom of this House, while it is of course the result of your Lordships' intellect, is substantially the result of your Lordships' accumulated experience. If the logic of the Government's new clause is that party representatives should volunteer their views based on their own political experience to a body which, by definition, has been accepted to be one of little political experience, the reverse must also logically be the case; namely, that when the commission is deliberating, it may wish to take an initiative and find out what people at the political coal-face feel and what is their experience. As my noble friend said, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, also pointed out, the good sense in my noble friend's amendment is self-evident. The Government's logic has escaped me, as it seems to have escaped other noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, when the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, speaks of distilled wisdom, 1 worry. Distilled wisdom usually comes in a bottle late at night and judgments made thereafter do not necessarily improve.
  Turning to the points made during the debate, I do not think that there is a great deal between us. The Government's view is that the panel will be a consultative body. It is not necessary to give the commission a general power to consult it. Consultation will, of course, take place. It will take place not just with the panel but outside the confines of the panel.
  However, I have heard the words of wisdom—distilled or otherwise—from various quarters of the House. While I am not prepared at this point to give way, as I am urged from the Benches opposite, I am more than happy at least to give some further consideration to the point that is made in the amendment. It may well be that it needs to be further thought through and broadened slightly. As I read the amendment, it is a bit "top down" and too instructive. What we are attempting to do in the clause is not to confine the process of consultation but to broaden it and to provide for the panel to have a role in that.
  I am grateful to those noble Lords who have offered support and comfort in regard to Amendment No. 14. I hope that, particularly in view of what I have just said, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, will feel able to withdraw his Amendment No. 14A.
  Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response and for having gone
  578
  somewhat further than he did in his earlier remarks. I am gratified by the comments of other noble Lords. As they made clear, there is no reason why the amendment should not be on the face of the Bill. In the context of the new clause, it is logical and sensible.
  However, the Minister has indicated that he will reflect on this matter and perhaps return to it at Third Reading. On that specific understanding, I shall not pursue it at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 14, Amendment No. 15:
  Line 29, after ("belong") insert (", who have made and subscribed to the oath required by the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 (or the corresponding affirmation) and are not disqualified from sitting or voting in the House").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a further amendment to Amendment No. 14. Before speaking to the amendment, it may be for the convenience of the House and the Minister if I ask one question about Amendment No. 14.
  I note that in every case the person who is to be appointed is to be decided by the treasurer of the party. When we consider what this panel will do, I wonder whether the treasurer is the best person. I should have thought that the leader of the party would be the best person to make the appointment, not the treasurer. Perhaps the Minister could explain in his response why the Government have decided to make the treasurer the person who nominates an individual to sit on the parliamentary parties panel.
  Amendment No. 15 relates to the parties that will qualify to appoint members to the panel. The Minister drew attention to the contradictions in the Bill that form the very centre of my amendment. Looking at Amendment No. 14, it would appear that the panel could have a nomination from Sinn Fein, as there is no disqualification for members who have not subscribed to the House of Commons Oath. However, in other parts of the Bill Sinn Fein would not be considered because they have not taken the Oath and they would, therefore, be disqualified. As the noble Lord pointed out, there is a disqualification in Clause 3(6) which refers back to subsection (2)(b)—
  "the registered leader of each registered party to which two or more Members of the House of Commons then belong",
  and deals with the question of the appointment of the electoral commissioners. Subsection (6) says that,
  "reference to Members of the House of Commons does not include any Member of that House who at the time in question … has not made and subscribed the oath required by the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866".
  Similarly, we find exactly the same provision in Clause 11(1)(b) with regard to policy development grants; namely,
  "a registered party is 'represented' if there are at least two Members of the House of Commons belonging to the party who … have made and subscribed the oath required by the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866".

  579
  The Minister drew our attention to those two parts in the Bill, but he did not seem to give any justification as to why such a provision should be swept aside when considering the parliamentary parties panel. Indeed, parties that would be considered unsuitable to be consulted under other parts of the Bill would be consulted and allowed to have members on this panel. That seems to me to be both inconsistent and strange.
  There can be no party that this provision is aimed at other than Sinn Fein. I do not believe that anyone else has declined to take the oath for membership of the other place. My question is a simple one, and one which I shall no doubt repeat tomorrow: why is an exception being made for Sinn Fein? If its members wish to take part in the parliamentary parties panel, they should subscribe to the House of Commons oath like everyone else. If Clauses 3 and 11 both contain that debar, why should not this new clause have such a provision? I beg to move.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I rise to express my support for my noble friend's amendment. As was the case with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, it seems to me that the logic behind this amendment is self-evident in terms of what the Bill contains, as outlined in Clauses 3 and 11. Equally, there is quite an important principle at stake here that the Government seem to have acknowledged in both those clauses. After all, we are told that the whole basis of the Good Friday agreement has been to recognise a government assumption—a heroic one perhaps but, nevertheless, one which the Government have made—that terrorist parties that have been allowed to participate in the new arrangements as a result of the agreement have given up the Armalite in favour of the ballot box. As the noble Lord knows, I am highly sceptical about whether that assumption is justified. However, let us assume that it is; indeed, we all hope that it is.
  It seems logical, therefore, that we should not give comfort in this clause, any more than we do in other clauses, to parties that have not agreed to the rules to which the rest of us in parliamentary government have subscribed. Indeed, unless everyone plays by those rules, those who resort to violence, bombs and the Armalite tend to have an advantage which is denied to the rest of us and which destroys the body politic in the polity in which we live.
  A commission whose accumulated political wisdom is the reason for its existence should be a body that represents parties that subscribe wholly to the rules to which the rest of us are subject. If the Government do not subscribe to the sentiments expressed in my noble friend's amendment, the logic of that will be even less easy to follow than the logic originally put forward by the noble Lord in his justification—initially at least—for rejecting Amendment No. 14A.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, asked me a question at the
  580
  beginning of his remarks. I always try to provide him with a straight answer. If I do not always do so on the first occasion, I sometimes do so on the second; but I certainly do so on the third occasion. The noble Lord asked why the treasurer should be the person to make the nomination. If one considers the scheme of things in the Bill, it will be seen that the treasurer is the central player. I have no doubt—indeed, I believe that it is beyond question—that the treasurer of the party would want to consult the "registered leader". That is how I believe the process will work. Indeed, that is how most people expect it to work, and I have no doubt that that is how it will work.
  I turn to the matter of substance before us, as outlined in Amendment No. 15. I indicated earlier what had led us not to include the restriction contained in this amendment. I believe that our line was and is valid. As it stands, the government amendment is what we intended to commend to the House. The reason behind that is the fact that the panel is not a government body but one belonging, quite properly, to the parties. They will have to work together to make the panel work.
  However, I have listened to what noble Lords opposite have said. I believe that the panel has a very important task to complete and that it must work. Noble Lords have made the point that the Government's amendment would add a degree of inconsistency to the Bill. For those reasons, and bearing in mind the fact that this matter needs to be approached both sensitively and practically, I am prepared to accept the noble Lord's amendment as drafted. It is certainly correct as drafted. I am happy to acknowledge that point this evening and to concede on this issue. That is the position of the Government.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was a little concerned earlier that my noble friend Lord Astor would be the only person this evening to receive a concession from the Government—that is to say, to be fair, other than the many concessions contained in the Government's amendments to the Bill, which are concessions or re-thinks arising from the Committee stage. However, I am delighted to see that I, too, have actually scored a concession. Indeed, as the noble Lord pointed out, if consistency is what we are about, if he is prepared to be consistent with me on the Parliamentary Oaths Act, I must be prepared to be consistent with him on the treasurer point. Therefore, I accept the noble Lord's point in that respect. I am delighted to accept his acceptance of my amendment.
  On Question, Amendment No. 15, as an amendment to Amendment No. 14, agreed to.
  On Question, Amendment No. 14, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause [5 Reviews of electoral and political matters]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 4, line 8, after ("17(1)") insert (", 18(1)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Norton of Louth Lord Norton of Louth moved Amendment No. 16A:
  Page 4, line 20, leave out ("whether or not").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to limit the powers of the Secretary of State. As drafted, Clause 5 lists the matters that the commission,
  "shall keep under review, and from time to time submit reports to the Secretary of State on".
  Subsection (2) stipulates that the commission shall review and submit a report on,
  "such matter or matters (whether or not falling within subsection (1)) as the Secretary of State may specify".
  I have no problem with the Secretary of State being empowered to require a report on any matter listed in subsection (1). The matters listed there are all within the competence of the commission. Indeed, as far as I can see, the list is comprehensive in encompassing those matters within the competence of the commission. Paragraphs (a) to (g) within subsection (1) are couched in broad terms. Why, therefore, should the Secretary of State be empowered to require the commission to review and report on matters not falling within subsection (1)?
  Apart from the matters specified in subsection (3), the Secretary of State may require a report on any matter that he chooses, regardless of whether or not it is strictly within the competence of the commission. Indeed, he could require a report on any topic that does not fall within the competence of the commission at all. That would be clearly perverse but, as the clause is presently drawn, the Secretary of State would be perfectly entitled to do so.
  I am wary of conferring broad powers on Ministers, especially where there is no clear, and certainly no compelling, case to do so. I cannot see a compelling case for the broad power conferred by subsection (2). Under my amendment the Secretary of State would be empowered to require the commission to review and report on any matter or matters listed in subsection (1). That in itself is a considerable power but I think a perfectly acceptable one. I cannot see a case for going beyond that; hence my amendment. I beg to move.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. The commission appears to have an extremely broad power under Clause 5(1)(a)—which I think is right—to report on,
  "such flatters relating to elections to which this section applies as the Commission may determine from time to time".
  As I say, the commission has an incredibly broad remit in this regard; it is not fettered in any way. Therefore the concept of giving the Secretary of State power to go beyond that seems to be perverse because one cannot imagine in what circumstances the Secretary of State would need that power, unless he were in dispute with the commission over its powers and role. If that were the case, should he have the power we are discussing? That is the matter that the Minister needs to address.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I suspect that too much is being read into the wording here. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for the
  582
  explanation of his amendment. I reassure the noble Lord that there is nothing sinister in the words "whether or not" in subsection (2) of Clause 5. The Home Secretary will not ask the commission to review a matter that is wholly outside its sphere of operations. However, there may be matters which we have riot thought of to list in subsection (1) which, in time, might perfectly properly be matters that could be put to the commission to examine. It would be a loss to the Bill to take out these words and thereby prevent Ministers tapping into the knowledge and experience that the electoral commission could bring to bear on a particular issue. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I hope that he will explain something to the House, or rather to me as I have not understood it. This is perhaps a relatively minor matter, but is he not advocating something of a Henry VIII power here if a power is added, perhaps by ministerial order, and therefore amends something which is embodied in primary legislation?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords. I do not think that we are advocating a Henry VIII power here. We are providing no more and no less than some necessary flexibility. It is certainly not my intention to introduce a Henry VIII power here; that would be wrong and improper. However, we may not have listed fully all the kinds of matters that might properly fall to the commission to consider. The wording in the Bill provides some small measure of flexibility which should enable that position to be covered. It is no more and no less than that.
  Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response, but I am not altogether persuaded of the argument that he advanced. We had similar discussions in respect of the Freedom of Information Bill when the Minister advanced exactly the same argument with regard to flexibility. He argued that circumstances might arise which we cannot envisage. That is a dangerous argument. I accept what my noble friend Lord Cranborne said. The measure gives Ministers a broad power in whatever circumstances they think may justify the use of that power. However, the Minister is unable to say what those circumstances may be. Therefore, the broad power is conferred to cover the position. As I say, we heard exactly the same argument with regard to the Freedom of Information Bill. I was not persuaded of the validity of the argument on that Bill. I am not persuaded—
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the amendment assumes a burden of proof; namely, of proving that there could not possibly be anything which did not fall within the list in the clause, and that that burden of proof has not been discharged?
  Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's point, but the clause is so broadly drawn that it is comprehensive in terms of what the commission is expected to do and I can see no reason for going beyond that. It is in many respects, as the Minister argued, a small point in the context of the Bill, but I do not necessarily think that it is a small point in terms of the principle that is involved. It is that principle on which we ought to take a stance. I therefore wish to seek the opinion of the House.
  6.26 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16A) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 147.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Jopling, L.

  Ashcroft, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Astor, V.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Attlee, E.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Blackwell, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Marsh, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Monson, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Moynihan, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Northbrook, L.

  Chadlington, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Colwyn, L.

  Norton of Louth, L. [Teller]

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Cranborne, V.

  Onslow, E.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Prentice, L.

  Deedes, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Rees-Mogg, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Renton, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Elton, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Freeman, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Sharples, B.

  Geddes, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Tebbit, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Hanson, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Vivian, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Warnock, B.

  Howe, E.

  Weatherill, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Willough by de Broke, L.

  Hurd of Westwell, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Addington, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Amos, B.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Andrews, B.

  Bach, L.

  584

  Barnett, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Layard, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Billingham, B.

  Lipsey, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Lockwood, B.

  Blease, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Longford, E.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Bragg, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Brennan, L.

  Brett, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Burlison, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Chandos, V.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Newby, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Perry of Walton, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  David, B.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Desai, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Rea, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Rennard, L.

  Eatwell, L.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Elder, L.

  Richard, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Richardson of Calow, B.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Roper, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Russell, E.

  Filkin, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Gale, B.

  Sawyer, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Gilbert, L.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Goodhart, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Simon, V.

  Grabiner, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Grenfell, L.

  Southwark, Bp.

  Hamwee, B.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Taverne, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Hayman, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Tordoff, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Turnberg, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Varley, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Warner, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Jacobs, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Judd, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  6.37 p.m.
  Clause 6 [Commission to be consulted on changes to electoral law]:
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 17:
  Page 5, line 28, leave out paragraph (i).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment arises out of our discussions a year ago about the free delivery of election addresses at elections to the Greater London Authority. Some of your Lordships may think that I am simply trying to revisit the scene of my past victories, but that is not the point of the amendment. We were immediately suspicious when we saw that the provision was included in Clause 6 and tabled amendments to move it to Clause 7. That may not seem a staggering change, but it is significant.
  Before I continue, I should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on his translation from the Whips Office to be the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the Lord Chancellor, no less. I did not know about the change initially. The Government clearly do not believe in the Freedom of Information Bill and were trying to keep the fact a secret. However, it has slipped out and I am sure that the whole House offers the noble Lord our congratulations and best wishes.
  I am sorry that I have to argue with the Minister on this first occasion, but he will remember that your Lordships' House forced the Government to climb down on a free post for the London mayoral elections. The other place had decided that there should be no free post. I suspect that the Government had realised that any free post would only do even more damage to their preferred candidate, Mr Dobson. In the event, poor Mr Dobson was resoundingly beaten and Mr Livingstone was declared the mayor. As far as I can see, the sky has not yet fallen in, although I suspect that it could happen any day.
  The eventual compromise was that there would be a free post in the first London mayoral elections. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and I negotiated with the Government on the issue. We heard a lot of arguments about the idea being unaffordable and impossible to organise in time and many other excuses, but in the end the Government gave in and we came to a compromise. It may not have been what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard and I preferred, but it was at least an option. It gave the London electorate a piece of paper which explained what the election was about and who the candidates were. I shudder to think what the turnout might have been if there had been no free post delivery. Many electors in London would not have been acquainted with what was going on.
  As an aside, it seems very unfair that poor Mr Livingstone is still outside the Labour Party, considering that Mr Dennis Canavan, who left about the same time and for largely the same reason, now appears to have been readmitted to the party. If Mr Livingstone reads the proceedings of the House of Lords, which I am sure he does—at least, those parts which refer to Mr Livingstone—I can advise him that the clear course of action is to follow Mr Canavan and threaten to cause a by-election. The moment that one
  586
  threatens to do that, as Mr Canavan found out, suddenly one becomes acceptable again and the by-election threat is withdrawn. Perhaps London is different, as there is no Scottish National Party here, but it certainly might be worth Mr Livingstone having a try.
  The Bill, as drafted, states that the question of the delivery of a free election address at elections to the Greater London Authority would be one of the matters where the authority would consult the commission. That implies that it could consult the commission and, if it said that it thought that there should be a free post, the authority could still decide otherwise. By moving the paragraph from Clause 6 to Clause 7 I have put it into one of the places where the powers would only be exercisable on the commission's recommendation. So, if it recommended a free post, that would take place, but, if it said no and that there was no need for it, the Government could achieve its original purpose. That would be quite sensible here.
  I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord has to say about it because he will remember the difficulties that the Government had. I am not sure whether I should tempt the Liberal Democrats. I shall be interested to see what support I may get from them for this amendment, which is very small and consistent with previous outings today. I am quite sure that the Government could quite easily accept it, I beg to move.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for his very kind words. His arguments were not quite so kind. I am sorry that he felt bad about arguing with me today. I would not know him if he were not arguing with me. I am very grateful for the very kind remarks that he made. Indeed, if I shut my eyes and listen to the noble Lord—I never do that when the noble Lord is speaking—I could have been taken back 12 months or nine months, which seems like an age ago. We were discussing similar points about forthcoming elections that saw the triumphant return to the Greater London Authority of my noble friend Lord Harris and some noble Lords from the Liberal Democrat benches as well.
  The effect of Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 would be, as the noble Lord said, to make the order-making power under Section 17A(3) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which relates to the free delivery of election addresses at elections to the Greater London Authority, exercisable only on the recommendation of the Electoral Commission. As the Bill stands, that could only be made after consultation with the commission. The question of a free post provoked a good deal of debate and excitement in your Lordships' House. We are not entirely surprised that the noble Lord sees some minor attraction in taking the matter wholly out of the hands of the Secretary of State.
  We do not entirely agree. The provision of free post facilities may involve considerable sums of public money. The commission should be consulted and its view taken extremely seriously as regards the proposed arrangements for a free postal delivery of an election address. However, it must be right that the

  587
  government of the day, of whatever political persuasion, is able to take account of the cost implications, which may be very large for such arrangements, before making such an order. Therefore, we believe that the government of the day must be able to modify any recommendation made by the commission if they see fit.
  Having been consulted, if the commission were to come to a certain view and the government did not, I do not believe that it would be very long before your Lordships' House had something to say about it which might be fairly unpleasant for whichever government was in power at the time. As regards the noble Lord's amendment, that may be a real safeguard against what he fears is in the Bill at present. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry to dispute with the noble Lord after congratulating him. I was not greatly convinced by that argument. It may be that the Government will get their will on there being no free post without having to come before the House. Therefore, the opportunities which arose earlier in the year which allowed your Lordships to deal with the issue in the way we did, will not arise again. Not only was there some secondary legislation, which, very unusually, we voted against, but there was the Representation of the People Bill in which the Government included the clause which resolved the dispute between your Lordships' House and the Government. Two things happened in a fortuitous way; one a statutory instrument and the other the fact that the Representation of the People Bill was before your Lordships at the same time. I do not see such things happening so fortuitously the next time, if we come to such a position. I do not believe that your Lordships would be in the same position as we were earlier this year.
  I noticed that the noble Lord congratulated his noble friend Lord Harris on his election and other noble Lords, looking towards the Liberal Democrat Benches. It may be I am becoming hard of hearing, but I did not hear the noble Lord congratulate Ken. However, as the noble Lord has just been made a Government Minister, no doubt he wants to hang on to that position and knows what is good for him.
  Lord Bach: I was talking about the Greater London Authority elections. I do not know whether the noble Lord was listening to me. I was not talking about the mayoral election. Indeed, I am not sure whether this particular amendment is about the mayoral election at all, although the noble Lord spoke about it at length.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that this matter is about election to the Greater London Authority and I suspect that the Mayor had something to do with that. If my amendment was technically flawed, I am sure the Minister would have told me. I have learnt that from Ministers. All the answers appear to be the same as the earlier ones;
  588
  namely, the involvement of considerable sums of public money and so on. It would be better if we moved this particular paragraph from Clause 6 to Clause 7. As the Liberal Democrats have been silent on the matter, I cannot resist the temptation to see which Lobby they will enter on this issue. I seek the opinion of the House.
  6.48 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 109.

  Division No. 4

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Ashcroft, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Astor, V.

  Marlesford, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Montrose, D.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Newby, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Burnham, L. [Teller]

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L

  Chadlington, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Colwyn, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Cranborne, V.

  Razzall, L.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Reay, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Rennard, L.

  Deedes, L.

  Renton, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Roper, L.

  Elles, B.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  Elton, L.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Ferrers, E.

  Seccombe, B.

  Fookes, B.

  Selborne, E.

  Freeman, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Strange, B.

  Glentoran, L.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Tebbit, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Higgins, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Howe, E.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Hurd of Westwell, L.

  Warnock, B.

  Jacobs, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Laird, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Amos, B.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Billingham, B.

  Bach, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  589

  Borrie, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Judd, L.

  Brennan, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Brett, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Layard, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Crawley, B.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  David, B.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Mitchell, L.

  Desai, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Elder, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Rea, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Richardson of Calow, B.

  Gale, B.

  Sawyer, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Gilbert, L

  Shepherd, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Simon, V.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Grabiner, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Turnberg, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Varley, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Warner, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Hoyle, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Woolner of Leeds, L.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  6.58 p.m.
  Clause 7 [Powers with respect to elections exercisable only on Commission recommendation]:
  [Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 19:
  After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—

  COMMISSION TO GIVE ADVICE ON WORDING AND FAIRNESS OF QUESTION IN A REFERENDUM
  (" .—(1) The Commission shall, before any Bill containing provisions for a referendum under section 99 of this Act is held—

  (a) give advice as to the question, or questions, to be asked;

  (b) make a statement as to the fairness of the wording of such a question, or questions, and the capacity of such a question, or questions, to be easily understood by the electorate.

  (2) Any advice given under this section shall be made public prior to the date on which a Bill for a referendum under section 99 of this Act is laid before Parliament.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will realise that with Amendment No. 19 we are discussing government Amendment No. 171. In Committee, we discussed the issue of the question. Quite clearly, the question is one of the most important items in any referendum. It is not so much that both sides must agree on the fairness of the question, but proponents for both sides of the argument must feel that the question is fair. Then the result will be considered to be fair. The way in which the question is put is obviously of great significance. Anyone who studies opinion polls and examines results which are obtained by tweaking questions one way and another can see how important the question is in a referendum.
  I tabled Amendment No. 19 after we discussed the Bill in Committee. The amendment would ensure that, when a government decided to proceed with a referendum, they would take the mind of the commission and publish its opinion. Therefore, when the detail of the referendum, including the quest ion to be asked, was discussed in a Bill before your Lordships' House and the other place, Parliament would know the commission's view on the question. I do not believe that any government would be able to ignore the view of the commission in relation to the referendum question. If they were to do so, there would be such a fuss that their position would simply be untenable.
  The Government have tabled Amendment No. 171, which seeks approximately the same outcome but perhaps does not go as far as we would wish. It goes some way, but it does not make it mandatory for the government of the day to obtain the commission's approval of the wording of the question. As I said, if the commission were to tell a government that it did not consider the question to be fair, I do not believe that any government would be able to continue with it through both Houses of Parliament.
  The Minister will explain to your Lordships exactly what his amendment seeks. I say only that noble Lords will note that the government amendment is three times longer than mine. I suspect that that tells us everything about this Bill, which is now 50 pages longer than it was when we started the Committee stage. I look forward to counting by how many pages it increases following this stage. I make no complaint about this extra page. However, I beg to move my amendment in order that we may discuss the Government's amendment.
  Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I rise briefly to welcome Amendment No. 171, which has been tabled by the Government in response to our discussion on this particular issue at an earlier Committee sitting. I made the point then that, given the expertise of the commission, this could be made use of as regards the wording of any referendum. The point I made was that not only has one to look at a referendum question in terms of whether it is fairly put but also whether it is unambiguous. That is an extremely important point

  591
  because referendum questions may often appear to be unambiguous to those who draft them but when put to electors they are capable of being interpreted completely differently. Research in the United States has shown that sometimes there can be a high level of mistaken voting by people who have misinterpreted the question.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. As someone who has just looked at these two amendments, I see that the Government's amendment—no doubt the noble Lord will address this point—is all about intelligibility. The amendment posed by my noble friend Lord Mackay was about the fairness of the question. These seem to me to be rather separate matters. Perhaps my noble friend would address that point, because it is possible to word a question in a way which is more likely to receive an answer "yes" or "no".
  Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his intervention. The point I made at an earlier stage was about the importance of ensuring that questions were unambiguous and that the commission had a role to play in that respect. I very much welcome any move towards the question of intelligibility.
  I was about to deal with the very point that my noble friend Lord Lamont has raised—the question of fairness. As my noble friend said, that is a different and separate point, in terms of making sure that the question is both balanced and unambiguous. I was going on to invite the Minister to address this matter.
  The amendment itself is comprehensive in relation to intelligibility and it covers all the relevant circumstances that might be envisaged in this particular context. I very much welcome the amendment so far as it goes but, like my noble friend, I would invite the Minister to address the matter of equity as well as that of intelligibility. The government amendment is to be welcomed because it goes a long way towards meeting the point and I am interested to know whether the Minister would be prepared to go that little extra distance on the very point that has been raised.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am pleased that the Government have given us half a loaf, although disappointed for the same reasons as my noble friend Lord Norton. I wonder whether the Government would also consider something else. It seems to me that no matter how wise the commission may be—and we have discussed its wisdom almost ad nauseam during these proceedings—that wisdom will always be a matter of judgment one way or the other as far as it is concerned. Of course, the members of the commission are there as wise men and women but not as elected wise men and women. They are there because of the rather curious 21st century view that wise men and women are better than elected men and women. That is a view to which I have never subscribed, as your Lordships who have had the misfortune of hearing me over many years will no doubt have realised.
  592
  I wonder whether the Government have ever actually considered that they might have avoided all this trouble in the first place if they had postulated that it should be impossible to hold a pre-legislative referendum. If they were to say that all referendums should be post-legislative, it would be very difficult for any government of the day then to emasculate parliamentary scrutiny of any proposal by means of the rather ghoulish accusation that anybody who disputed a piece of legislation introduced after a pre-legislative referendum was going against the will of the people.
  I suspect that it would have been much better had we provided in this Bill that referendums should always pose the question: "Do you approve of this piece of legislation or not?" Then the matters of definition would not arise. However, as the Government have not taken that route, we must be grateful for small mercies.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on the first day of Committee—it seems a long time ago—we debated the question of involving the electoral commission in settling the referendum question. The debate was good-humoured, penetrating and very thoughtful and I thought we had discovered a degree of consensus. I indicated that the Government were likely to bring forward an amendment, and this has how been done. The Official Opposition indicated that they were not likely to let the matter go and they too, very fairly, have brought forward their own amendment.
  The two new proposed clauses are clearly alternatives and the Committee has to choose between the two. I have no doubt at all that the Government amendment is to be preferred and I hope to be able to convince your Lordships of that. Indeed, I hope I might even be able to convince the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, of that and to invite him to withdraw his amendment in favour of our own.
  There are two main points of difference between the proposed new clauses. The first concerns the procedure for engaging the commission, and here I hope to convince all sides The procedures in the two new clauses are different but I do not believe that on reflection anyone could hold up the procedure proposed in the Opposition amendment as being superior to our proposal.
  The procedure set out in the government amendment is simple and straightforward. The commission will notice that a Bill with a referendum question has been introduced into Parliament and will, of its own motion, publish its opinion. The procedure set out in the Opposition's new clause is rather more complicated and, for that reason, perhaps less satisfactory. Its essential feature is that, somehow, the commission must give its advice before a Bill is introduced. The obvious inference is that the Government or a Member of Parliament, when intending to bring forward a Bill, should at least give the commission an opportunity to comment, and perhaps even ask the commission to frame a proposal before the Bill is introduced. That proposal, I suggest, is unsatisfactory. Its effect is that a Bill cannot be

  593
  introduced unless and until an outside body—in this case, the electoral commission—has opined on it. It would, I think, be the first instance in which Parliament had effectively bound itself in such a way. It would also provide rich opportunities for confusion. How is the matter to be put to the commission if there is not yet a Bill? Will the commission disclose that it has been approached? Will people have an opportunity to make representations to the commission to influence the advice it gives? I daresay that noble Lords, with their forensic skills, could find some sort of answer to those questions if there was anything really at stake. But they do weigh against the Opposition's new clause when there is a simple, straightforward and, I would argue, transparent alternative on offer, as in the government amendment.
  The second main difference between the two clauses lies in the scope of the matters on which the commission is asked to give its opinion. I accept at the outset that this may be more contentious than the procedural aspect. Even here, however, I am not without hope. I thought that, in Committee, there was a good degree of consensus that the intelligibility of a proposed question was a matter on which it was preeminently sensible to engage the commission. I think that that is probably an opinion shared by most Members of your Lordships' House. It is in everyone's interest that if a question can be put in a clearer form, and we can reduce the risk of people voting for an outcome that they do not want, we should do it. That seems to be common ground. However, I should add that the intelligibility of a question also seems to the Government to be a matter on which the engagement of the commission is cost free. No government, I hope, will propose a question which is deliberately obscure; and no government, I hope, will feel that their honour is impugned if the commission is able to suggest some modest improvements.
  Beyond that point, however—and the Opposition's amendment goes a good way beyond that point—we get into much deeper waters. I am uneasy about asking the electoral commission for advice on, "The question to be asked". I am equally doubtful about asking it for an opinion on the "fairness" of the proposed question. That may be a surprisingly candid comment, but it will be stuck to resolutely on this side. Whether a particular question should be asked, and whether it is a fair question, are matters which, as I think most Members of your Lordships' House would and should readily accept, are very much in the political arena.
  If a government propose that a question should be asked, that will be because they believe that it should be asked. A government will, almost by definition, believe that it is a fair question to put. The opposition, whatever their political colour at the time, will, frankly, have a duty to oppose, should they wish to do so.
  It is highly likely that the opposition of the day will look to find something to quarrel with in the form of the question. I would argue that that is part of the cut and thrust of our political process. I do not think that there is anything wrong with that. It means, inevitably, that the commission will be commenting on a matter
  594
  which will, in due course, become one of party-political controversy. I would argue that that is not a good position in which to put the commission; nor—again, very frankly—would the commission necessarily have any special expertise in that area.
  Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I understand the point he makes. However, perhaps I may draw his attention to the fact that there could be a methodological aspect to the question, rather than a partisan aspect. The commission could be looking to ensure—this is where expertise is involved—that there is no bias in terms of the wording of the question. I do not necessarily mean looking for deliberate bias in terms of those drawing it up. However, a wording may be constructed which might have a built-in bias, of which those drafting may be unaware. That would not necessarily be deliberate. I am not thinking in terms of an attempt to gain advantage by those drafting the question; I seek to ensure that the question, which might come under the broad heading of being unambiguous, is unbiased in the sense that the wording does not point people in a particular direction.
  There is a technical aspect to this, which I mentioned in Committee. A noble Lord suggested that we should have a straightforward question which could he answered "yes" or "no". My understanding is that that is problematic because there is a bias towards saying "yes" in response to a question. That is the sort of thing of which I was thinking in terms of consulting the commission to avoid bias in the question.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, again, one person's bias may be another person's equity. The commission could find itself drawn into a political aspect which would be profoundly uncomfortable. That is not what we want from the commission. We have all set out our stall very much in terms of the commission being free and independent of the political process, although from time to time advised by it. However, I believe that that is where the commission properly sits. It is for that reason that I do not think we should taint the process.
  As a politician, putting myself in that position, I am not sure on what basis I would want to respond to a request for advice on fairness or bias on a referendum question. I could only respond on the basis of what I personally happen to think about the issue in question. I do not think that there is an off-the-shelf technical answer to, for example, the question of whether referendum questions should be cast in positive or negative form, provided that they are intelligible. The Government's amendment looks after that.
  I therefore suggest to the House that if your Lordships accept the Government's new clause, they will have the matter pretty much where they want it. For that reason, the Government's new clause is greatly to be preferred to the one tabled by the Opposition. I recognise that the issue is important, as I am sure will all Members of your Lordships' House. However, because of the political nature of any debate

  595
  about fairness, equity, bias and so forth, it would be wrong to place those as questions for the commission to consider in giving its advice on intelligibility.
  I am grateful for the support for the amendment we have moved, which I thought was a fair reflection of the debate in Committee, long ago though that was, and of the points raised then by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. I think we have it about right. We have gone as far as we possibly can on that question. I accept that the question of fairness is a legitimate one for debate, but that debate should be had politically.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I indicated, perhaps over-generously, that I was pleased to see the government amendment on this issue. I fully accept the procedural points raised by the Minister; that is, that his amendment covers a situation in which the question would be in a Bill or in an affirmative order. Indeed, although I cannot understand or even conceive of it ever happening, it covers the situation in which the question might be in a negative order, which I find rather unbelievable. However, I accept that the amendment covers all eventualities about how the question would be addressed or dealt with in Parliament.
  The problem comes down to the use of the word "intelligibility" instead of "fairness". The noble Lord came a little close to us when he said that certainly it should not be obscure. That is a little progress, at least towards the fairness attitude. However, as my noble friend Lord Cranborne rightly pointed out, these matters come into play only when we are not dealing with a post-legislative referendum. If we were, the question would be simple; for example, "Do you wish the Scotland Act to come into force: yes or no?" That is straightforward. However, the bias comes in if we are dealing with a pre-legislative referendum and are therefore not asking whether an Act should come into force.
  The Minister seemed to find it hard to believe the point raised by my noble friend Lord Norton, that there could be an unintended bias in the question simply by virtue of the nature of the question. Such bias could work against the interest of the Government. Therefore, the electoral commission might well have a view about whether or not there was that kind of bias in the question. To put it perhaps at its most extreme, let us assume for the moment that at some date in the future enough of my fellow countrymen decide to elect the Scottish National Party to the Scottish Parliament, and on that basis look for a referendum to make Scotland free or to break up the United Kingdom.
  I have to say to your Lordships that those two questions would receive quite different answers in Scotland. I believe both would get negative answers from the SNP; but the question phrased, "make Scotland free", would be likely to gain a bigger "yes" vote—though not perhaps a majority—than would the question phrased, "break up the United Kingdom".
  596
  That is an illustration in bold terms of where bias can come in. Noble Lords can be assured that if the Scottish National Party was devising the question, it would go for the "make Scotland free" form. Perhaps if my party or the governing party here were devising the question, we might be more tempted to go for, "breaking up the United Kingdom". That is the essence of the problem. Both are intelligible but they both also contain bias. If I can step aside for a moment from the position that I would take on those questions, I can see that the one question is as biased as the other; and that is what we are getting at.
  However, we have made progress with the Government in these amendments and for that I am grateful. Without being churlish, I hope that the noble Lord will understand when I say that we will study carefully what he says and study his amendment as it appears in the Bill. I am not sure whether my noble friends agree with me on this, but we may well come back to the issue of fairness as well as intelligibility at Third Reading. However, I welcome the Government's amendment. It arises out of our debate. Whether or not it could have gone further is something we shall ponder between now and next week. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 9 [Giving of advice and assistance]:
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 20:
  Page 7, line 2, at end insert—
  ("() Advice given under subsection (3), other than in confidence, shall be made public and available in a format that the Commission thinks fit to any relevant body to which this section refers.").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 relate to separate points in regard to the advice that the commission may give out.
  We believe that non-confidential advice given by the commission to a political party should be made available to any relevant body whom it may concern or directly affect. The publication of such advice would be of benefit to both the other registered parties and to the political process because it would assist those bodies with their duty to comply with the provisions of this Bill and help to ensure that they were acting in accordance with the same information.
  That would be helpful to the commission because it would avoid multiple applications for the same information and save other parties from having to "reinvent the wheel", as it were, on every occasion when general advice was required. In the distribution of such advice, the commission would be able to take advantage of current technology and limit any expense by sending out information electronically by e-mail, via circulars or in similar ways. Over time, the body of advice built up as a result of that distribution would constitute a valuable source of readily available knowledge to which all could refer without the need to return unnecessarily to the commission.
  Amendment No. 20 does not seek to expose sensitive information which might prejudice the standing of either the commission or the body to which it gave the advice. It requires only that the commission publish open information and leaves the form and consequently the content of that publication to the discretion of the commission. Amendment No. 20 is in keeping with the general principle of clarity and openness that lies behind the Bill. It would be of benefit to the commission and help to make its life easier.
  Amendment No. 21 concerns a slightly different point. It seeks to clarify the status of advice given by the commission. It is unclear whether following the advice of the commission would constitute a "reasonable excuse" defence to many of the offences created by the Bill—of which there are many. An individual may be placed in a position where he had followed the advice of the commission to the letter but that advice was subsequently ruled wrong by the courts. If that is so, we should look again at whether or not that individual should be guilty of an offence.
  Indeed, what will be the legal status of advice given by the commission? Will the courts have to have regard to that advice or can they ignore it? But that would not be helpful; it would make it difficult and discourage people from going to the commission to ask for advice, which is presumably what we want. So Amendment No. 21 seeks clarification on the nature of advice, particularly on its status, and I should be grateful if the Minister could elucidate that point. I beg to move.
  Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, on the face of it, Amendment No. 20 seemed very sensible. One should be able to learn from the advice given by the commission to one political party; for instance, on one occasion we had read out to us letters that had come from the Home Office in respect of the electoral register—letters from both the Labour and Conservative Parties—and that seemed OK. One could also say that any information given by the electoral commission should be impartial and therefore there is no problem. That seemed fine to me and I thought it was an amendment I could support.
  Then I looked at the amendment again and realised that the wording, rather than the principle, is somewhat flawed. It says,
  "Advice give under subsection (3)".
  When we look at that subsection it refers to advice given to,
  "registration officers [and] returning officers at relevant elections".
  It may well be that a returning or registration officer is asking advice about a specific area. The request may not be confidential, but neither is it relevant to everybody else. Yet the wording says "shall be made public", implying that all such information shall be made public. That seems to me to be nonsense.
  598
  The wording,
  "Advice given … other than in confidence",
  means that anybody who does not want the information disclosed has to remember to say, "This matter is in confidence". So the whole process, as the amendment is worded, is completely unworkable.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 21, which raises an important point.
  We discussed in Committee the fact that this Bill will reach further down into the political structure than ever before and that local political parties will find themselves in the front line in a way that hitherto has been unheard of. We have referred to, discussed and agreed that the difficulty of persuading individuals to take on these posts at local level is considerable. If the posts carry with them other anxieties about prosecution and so forth, that difficulty will be greatly increased.
  Amendment No. 21 at least offers individuals locally and political parties some shelter. It is important that we have a clear understanding from the. Government tonight as to what the position of advice given by the commission will be. That will affect individual local associations considerably. The passage of information will often take place at high speed. People will want to know what their position is and whether they can use the commission's advice as an air raid shelter inside which they can crouch. For the sake of those who run local associations, it is important that the Minister makes it clear that the commission's advice will provide them with considerable protection under the law.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Clause 9 is concerned with the provision of advice and assistance by the electoral commission to other bodies and authorities. Subsection (3) would enable the commission to act as a central point for the provision of advice and guidance on best practice to electoral administrators and to provide guidance to political parties, third parties and referendum campaign organisations on the arrangements they should make in order to comply with the controls on funding and expenditure set out in the Bill. Amendment No. 20 would require that such advice, except where provided in confidence, be made public and available to any body to which that section refers.
  I am not at all persuaded of the desirability of such a provision. It goes without saying that any written advice or guidance in the form, for example, of circulars to registered parties should be generally available. There is no argument about that. But the amendment seems to have far more than that in its sights. It appears to propose that if party X or Y seeks advice from the commission on a particular matter, that advice should be made public and available to other political parties and campaigning groups.

  599
  I have no doubt that, like any regulatory body, the electoral commission will receive numerous requests for advice in relation to compliance with the Bill. Parties will seek advice on the framing of financial schemes; on how they should report changes as to their registered officers; and on whether particular donations or items of expenditure need to be accounted for. Some inquiries may simply be a matter of a telephone call. Others may involve an exchange of complex correspondence. The commission might also arrange meetings with party representatives or seminars for their benefit. I do not see that all of this should, or even could, be made public. What does the noble Lord have in mind? Are all these exchanges to be published in a report or posted on a website?
  Furthermore, it seems to me that parties and campaign groups may be more reluctant to seek advice if they know that the advice given in relation to a matter of particular and perhaps sensitive concern to them will be made generally available. I note that the amendment provides for an exclusion where advice is sought in confidence. I suspect that it would simply become the norm for advice to be sought in confidence as parties and campaign groups tried to hide behind that, which would probably undermine the point of the amendment.
  Amendment No. 21 would make it a defence for a person charged with an offence under the Bill or in connection with a relevant election to prove that he acted in accordance with the advice given by the commission. I should say, first, that I have every sympathy with the proposition that it would be rough justice if a person acted in accordance with advice given by a public authority and subsequently found himself prosecuted. In practice, I have little doubt that a prosecution would not be proceeded with where it was clear that such advice unwittingly encouraged the commission of an offence. Clearly, the onus will be upon the electoral commission to provide advice that is consistent with the provisions of this Bill.
  I am not persuaded that it would be right to place this general defence on the face of the Bill. First, it begs questions about what constitutes "advice". Clearly, such a defence would have substance if the advice in question took the form of written guidance such as a circular letter to registered parties. But such a defence might be based on an unrecorded telephone conversation with a member of the commission's staff. There might be no way of establishing whether the commission was in full possession of the relevant facts before the advice was given. And there would be issues about whether advice given in such a situation could ever be assumed to be authoritative. Judicial proceedings would no doubt take account of such considerations but it seems difficult ground on which to frame a statutory defence.
  There is, however, a more fundamental reason of principle why such a defence should not be at large. I say "at large" because there may be particular instances where it is appropriate to provide for such a defence. The Bill provides a case in point. Clauses 77(3) and 115(3) already make it a defence for a person
  600
  charged with exceeding limits on campaign expenditure to show that they complied with a code of practice issued by the commission under Schedules 8 and 13. The relevance of such a defence in the context of those schedules is clear. In providing for the issue of such a code of practice, Parliament will be indicating that the provisions of Part I of those schedules, which by their nature cannot be wholly exhaustive, are likely to require interpretation and clarification in terms of detail. Since any such guidance will be in the nature of a gloss on the provisions of the Bill, it is quite proper to provide that it should be a defence to show that one acted in accordance with the guidance.
  However, it would be quite another matter to provide that every offence in the Bill should attract such a defence. In creating a statutory offence, Parliament is asserting its intention that a particular course of action should result in liability to prosecution. It would be odd then to provide that Parliament's intention should be contingent upon whether the regulatory body interprets the Bill correctly. Ultimately, the question of whether an offence has or has not been committed must be for the courts.
  I apologise for the length of my reply. I have tried to be thorough and cover all the issues raised. I hope that having heard my reply noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness thought that my amendment was unworkable. When I tabled it I thought that it was eminently workable. However, what is important is the Minister's comment about how the commission will disseminate information. That is helpful to the process. I accept that it is always difficult to know where the cut-off point is, but we know that the commission will look to see what was said as the Bill went through Parliament. It can look to see what the Minister said and that will be taken into account by the commission when deciding how to act. Therefore, the Minister's reply went a long way to satisfy my concerns.
  Amendment No. 21 raises an important issue and I am grateful for the Minister's lengthy but helpful and clear advice. He said that written guidance must be taken into account by the court. It would be a defence and it is important that everyone knows that. As he said, any informal advice would be a different matter.
  The Minister has given helpful answers to both points and I am grateful to him. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 7.40 to 8.30 p.m.]
  [Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
  Clause 11 [Policy development grants]:
  Lord Rennard Lord Rennard moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 8, line 13, at end insert—
  ("() "a policy promotion grant" is a grant to a represented registered party to assist the party with the promotion of policies for inclusion in any manifesto on the basis of which—

  (i) candidates authorised to stand by the party will seek to be elected at an election which is a relevant election for the purposes of Part II, or

  (ii) the party itself will seek to be so elected (in the case of such an election for which the party itself may be nominated);").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 22 to 26 set out an alternative to the proposals for assisting the financing of democracy put forward by the Neill committee. This alternative removes the Government's principal objection to the proposals of the Neill committee. The alternative will cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer no more than the Conservative Party's proposals. It should, therefore, be a compromise between the two cases to be argued shortly between Government and Conservative Front Benches over the proposed tax concession scheme.
  It is clear that the Government do not want the tax concession scheme. The absence from the Bill of measures to implement the Neill committee's proposals to give tax relief to political donations of up to £500 is the single greatest departure by the Government from the report on which they have relied very heavily to justify implementation of most of the Bill. It was made plain earlier in the debate that the Government's principal objection was simply that a tax concession scheme would mean more money going to those parties which were able to raise the most money from donations of up to £500. I said in Committee that I shared that reservation. The tax concession scheme could have the opposite effect to the Neill committee's intention to create a more level playing field in our democracy.
  By these amendments the Government's principal objection is overcome. An equivalent sum of money to that which the Treasury estimates to be the cost of the tax concession scheme would be distributed instead by the electoral commission, not on the basis effectively of topping up the Inland Revenue donations of up to £500 but on the same basis as the commission distributes the policy development grants. With all-party agreement, the Bill already provides for policy development grants of up to £2 million per annum to be paid to the main parties in accordance with the specific recommendation of the Neill committee. It is not a huge step from the distribution of £2 million policy development grants to say that the commission should distribute up to a further £4 million in policy promotion grants. That figure could be varied to any level up to £4 million, which is the same cost as that estimated by the Treasury if the tax concession scheme was implemented.
  If this is an alternative to the tax concession scheme, as I believe it should be, the Conservative Party should not be able to object on the grounds of cost. The costs are the same as the tax concession scheme which that party advocates; indeed, the sums are similar to those currently claimed from the public purse by the Conservative Party for financing the activities of the so-called war room in Conservative Central Office and the Leader of the Opposition.
  The Government may also try to claim that £4 million is too much or is not the right priority, but: the sum is no more than they spent last year on promoting the fact that elections would take place for the London Mayor and Assembly. That figure is but one-hundredth of 1 per cent of the extra £43 billion which the Government repeatedly say is about to put into public services. If the argument is really about funding for schools and hospitals or paying for democracy, the Government should reconsider the £4 million per annum spent on their special advisers. I do not resent that expenditure because I am sure that the Government need that advice. We should recognise that democracy does not come free and that the Government already have a considerable role in paying for it. A little more government support is essential if we are to reduce the dangerous over-reliance of all the parties on a few millionaires. Faced with the options of the status quo or a tax concession scheme, I believe that this is the best way forward which will most certainly be recognised in time to come, if not immediately. I beg to move.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. The noble Lord appears to seek a compromise with the Government. I am opposed to the direct funding of political parties. There is a significant difference between the direct funding of political parties and tax relief. Clearly, the latter depends on how much financial support one receives from the electorate and one's supporters. That is a different issue from receiving financial help on the basis of the previous election, or the one before that. I understand that in Sweden one political party which has ceased to exist still gains funding because of the way that the system works. Clearly, that would not be possible if there was tax relief. While I admire, as always, the ingenuity of the noble Lord, I prefer tax relief, which was recommended by the Neill committee.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, has been open and honest as ever about his party's support for a general system of state funding for political parties. These amendments provide for such funding to be made by means of a policy promotion grant. The amendments seek to ride on the back of the scheme for policy development grants recommended by the Neill committee and provided for in Clause 11 of the Bill. But there is no disguising the fact that policy promotion grants are of an altogether different character. These amendments provide for nothing less than a state subsidy of

  603
  £4 million per annum to help parties meet their election campaign costs. If these amendments were accepted the taxpayer would pay for the Liberal Democrat posters and newspaper advertisements at the next general election. I believe that there are more than a few people outside your Lordships' House who would find that a rather unattractive proposition.
  The noble Lord clearly sees the scheme of policy promotion grants as an improvement on the Official Opposition's proposals for tax relief for political donations, which we shall no doubt discuss further tomorrow. It could be argued that these amendments address some of the rougher edges of the tax relief scheme. But among the objections to such a scheme is that it would be expensive to administer relative to the benefit involved and it would benefit disproportionately those parties whose supporters were in a position to make donations of up to £500 or more. A system of policy development grants disbursed by the electoral commission would overcome those objections. There would be no administrative costs for the Inland Revenue or the political parties to worry about and any costs to the commission would be unlikely to be significant. Fairness in the allocation of the £4 million fund would be assured as the money would be distributed by, and in accordance with, the scheme recommended by the commission.
  Those advantages, however, do not do anything to address the fundamental point that a system of policy promotion grants would yet more clearly constitute state funding of political parties. No doubt there are solid public interest arguments for the disbursement of public money to help parties to fulfil their parliamentary functions or develop long-term policies. I do not believe, however, that the same kind of case can be made in relation to meeting campaigning costs. Nor does the proposal address the question of broadening political parties' sources of funding which was the rationale for the Neill committee's proposal in respect of tax relief. I believe that such an arrangement would provide political parties with even less incentive to encourage larger numbers of small donations. I put it to the House that a convincing case for any scheme providing for a general state subsidy for political parties has yet to be made out. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment so that we can deal with another part of the main debate tomorrow.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is it not time that we stopped having this competition in humbug between the two Front Benches about state funding? The pass on state funding was sold almost a quarter of a century ago with the Short money.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Oh!
  Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Lord lets out a groan from a sedentary position. What does he think Short money is other than state funding? Of course the pass was sold with the Short money intervention, and
  604
  it was intentionally sold. It fed money directly into the coffers of the political parties. At the moment we see the Conservatives using some money for Central Office and some for other purposes. It seems to me that the Neill committee missed a glaring open goal by not cutting through the mutual humbug and saying that state funding is not a matter of lifting the skirts as though one had seen a mouse but is something to be welcomed as far preferable to an over-reliance on the big donors. Yet once again both Front Benches have missed the opportunity.
  We will return to this matter because the tax concession is perhaps a worse second best. But for Ministers to condemn state funding as some great vice misses an opportunity. My noble friend is absolutely right. Within a decade, we shall be returning to this matter. The way the matter is dealt with in the Bill leaves in place all the temptation for abuse.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord invites a response from the way in which he made his point. I ask him this question in response. We do not often fall out over these matters, but does he think that the case that was revealed last week during the discussion before the Committee on Standards in Public Life of the Conservatives using £3.8 million of public money to fund the campaign bunker was the right use of public funds? Does he support that contention? That is the logic of the position being put forward by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I would seriously question whether that is right. It seems to me that in their admission last week that that is how some of the Short money had been used the Conservatives themselves were not entirely happy with what they had done and that they had gone to the whole trouble of asking advice as to whether they should be using the money in that way. That seemed to be accepting that that was an inappropriate use of Short funds. If that is the case, the argument being advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord McNally, is somewhat shot through with holes.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, perhaps I may respond. I am not as shocked as some people about what the Conservatives were doing. The state funding that already exists displaces other funding to be used. We have always tried clever ways of funding. We have done it right from the beginning. We have done it with MPs' expenses and with other aspects of funding. We have always tried clever ways of doing it, often finessing it past taxpayers so they do not realise that some of these funds are going for political purposes. We have always said that it would be far better to give a block grant to political parties to use transparently at their discretion than to have all these rules and regulations which will add confusion and invite parties either to bend these artificial rules or to mistakenly bend them. However, it is an opportunity which the Government for their good reasons have fluffed, as the Labour government in 1974 fluffed it. As I said before, until the matter is faced up to, until we openly see the rationale of state funding of our political parties, we

  605
  will have to run the risk of the other sources of funding perverting and distorting the political system. But we have had this argument and we will have it again.
  Lord Rennard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his earlier remarks and, in particular, for summarising so effectively the case for the amendments. He said that his only reservation or objection was that it may not he popular to use public funds to promote Liberal Party posters in a future election campaign. I fail to understand why a voter may object to paying for parties promoting their policies but is quite happy to pay for the research into those policies which will come from the policy development grants which the Government are happy to provide to the parties. Indeed, it is a wholly artificial distinction to say that you are prepared to use government money for policy development and not use government money to pay for the promotion of those policies. Once the Government have entered into the era of paying towards policy development, as they are about to do, that will allow the parties to free up resources for the promotion of those policies. We are dealing with an artificial divide.
  I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. I failed to hear, unless he made a point I did not note, the fundamental distinction between the £4 million or so provided from the public purse—the so-called Short money—to Conservative Central Office for the payment of a press team and a war room to campaign for the Conservative Party and the kind of grants which I am suggesting would legitimately be used for parties to promote their own campaigning purposes. I fail to see the distinction.
  However, as at this stage I hear little support for my argument, I shall withdraw the amendment on the basis that what it proposes used to be Labour Party policy—I am sure that it will again be Labour Party policy—and that I believe it to be Conservative Party policy in practice, even if it is not said so openly at the moment. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 23 to 26 not moved.]
  Clause 12 [Education about electoral and democratic systems]:
  8.45 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 27:
  Page 9, line 15, leave out paragraph (c).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to Clause 12 of the Bill, to which I have tabled a number of amendments. We discussed these issues in Committee on 10th October and they were also discussed in another place. The issues concern the duties given to the commission about "public awareness". Indeed, the clause heading states:
  "Education about electoral and democratic systems".
  We are concerned, as we said in Committee and in another place, about some of the aspects of the duties given to the commission by the clause.
  On 10th October the noble Lord, Lord Shore, said:
  "Is it wise to hand over that responsibility"—
  he was referring to education—
  "to the electoral commission? I doubt it and I urge my noble friends to rethink our position on the matter.—[Official Report, 10/10/2000; col. 190.]
  The noble Lord summed up the position quite well. I should like to draw his words to the attention of his noble friend Lord Bassam. Perhaps I may also draw to his attention the powerful words of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, in the same debate. My recollection is that what he said was not warmly welcomed by the Government Front Bench, who seem happy to accept those parts of the deliberations of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, whether they be the report we are discussing or regarding last week's efforts, when it suits them but when it does not suit them and they do not want to listen they become rather irritated if he speaks. The noble Lord said:
  "My opinion is that it is a wholly inappropriate role to give to the electoral commission as we conceived it. I cannot see how it could carry out the duties conscientiously under Clause 12 without being drawn into political controversy …One has to think for only about two seconds about the role given to the commission to see that it is one which would get in the way of the other very serious obligations it has under other parts of the Bill".—[Official Report, 10/10/2000; col. 196".]
  The Government seem intent on keeping this clause. I have therefore tabled amendments to correct what I believe are the worst defects within it. Amendment No. 27 seeks to leave out paragraph (c) of subsection (1). At present the subsection reads:
  "The Commission shall promote public awareness of … the institutions of the European Union".
  Perhaps I may say that the institutions of the European Union seem perfectly capable of promoting themselves. Even the most neutral observer, which I would not pretend to be in this case, would think that to ask the commission to promote public awareness of the institutions of the European Union is likely to drag it at least into the margins of political debate, if not right into the mud of it. I believe that the inclusion of this duty is unnecessary. Worse than that, I think that it is wrong.
  The Minister could help me greatly here. In the debate on 10th October, the Minister stated:
  "People will be more inclined to vote if they believe that the body they are being asked to elect is relevant to them and will make a difference to the community in which they live. That applies as much to the European Parliament as it does to local councils. Without paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (l) … the commission's ability to make any meaningful impact on the level of participation in our democratic institutions will be severely constrained".—[Official Report, 10/10/00; col. 206]
  In his defence of these parts of the clause, the Minister referred only to the European Parliament and to democracy. If that was all that was stated in the Bill, I am not sure that I should have tabled these amendments. Explaining to the electorate the European Parliament and how it is elected would be totally consistent with explaining how the other place is elected, as well as the Scottish Parliament in "Scottish only" terms, the Welsh Assembly in Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly in Northern

  607
  Ireland. It would be totally consistent, and I could at least understand that proposition. We decided, in Parliament, on the means to be used to elect the European Parliament. As the noble Lord will recall, it was an extremely complicated issue and a complex method was chosen which proved to be so difficult that in the end the electorate did not bother to turn out to vote in that European parliamentary election. Contrary to what the propagandists for proportional representation said would happen, when put to the test it failed to happen.
  I can quite understand the noble Lord's argument. The noble Lord said that, once Parliament had passed the Bill which meant that in this country the European Parliament would be elected using the list system and that the order of the list would be determined entirely by the party machinery, it was clear that any electoral commission should have a hand in explaining to the electorate what it needs to do. I do not know whether such a commission should be deeply involved in explaining the merits of that system over other systems proposed to noble Lords when we discussed the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, but I understand the argument that the commission is well placed to explain to the electorate the method eventually chosen by Parliament.
  However, that is not what is says in Clause 12(1)(c). It refers to,
  "the institutions of the European Union".
  That is a good deal wider than what we have been discussing. Perhaps the electoral commission would be used to explain the thinking of the European Commission. That might lead it into extremely dangerous territory. For that reason, I believe that this needs to be clarified. If the only institution being referred to here is the European Union's democratically elected European Parliament, that should be what it says in the Bill. That is the only institution which is democratically elected, other than perhaps the Council of Ministers, where at least the Ministers are democratically elected.
  The electoral commission should not have to get involved in arguments about the European Commission. If it did that, it might get involved in arguments currently raging as regards the number of Commissioners and whether countries such as the United Kingdom should continue to have two Commissioners where other, smaller countries have only one. One would not have to be on either side of the argument to recognise that this would present dangerous territory for the electoral commission without it going down exactly the kind of road against which the noble Lord, Lord Neill, warned your Lordships' House.
  I should like to know exactly what the noble Lord means by,
  "the institutions of the European Union".
  If he is referring only to the European Parliament, surely we should introduce at Third Reading an amendment to make that clear on the ground that legislation should say exactly what it means.
  Amendment No. 28 addresses the possibility that the commission could, or a grant made by the commission to another body could be used to, promote a type of devolved government in one area of the United Kingdom. Devolved regional government could be promoted in England, for example, because devolved government is already in place in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I do not think that the commission should be doing that; indeed, I do not think that any body which is in receipt of public money should do that. These are issues which need to be decided by politicians rather than by the electoral commission. Amendment No. 28 attempts to remove a pothole into which the commission could easily fall.
  I shall not speak to Amendments Nos. 29 and 30, because, in our enthusiasm to probe this clause, we have tabled two amendments which were decided in Committee. I apologise for that. I shall not speak to them at all.
  My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has tabled Amendment No. 30A, which I might describe as the "nuclear option". His amendment has much to recommend it; indeed, I am sorry that I did not table it myself. Earlier I reminded noble Lords of the words of the noble Lords, Lord Shore and Lord Neill. Perhaps I may end by quoting from the report of the Neill committee at paragraph 11.4:
  "We would only make the obvious point that the Election Commission cannot, as some of our witnesses seem to believe, solve all problems and be a panacea for all ills. It is tempting, but not sensible, to say whenever in difficulty, 'Leave it to the Commission'. That is an approach we have sought to avoid in this report. Government, Parliament and others have to accept their responsibilities".
  We are concerned to ensure that the commission is independent and above the political debate. That was the concern of the Neill committee and we could have no clearer indication of that than the words of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and his committee's report. I hope that the Government will address the issues that I have raised and, no doubt, that others will raise later in this debate. I must say that the more that I read this clause, the more I am tempted to vote in favour of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. I beg to move.
  Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment No. 30A, which has been grouped with those tabled in the name of my noble friend. In Committee we debated at some length the wording of Clause 12. Various objections were raised to the provisions that it contains. I sought then to amend the wording of subsections (1) and (2) while my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish sought to delete paragraph (c) of subsection (1). The Government resisted all the amendments that were tabled.
  At the time of the debate in Committee, my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour said that, having heard the contributions made by my noble friends Lord

  609
  Cranborne and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, she felt that it would be better,
  "to leave the clause out of the Bill and to arrange for the education of people in these matters to be done by another body".—[Official Report, 10;10/00; col. 198.]
  That is the conclusion that I have reached. Given that the Government have not accepted the amendments that would have improved the clause and given the choice between the clause as it stands and no clause, think that we should opt for no clause at all.
  In Committee, the Minister made no convincing case for the clause as it stands. Much of the discussion that took place was tangential to the issue. Several noble Lords seemed to think that the amendments were prompted by distrust of educating citizens about politics. As I pointed out at the time—several times, in fact—the need for political education was not at issue. My professional life has been spent educating people about politics. I support the teaching of citizenship in schools. Where politics is taught at A-level, it tends to be taught well. It is taught well because those teaching it are trained in the subject and are keen to impart knowledge. Teaching politics entails informing people about politics and, in schools and universities, teaching students how to think, not what to think.
  As far as I am concerned, the principle is not at issue. What does concern me is how to give effect to the principle. In Committee, I argued that the electoral commission was not the body to teach people about systems of government, be it local, national or supranational. It is not equipped to undertake the task, either directly or as an enabling agency. Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Neill, argued in Committee that seeking to undertake such a role may drag the commission into the realms of controversy. It would be covering topics that are contentious. That may be so, but my objection is more fundamental. The clause confers on the commission tasks that do not fall within its competence.
  The competence of the commission encompasses the registration and financing of political parties and the conduct of elections and referendums. That is clear from the Long Title and from the provisions of Clauses 4 and 5. In respect of political parties, it is, in effect, a regulatory body. In respect of elections and referendums, it is a regulatory and an advisory body. There is nothing in the Bill, in terms of the composition of the commission or in the specific tasks that are adumbrated in Clauses 4 and 5, that establishes it as an educational body.
  I was prepared in Committee to go some way to meet the Government by retaining paragraph (a) of subsection (1), allowing the commission to promote public awareness of electoral systems, at least subject to some amendment. The Government were not prepared to accept that, arguing the case for retaining the clause as it stood. The arguments advanced for the clause were not persuasive.
  610
  In Committee, the Minister explained what the clause sought to achieve. As I say, I have no objection to the objective of the clause. The Minister argued that the commission was an appropriate body to meet that objective. He said that the commission should,
  "be empowered not only to promote understanding of the mechanics of the electoral systems used in this country, but also to promote awareness of the value of voting".—[Official Report, 10/10/00; col. 206.]
  The problem is that the commission is not qualified to undertake that particular task. The Minister seemed to think that because the commission was a body specialising in electoral matters, it was therefore qualified to educate people—or to buy in bodies to educate people—about electoral systems and, as electoral systems did not exist in a vacuum, that it was also qualified to teach them about political systems generally. I do not think that I am doing the Minister an injustice by expressing it thus.
  By so arguing, the Minister was undermining the importance of that which he wants to achieve—that is, political education. If we believe in educating citizens about political processes, we need to undertake the task in a serious way. We do that by creating or drawing on those bodies that have the professional training and capacity to undertake the task. We do not achieve it by tacking it on to the functions of a body that is established for a completely different purpose. This function jars with those listed in Clauses 4 and 5.
  I argued in Committee that it fell outwith the Long Title of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Cranborne raised the point and put various questions to the Minister as to its compatibility with the Long Title. The Minister said in response that he thought that the Long Title was adequate. He went on:
  "Functions are, after all, part and parcel of the establishment of the commission, and the Long Title refers to its establishment".—[Official Report, 10/10/00; col. 207.]
  I do not think that the establishment of the commission can be read as independent of what follows in the Long Title. Clauses 4 and 5 adumbrate the functions that are clearly compatible with the Long Title and I think it appropriate to avoid doubt by sticking exclusively to those functions.
  In my view, Clause 12 does not fit with the remaining provisions of the Bill. As my noble friend mentioned, it confers a function that was not envisaged by the Neill committee. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, in Committee. Indeed, the noble Lord expressed the personal view, to which my noble friend Lord Mackay has referred, that it was,
  "a wholly inappropriate role to give to the electoral commission as we [the Neill committee] conceived it".—[Official Report, 10/10/00; col. 196.]
  This is not then something to which the Government have signed up as part of the recommendations made by the Neill committee. It is an initiative of the Government—a well meaning initiative, but one that I believe is fundamentally flawed.
  If we want to educate citizens about electoral processes, we should address the issue separately from this Bill. It is too serious an issue to be dealt with by

  611
  some incidental addition to the recommendations of the Neill committee. The issue of teaching citizenship in schools was addressed by the Crick commission, of which my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking was a distinguished member. This issue needs to be considered in a similarly serious, and constructive, manner.
  For all these reasons, I believe that Clause 12 is inappropriate. It should be taken out.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I find myself moved to join the root-and-branch option that has been so powerfully argued by my noble friend. I notice that page 9 of the Bill contains the words "public awareness". That is a weasel set of words—to which no one can object—beloved by the Civil Service.
  As my noble friend Lord Mackay said, this is a matter of education. As has been said already, education is a very important and vital task, but it has nothing to do with regulation. The danger is that once education and regulation are put into the same body, various inherent conflicts of interest come to the surface.
  Two immediately spring to mind. The first, is that the commission will necessarily have limited resources, and the disposition of those resources will have to be decided upon and divided between education and regulation. We were debating earlier how regulatory matters are likely to be fast moving and require instantaneous decisions; in such circumstances, if resources have been devoted to education with a lack of resources being devoted to regulation, those of our fellow citizens who are concerned with the undertaking of elections may well find themselves unable quickly to get the necessary advice and support.
  The second immediate conflict of interest is that between the promotion of change and the maintenance of the status quo. As we begin the educational process, to what extent will this body be responsible for encouraging people to think about the options and for encouraging the debate on electoral reform, and to what extent is its duty to uphold the system as it presently stands?
  I feel strongly about this issue. Earlier in the summer the Financial Services and Markets Bill passed through your Lordships' House. I am a member of the board of the Securities and Futures Authority and we are about to be subsumed into the new FSA. When that Bill was passed, tacked on to it was an educational requirement. That has already begun to make itself felt in the way in which the SFA has operated. Resources are now being moved inexorably towards educating the public at the expense of some of the disciplinary and enforcement procedures of that authority. The manpower and financial resources devoted to the market awareness side have increased quite considerably in the budget and are now under way within the FSA. I can foresee similar difficulties and problems with this authority. I see no way of avoiding
  612
  it. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend Lord Norton has provided the only sensible option on this occasion.
  Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I am slightly puzzled at the venom with which Clause 12 is being opposed. I find it difficult to accept. Two of the major electoral commissions—those of Australia and New Zealand, both of which I have visited—see it as a major part of their role to provide education for the public and to create public awareness. Their role is similar to that of the electoral commission as proposed in the Bill. Therefore, if it is suitable for them, I cannot see why it would be unsuitable for the electoral commission here.
  There seems to be a fear that the electoral commission will examine matters such as electoral reform and that it will advocate different electoral systems. I thought that we had covered that point in Committee when we discussed the whole question of "pending". I believe my noble friend said that "pending" referred to arrangements which are on the statute book but which have not yet come into force. That cannot, therefore, mean looking at a future electoral system for the House of Commons. I believe that is the fear behind objections to this clause.
  I have a slight problem. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, is rightly adamant about the need for political education. The noble Lord devotes his life to that. The Crick report has established the principle of citizenship in schools. But a whole group of people have not received such teaching, either because it did not take place at university or because the teaching of citizenship was not allowed in school for a long period of time. Those people are electors and they should be given the opportunity to find out more about the way in which the country and the administration operate.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has perhaps accepted that there is a role for the commission in that regard—although he may withdraw his amendment in favour of that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. Again, I find it strange specifically to rule out the question of Europe. It rather implies that this country has no connection with Europe. Whether we like it or not, and whether we are pro-Europe or anti-Europe, it is a fact of life. We have connections with Europe and they will continue. Any voter education programme should explain the role of this Parliament vis-à-vis the institutions of the European Union as well as explaining the mechanics of voting.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, asks what is meant by "institutions". To me, it means not what the Commission says, but how it works—how it functions, what its relationship is with the European Parliament, and how that functions. That is what we are talking about when we talk about the "institutions" of Europe. I do not accept that information cannot be provided factually. With the greatest respect, to say so is absolute nonsense. So many commissions, including the Neill commission, have been impartial in their consideration. I cannot see why it is not possible for

  613
  them to explain the institutions of Europe or of this country with the same impartiality. I find the opposite argument very difficult to accept.
  Political education is essential for a healthy democracy. I believe that the previous government accepted that when, for instance, they set up the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in 1992. That was designed to provide advice to institutions and electors overseas. Many of us took part in Westminster Foundation delegations, particularly to the new democracies in eastern Europe doing exactly that, in an impartial and, we hope, professional way. I believe that the electoral commission will be independent, just as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is independent, and that it should be able to perform that role. I can see no reason why it should not. It is right that any money allocated, whether it is spent by the commission itself or allocated to other bodies, should be used only for education purposes and not for propaganda.
  9.15 p.m.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am glad, once again, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. I believe we had similar exchanges in Committee on this very clause. I am also extremely glad that the noble Baroness mentioned the Westminster Foundation—a body that she acknowledges was set up by the previous government and one that I was privileged to serve on for a very short time before I was translated to this House in a ministerial capacity. Unfortunately, therefore, I was not able to experience the good work undertaken by the foundation for very long. However, I certainly took to heart the message that the foundation was established to propagate, as indeed did the noble Baroness.
  During my time as Leader of the House, I tried in a small way to contribute towards the efforts made by this place, especially in conjunction with another place, to ensure a greater knowledge among the young of how Parliamentand our political system works—or, more accurately, I sometimes think, does not work. When this clause was debated in Committee, I was very struck by the approach taken by a number of speakers, although, I hasten to add, I do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, was one of them. On realising that the Government's argument was perhaps rather weaker than they would like, they immediately fastened on to a few of the objections that some of us had raised and accused us of wanting to keep the electorate in ignorance. Indeed, I believe that my noble friend Lord Norton referred to this during the course of his earlier remarks. I do not resent that; it is a perfectly usual political ploy. Those of us who have been around for a bit recognise it for what it is: if you cannot answer the arguments set up against you, you invent one and attribute it to your opponents and then try to ridicule them on that basis.
  As my noble friend said, this is not about a division in your Lordships' House as regards who is in favour of political education and who is not. All of us recognise that this is an area of great importance, especially at a time when people are increasingly
  614
  uninterested in politics and seem to be unaware of the system that protects, or should protect, their liberties. I hope that we can lay that particular canard to rest. I am sure that the Minister will not be tempted to revive it because it will not fly—it is a canard imaginaire, if ever there was one.
  The truth of the matter was, as usual, immediately spotted by my noble friend Lord Norton. This commission will consist of very great men and women. As we have observed during the passage of the Bill through this House, they will be selected for their enormous wisdom and not, perhaps, for their recent experience at the coalface of politics. We have decided that that would not be a suitable immediate experience for them. But, nevertheless, they will be selected as very great and good men and women of unimpeachable character, neutrality, judgment and wisdom. Of course, they must also be unpartisan and neutral. We are asking them to undertake an extremely difficult job—that is, before we get to the provisions in Clause 12.
  Clearly the commission's job will be extremely complex and difficult—at least, the Government find it so. Indeed, they would not have felt the need to rewrite such a very large proportion of the Bill if that task were simple and easy to define. If it is difficult to define and to lay out in this enormous and weighty piece of paper, I suspect that the task we are asking the commission to undertake will be extremely difficult in itself.
  In Clause 12 we are doing the classic piece of mixing apples and oranges. We have a set of apples into which, suddenly, we have injected an orange; in other words, we are asking the commission to do something completely different from anything else contained in the Bill. As my noble friend explained, we had an argument about the Long Title to the Bill. I do not intend to go into that in detail. However, no matter what the Minister said, it really stretches the imagination a little to suggest that the Long Title in any way covers Clause 12. I can only suppose that the phase, "for connected purposes" is alleged to cover Clause 12. I am not sure that that is exactly the same sort of phraseology as the gracious Speech at the opening of Parliament when everything including the kitchen sink can be put in under the phrase,
  "other measures will be laid before you".
  We are talking about a specific piece of legislation in which highly complex matters of a fairly clear kind are being proposed. What we are now proposing to do is to graft on an entirely new function that really does not bear any relationship to it.
  If I correctly understood the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, she suggested that all the commission had to do was to describe precisely the facts. That is an extremely seductive phrase. The noble Baroness always seems entirely reasonable, as indeed she is known to be. But we are talking here about some of the most contentious issues in modern day British politics, voting systems and constitutional arrangements which this Government have brought to the very forefront of political debate, and, of course, our own favourite

  615
  great European home, the European Union. If the commission is to venture to describe factually electoral systems and the systems of the European Union, does not our experience suggest that the facts themselves are a matter of subjective judgment?
  Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I have lectured on electoral systems throughout the world. I do not think that I indulged in any subjective analysis; I just explained them.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Baroness gets her own back for when I explained that I thought that when I stood for another place my constituents in south Dorset did not need much explanation of our present electoral system because they knew perfectly well that if I obtained more votes than anyone else I would become their MP.
  One of the extraordinary features of the love of complexity of this Government, not only in matters of taxation but also in matters constitutional, is that because they are addicted to vastly complex systems we have to put in place all kinds of measures to try to explain how they work. My contention is that this is not the place to do it because by asking the commission to undertake that task it is perfectly plain that we are venturing into ground where it would fear to tread. As my noble friend Lord Mackay made perfectly clear, if the noble Lord, Lord Neill, is anything to go by, certainly that kind of member of the great and good would run a mile before undertaking anything so potentially contentious.
  I suspect that the European Union is a good example of that. After all, as my noble friend Lord Mackay pointed out, the European Union spends an enormous amount of what is ultimately our money promoting the European Union. It promotes it, in its own view, entirely neutrally. It says that all it is doing is explaining the facts. As someone who is highly sceptical of its version of the facts, all I can say is that I deeply resent my money being spent by myrmidons of the European Union in Queen Anne Street putting out what they regard as an unspun fact in such a matter that I feel that my money is being filched from me and that I am being asked to pay for an extraordinarily biased spin.
  The facts with regard to the European Union are highly contentious. Just to give one example, we are constantly told that there is no question that the new Euro corps will be a European army. But we also know that we were told back in 1975—I studied the election literature the other day, which only goes to prove this—that if we voted yes, we would only join a free trade area. Yet somehow that fact has been transmogrified into something vastly more complex and more integrated than that.
  I could go on but I shall not. It seems to me that we are asking the commission in one breath in all the other clauses of the Bill to be Olympian, neutral, unpartisan and to act as the great platonic guardians with which we increasingly festoon our constitutional arrangements in this country. However, in the same
  616
  breath, in Clause 12, we are not tempting but obliging it to venture ever more into areas in which it will find it increasingly difficult to maintain its neutrality.
  If the Government's intention is to ensure that the commission is launched with the seeds if not of its own destruction then at least of the destruction of its reputation, I can think of no better way than Clause 12. Although, as always, I greatly admire the ingenuity of my noble friend Lord Mackay, in trying to improve the clause with Amendments Nos. 27 to 30, I fear that its purpose is so flawed that the only logical conclusion is to delete it, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Norton. Given the choice, I should support Amendment No. 30A.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, as we are on Report, I have to make my point before the Minister speaks. I should like to return to the micro level of the amendment. It is all very well the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, talking about a teacher exhibiting a point of view, but anybody in the institution in which I have taught for the past 36 years who does not say what is his point of view does not last a week.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord has made my point for me. I should have been very disappointed as an undergraduate if my teachers—poor things, having to try to teach me—had not put across a point of view. One expects that, although very often one is stimulated to reject that point of view. In that case, why ask an allegedly neutral body to do what we all expect teachers to do?
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, that is exactly the point. By setting out one's point of view at the start, one has a chance of giving what the noble Viscount might call a neutral view of the problem. However, let me return to my micro point.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, suggested that it might be better if, in Clause 12(1)(c),
  "the institutions of the European Union",
  were replaced with a reference to the electoral system and functions of the European Parliament. On that as on all other issues relating to the European Union, one should take a pragmatic view. It is impossible to set out the system of government of the European Parliament without describing its relationship with the other institutions. I might prefer different drafting in the Bill, but what the noble Lord suggests is impossible, because it would not be honest with the audience. It would be essential to explain the place of the Commission—particularly now, with the dual channel—and the place of the Council. That is a small point, but I hope that the noble Lord will consider it.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I support the targeted amendments of my noble friend Lord Mackay, but if they are not acceptable, I would prefer to go along the road suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, with the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. My noble friend Lord Hodgson identified the basic flaw in the clause. It is a

  617
  mistake to ask a regulator to combine its regulatory role with an educative function. It is as though we were to ask the noble Lord, Lord Neill, simultaneously to rule on the way in which Members of this House conduct themselves and declare their interests and also to perform some educational function about the role of the House of Lords or lobbying in Parliament. It might be as though we were to ask the Financial Services Authority to propagandise about the importance of the financial services industry for this country.
  The reason that that is a mistake is because it is a confusion of the main purpose for which the body has been set up. It could only be a distraction and mean that the commission would do its job less effectively. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, made a very interesting speech. She said—
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, is it the core of the noble Lord's argument that regulators should not conduct any form of education or advice for those whom they seek to regulate? If that is the case, there are many regulatory bodies which carry out profoundly important matters of education to achieve a degree of regulation and to make it easier.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, it is one thing for the Financial Services Authority to explain to practitioners in the City of London how the rules apply, why conflicts of interest arise and why certain rules are necessary. That is completely different from educating everyone in the country from John O'Groats to Land's End about the City of London. The Minister has given a totally inappropriate analogy.
  Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I declare an interest as a member of a regulatory body. We see as one of our functions to be able to educate the electors to make sure that they do not face problems in the future if they have them now. I cannot see that there is a divorce between a regulatory body and its educational role.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I am not sure to which regulatory body the noble Baroness refers. But, as I have just said, there is a difference between educating the people immediately affected by regulation and trying to educate the whole country. The regulatory commission is essentially a regulator of political parties. It might be legitimate to say that it should explain to political parties what its purpose is and why this or that rule is necessary. That is completely different from taking on the huge burden of educating the whole country, not just about what it is doing but about all kinds of very difficult and contentious political questions.
  In her interesting speech, the noble Baroness said that they do that in Australia so why should we not do it here? It has always seemed to me that one of the worst arguments for extending the role of government in any respect is merely to say that because something
  618
  happens elsewhere, it ought to happen here. As a legislature it is our job to probe why an extension of functions is necessary and how far that should go.
  I would be more convinced of the case that has been put forward and more reassured that this is not going to be a distraction from the real purpose of the commission if we were to be told something about the scale of the task to be attempted. We are vaguely told that it is to educate the public. What does that mean? How much money is going to be spent? I know the Minister will be unable to answer that question. How many extra staff will be needed and what proportion of the commission's time is to be spent on education?
  If we are to be persuaded that this measure is remotely appropriate, it would be sensible to have some idea of the scale on which this very ambitious task is to be attempted. Otherwise it makes no sense to take away money that might have been spent on the education budget. I would need a lot of persuading that money spent on educating people about the institutions of this country would not he better spent in schools. How much is to be taken away from the education budget if this new provision is competing with that budget?
  The noble Baroness made an interesting point. She said that the teaching of civics had grown up only relatively recently in this country. One of its purposes might be to reach out to that part of the public that had not had the benefit of the increase in civics education in recent years. That is all right, but how is the commission to do it? By what method is it going to reach out to every household in the land? By what methods will it communicate?
  In the absence of, I submit, very reasonable questions of that kind, the whole purpose seems ill-focused, ill-thought out and in conflict with what is a very difficult job. I believe that this is a terrible distraction for the commission. Notwithstanding the interesting remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, I believe that it is a duplication of what is happening elsewhere in the system. That is why we have an education budget and adult education courses. We all know that many questions relating to the validity of, or alternatives to, our electoral system are discussed endlessly in O-levels, A-levels and in politics courses in universities.
  The noble Baroness wondered why there was so much, as she put it, venom attached to this Bill. The reasons why I believe there to be so much anxiety, rather than venom, in relation to this issue are those given by my noble friend Lord Cranborne; that is, a distrust that these matters will be wholly dispassionately and factually discussed. When my son was studying for his A-levels, inevitably he had many questions about alternative electoral systems. He once asked me what the arguments were in favour of the first-past-the-post, single majority system. To the best of my ability I attempted to explain the issue to him and dealt with the inevitable questions about fairness. At the end of our discussion, he said to me, "Well, I think I'll aim off what you said for the benefit of the examiners". I am sure that for many reasons he was

  619
  right to do that. We know that certain questions are not simply factual and that certain arguments will not be resolved without resort to debate about different and competing values.
  I agree with the noble Baroness that it is perfectly legitimate to argue that political education in this country should extend to an understanding of the institutions of the European Union. Of course that is right. One cannot separate the European Parliament from other institutions. I have no problem with the idea that pupils in schools or elsewhere in the educational system will be told about the institutions of the European Union, whatever reservations I may have about their effectiveness, their cost and their functioning.
  However, as my noble friend Lord Cranborne said, one worries about how that educational task will be carried out. Will it be carried out factually? Will it be totally divorced from the massive propaganda effort that we already have in this country from the European Union via its office not far from this House where it spends huge amounts of money on so-called factual information? It spends money on such facts as (it is alleged) millions of jobs depend upon the European Union—it took the National Institute of Economic and Social Research to show that that was a totally bogus claim. It also put forward the very arguable claim that the European Union has preserved peace in Europe.
  Therefore, I believe that it is doubtful that we shall receive purely factual information. We have not heard anything about the body's funding, the amount of money involved or where the money will come from. I should like to be assured by the Minister that it will not be simply a distributor of propaganda from the EU and its institutions.
  Lastly, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for clarifying and reassuring me about the word "pending". I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that for my benefit.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, first, I claim one piece of consistency throughout the deliberations on this Bill. I have argued constantly that the Neill committee is not the last word on these matters and that it would be called in aid when one side agreed with it but that, when that was not the case, the committee would be quietly forgotten. As I said before, I believe that some of the work carried out by the Neill committee was excellent. It provided some good grounding for this Bill and for other legislation. However, I also think that it missed some very open goals. I had hoped to get that speech out during my noble friend's absence but I see he has crept back.
  I also think that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, is absolutely right. Behind some of the silky speeches we have heard this evening are the darker fears that haunt certain Members on the Conservative Benches. One of the hobgoblins they fear is that this clause is a cunning device to allow future campaigns on Europe and proportional representation. That is why every so
  620
  often during the speeches there is a sudden, swift right turn into a good old piece of Euro-bashing. I do not think that there is in this clause any such intent or any possible use of the clause for such a purpose.
  What has run through statements on both sides is an acceptance of what I would describe as a deficiency in civic education in this country, which in any democracy, becomes a threat to that democracy. It is an interesting thought that probably among the best civically-educated generation were the troops in the Second World War. It has often been said that the Labour landslide of 1945 had more to do with the Army Education Corps than almost any other single body. It made troops aware of their rights and responsibilities.
  I also think that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, came through with arguments which are often used to resist an idea—"Well, it's a good idea but not in this Bill; not in this way, not here, not now". Then, if that does not work, try, "Not by these people: we like these people and we do not want to burden them with too much work". As I say, they are silky excuses for inaction but they are dodging the real issue. I shall save the Minister making the point if I say that so far as I am concerned these are Conservative "ignorance-is-bliss" amendments. On constitutional reform, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, made the point that this—
  Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I hear what he says and should be grateful if he could identify at what point I fell foul of any of the objections he claims. I am all in favour of action this day; I am in favour of educating all the electors referred to by the noble Baroness; and, if the noble Lord wishes, I could even recommend the books that I think all should read—but modesty forbids. I believe that the arguments can be put in a balanced way, even though one might express a conclusion at the end. My point is that I am not sure that this body has the relevant qualifications. I want its work to be done by people even better qualified, in a way that this commission is not.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, I heard the noble Lord's speech and began to think I had not heard one like that since the AEWU tore up its rulebook. The noble Lord seemed to be arguing that only professors of politics were suitable for imparting this wisdom to the public at large, whereas, as we know, a commission like this would acquire an expertise which would fully enable it to do this job.
  I do not have the fears that have been expressed from these Benches. It is a role which is undoubtedly additional to the main purposes but is in no way contradictory to them. Let us be under no illusion. Perhaps I may say, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that just as, if the commission does the work with the EU, it should not be done, that is way beyond its powers; if the EU does it, it is a sinister operation from Storey's Gate. Let us make no bones about it. If the Government brought forward a

  621
  separate Bill with a separate body to do that work, some of the same speeches would express the same suspicions.
  I see no reason why Clause 12 should not be adopted and the responsibilities that it gives the commission be carried out with neutrality and independence. Perhaps I may give some advice to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. He is obviously like one of those guys who wander into a fight in a bar and tries to reason with the two sides. If I were him, I would get out of the way. Let us test whether or not we want Clause 12. We certainly want it.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this has been a good and hugely entertaining debate, which I have enjoyed immensely. The issues are those on which we have had a "knock about" before. It seems to me that we have before us a choice between the Exocet and nuclear options. I suppose I am rather tempted to agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Perhaps if Conservative Lords opposite really believe in the strength of their argument on the nuclear option, they should test the opinion of the House at some point—perhaps not this evening—and be honest about it. It seems to me that perhaps that is the right way forward.
  This is an important function for the commission to have and to hold. Let us think about the turnout in Westminster by-elections, some of which are to be held on Thursday; the turnout in local government elections; and the turnout in European parliamentary elections. If we are trying to strengthen the roots of democracy, it must be in all our interests to ensure that we deal with ignorance and lack of knowledge and understanding of political systems.
  We remain convinced that this is a proper function for an independent electoral commission. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, made reference to the Australian and New Zealand commissions, which undertake this work properly. It does not seem to compromise their function. I do not accept that this is a dangerous task to give to an electoral commission. I remember when we debated the Representation of the People Act earlier in the year that noble Lords opposite made the argument and put the case for the commission having a far wider remit than the narrow role which some of them seem to have been tempted into suggesting today. They suggested that it should carry out research and development work. That seems to sit side by side with much of this important work. I do not hear a convincing argument from the Benches opposite against us ensuring that the commission can carry out such work.
  The hobgoblins and sinister plots have been conjured up by noble Lords opposite to argue against an independent electoral commission conducting educational programmes. Perhaps I may ask the question: if the commission does not do such work, precisely what sort of body would be appropriate to carry it out? What would be its composition? How would we set it out? How would it relate to the work of the electoral commission? I have not heard any such
  622
  arguments put convincingly this evening. I listened carefully to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. I could foresee a snatch squad of armed Lords Norton of Louth coming forward professing wisdom in all our schools and places of education, knowledge and wisdom. Perhaps I might even be tempted to trust an armed snatch squad of Lords Norton of Louth doing precisely that work. I believe that most people would benefit from it. But how would that other body be regulated and organised to carry out that work? It seems to me that the work c f the commission is precisely that which should be allied to the important educational role.
  I am entirely with noble Lords opposite when they seek to constrain what the body might do to describing the mechanics and functions of and ways in which bodies such as the European Parliament or systems of election might work without loading that education in some way to add a preferential line of argument to one system or another. That seems to me to be entirely right and proper. These matters must be focused on education and nothing else.
  The idea that the commission itself might be a vehicle to promote public participation in elections simply by talking up the grand European project or promoting the euro is the stuff of fantasy. If it talks about the European Union, it will not talk about the euro or anything else which advances one side as opposed to the other.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps he will list what it is he understands the commission should interpret as,
  "the institutions of the European Union".
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers, perhaps the work of the Commission. Those seem to be relevant to consideration of what European institutions might be. No doubt I could come up with a longer list if given time. But the mechanical, functioning, working parts of the institutions of the European Union ought to be known to the general public, particularly if they are involved in an election about them. I am sure the noble Lord will accept that, if we are seeking to provide wider knowledge about political institutions in this country, we might want to run through their mechanical parts. That seems to be entirely relevant.
  Amendment No. 28 would require that any promotional campaign undertaken by the commission in one part of the United Kingdom should not concern itself with electoral arrangements in place confined exclusively to another part of the United Kingdom. I know that the noble Lord thinks this is all about softening up the electorate for a referendum on the voting system—that was certainly the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. This point was raised in Committee and I replied then that I thought it was a point on which the commission would wish to tread extremely carefully.
  Having said that, I must again stress that the point of the provisions set out in the clause is not to encourage the commission to proselytise about the

  623
  merits of particular arrangements. It will simply be concerned with promoting awareness of its existence and purpose. To that extent it would be wrong for material circulated by the commission in Scotland, let alone anywhere else, to dwell on the advantages of the additional member system.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, is the Minister intending to come to the questions asked about giving us a rough idea of the scale of operations, the amount of money envisaged and the amount of staff involved in this educational effort?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for posing the question again and reminding me of the point. If I do not cover it in my concluding comments now, I shall advise the noble Lord in writing of the approximate thinking of the Government and share that with other Members of your Lordships' House.
  It seems to me to be taking matters a little bit far to require the commission to prepare different leaflets for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That suggestion has the flavour of a Soviet-style news blackout. That a citizen living in one part of the United Kingdom might learn about the diversity of systems of government which exist as a result of devolution seems to me, generally speaking, to be rather a good idea.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, seemed to have difficulty accepting the point that regulators might carry out some functional educational role. I made quite a long list—Oftel, Ofsted, Ofgas, Ofwat (I was tempted to say Ofrail but thought it inappropriate), the Financial Services Commission, the Health and Safety Commission—of bodies which have to involve themselves as regulatory bodies in some form of education or another. Nobody says that that is irrelevant; that it is not appropriate or proper.
  It seems to me that regulatory bodies will, from time to time, need to undertake educational work. Of course, this commission has a broader remit. But properly regulated educational activity by the commission would be of benefit and we might gather reassurance from the fact that a well-organised and regulated body like this which is involved in regulatory work is carrying out such educational functions.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, the Minister gave the example of Oftel. Would he say what educational function it has other than to telecommunications operators who are directly affected? What wider educational function does Oftel perform?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, no doubt Oftel determines what information it publishes and why and no doubt most of it is directed at those in the business. However, it has a wider role and I am sure undertakes to produce newsletters and information about its activities which are of greater and wider benefit. I am sure that the same will apply to Ofwat and the Health
  624
  and Safety Commission. Without a wider knowledge of their regulatory role, the public are not so well protected.
  Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way and I appreciate that he has been interrupted several times. He spoke of the education in which the regulatory bodies engage, but surely they are educating people in what they are doing and can deliver. That is separate from the task which is being given to this body.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the point I am trying to make is that part of being a regulatory body is the function of advising, informing and educating. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, appeared to be saying that it was not the business of regulators to become involved in advising, informing and educating. I do not accept that, which is why I provided him with the list.
  The breadth of the debate does your Lordships' House great credit. It has been useful and interesting and perhaps has told us more about where noble Lords opposite are coming from; they see a narrower role for the commission, while we see a broader but nevertheless properly circumscribed one.
  I invite your Lordships to reject the amendment. However, I want first to answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, about the costs and functions of activities. Clause 12(6) provides that the amount spent on the educational function by the commission shall not exceed the sum specified by order made by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury. The funding of that function will therefore be ring-fenced from the commission's general budget. I believe that I gave that answer previously. The sum will not be appreciably more than is spent currently by the Home Office on voter registration and postal voting arrangements at general elections. Perhaps such a bench-mark will help the noble Lord.
  The noble Lord also asked about the term "pending". As I explained previously, "pending" means an electoral system that has been approved by Parliament. For example, the system of elections for the Greater London Authority was pending once the GLA Bill received Royal Assent. I refer the noble Lord to Clause 12(2). I am sure that that is consistent with a previous reply.
  We have had a wide-ranging, entertaining and interesting debate and it is now for noble Lords to make up their minds. I hope that noble Lords opposite feel able to withdraw their amendment.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend Lord Lamont that departments spend money only with the authorisation of the Treasury will not come as news to him as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. Many of us

  625
  complain about the dead hand of the Treasury on everything and the noble Lord has merely confirmed that nothing much has changed.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord might have more insight into the dead hand of the Treasury, which is why I gave that answer.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in many ways this has been not an interesting debate but a worrying debate because it has exposed problems with the clause. I wonder where it came from. Who suggested putting it in the Bill? It was not the Neill committee. I suggest that when the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, returns to his office tonight or tomorrow he should find out. If I were him, I would read the riot act about it.
  The noble Lord was arguing for a clause which provided that the commission shall promote public awareness of its work. That was the argument when it came to Oftel, the FSA and everything else. Clause 12 gives the commission a much wider role. While I was prepared to accept at the beginning, very generously, that the commission should have a role in the electoral systems for countries, the other place, local government and the European Parliament, I did not receive a satisfactory answer about the institutions of the European Union. I do not believe—perhaps I am wrong—that the European Central Bank is an institution. Would the electoral commission become involved in that body, which perhaps would become an institution if everybody joined it? The commission will have more than enough to do.
  While I listened to the debate I read the Long Title to the Bill, which refers to the establishment of an electoral, not an education, commission. The word "education" does not appear anywhere in the Long Title. I am prepared to make a half-concession that the electoral systems for the other place, local government and the European Parliament should form some part of the commission's responsibility, but this goes very much wider than that. I suggest to the noble Lord that he and his government colleagues should consider this matter very seriously. Does the Minister believe that, if the clause promotes such doubt that we have spent l¼ hours debating the matter this evening, it is wise for the electoral commission to embark on any of this stuff in case it casts doubt on its position as the regulator of the way that political parties should behave?
  If I was appointed an electoral commissioner—clearly, that would not happen because I do not fall within the various rules—and decided, as a result, to study these proceedings, the moment that I read the present debate I would not bother with Clause 12 but would leave it sticking to the wall. If one starts down some of these roads one enters into political controversy which detracts from the main purpose.
  I shall, very unhappily, beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but if my noble friend goes for the nuclear option I shall certainly support him.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 not moved.]
  Lord Norton of Louth Lord Norton of Louth moved Amendment No. 30A:
  Leave out Clause 12.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not convinced that the Government have responded directly to the precise points that I made in support of my amendment. The arguments advanced have been tangential to those points. I am not even sure that the draftsman of the clause has fully understood the issue, as is reflected in the marginal annotation. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that there are alternatives to the commission. I am happy to advise the Minister on the routes that could be taken, including through the relevant professional bodies, although the alternative that he himself floated struck me as most attractive! However, because I do not believe that the point has been addressed by the Government, I stick with the arguments that I advanced. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, at the beginning expressed the opinion that some noble Lords spoke with vehemence. I do not speak with vehemence; I speak as I do because I believe that I am right. I beg to move.
  10.4 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30A) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 65.

  Division No. 5

  CONTENTS

  Astor, V.

  Jopling, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Lyell, L.

  Burnham, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Cranborne, V.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Mancroft, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Elles, B.

  Northesk, E.

  Fookes, B.

  Norton of Louth, L. [Teller]

  Glenarthur, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Amos, B.

  Dixon, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Donoughue, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Bach, L.

  Elder, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Brennan, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Brett, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Goudie, B.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Crawley, B.

  Grabiner, L.

  David, B.

  Grenfell, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Desai, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  627

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Hoyle, L.

  Rennard, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Roper, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Simon, V.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  McNally, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Tordoff, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Morgan, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  10.14 p.m.
  Schedule 3 [Transfer of functions of Boundary Commissions]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 33:
  Page 131, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (7) and insert—
  ("(7) For subsection (5) there shall be substituted—
  "(5) As soon as practicable after the Electoral Commission have submitted a report to the Secretary of State under this Act, he shall lay before Parliament—

  (a) the report; and

  (b) (except where the report states that no alteration is required to be made in respect of the part of the United Kingdom to which it relates) the draft of anOrder in Council for giving effect to the recommendations contained in the report."").

  Page 133, line 2, leave out paragraph 4 and insert—
  ("4.—(1) Section 4 (Orders in Council) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1), for the words from ", whether with or without modifications," to "Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "to the recommendations contained in a report of the Electoral Commission under this Act".
  (3) Subsection (2) (draft Order implementing recommendations with modifications) shall be omitted.").
  Page 136, line 47, leave out from ("for") to end of line 48 and insert ("the words from ", with or without modifications," to "the Commission" there shall be substituted "to the recommendations contained in a report of the Electoral Commission".").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 16 [Transfer of property etc. of the Boundary Commissions]:
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, if Amendment No. 34 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 35.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 34:
  Page 11, line 41, leave out ("in accordance with section (Boundary Commissions: transfer of functions)") and insert ("by virtue of section 15(1)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
  Clause 17 [Transfer of functions of Local Government Commission for England]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 36 and 37:
  Page 12, line 6, after ("transferring") insert ("(to any extent)").
  Page 12, line 10, at end insert—
  ("(1A) An order under subsection (1) may make provision for—

  (a) transferring (to any extent) any relevant function of the Secretary of State to the Commission;

  (b) terminating (to any extent) any relevant function of the Secretary of State or the English Commission without transferring it to the Commission or the Boundary Committee for England;

  (c) modifying (to any extent) any relevant function of the Secretary of State;

  (d) preventing the Secretary of State from exercising any relevant function (including one so modified) unless he has sought and obtained such advice of the Commission as may be prescribed by the order, or authorising him to seek such advice in connection with the exercise of any such function;

  (e) modifying any relevant or other function transferred by an order under subsection (1) so far as it is to be exercisable by the Commission or the Boundary Committee for England;

  (f) conferring on the Commission functions with respect to electoral areas or other electoral arrangements relating to the Isles of Scilly.

  (1B) In subsection (1A) "relevant function" means (subject to subsection (1C)) a function under—

  (a) any of sections 13 to 15 and 17 of the Local Government Act 1992 (local government changes in England),

  (b) any of sections 13, 14 and 17(4) of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997 (parishes and parish councils) so far as having effect in relation to electoral arrangements within the meaning of Part II of that Act, or

  (c) section 2(4) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 or Schedule 1 to that Act (assembly constituencies).

  (1C) Nothing in subsection (1A) authorises the transfer to the Commission of any power of the Secretary of State under any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1B)(a) to make orders other than those effecting electoral changes within the meaning of Part II of the Local Government Act 1992; but, subject to that, the functions which may be transferred by virtue of subsection (1A) include functions with respect to the making of orders by statutory instrument.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 12, line 29, at end insert—
  ("(6) The Secretary of State may pay to the Commission such amount as he may determine to be appropriate by way of reimbursement for any expenditure incurred by them which is attributable to the provision by them of advice to the Secretary of State in pursuance of an order under subsection (1).").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 18 [Transfer offunctions of Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 42:
  Page 12, line 31, after ("transferring") insert ("(to any extent)").
  Page 12, line 35, at end insert—
  ("(1A) An order under subsection (1) may make provision for—

  (a) transferring (to any extent) any relevant function of the Scottish Ministers to the Commission;

  629

  (b) terminating (to any extent) any relevant function of the Scottish Ministers or the Scottish Commission without transferring it to the Commission or the Boundary Committee for Scotland;

  (c) modifying (to any extent) any relevant function of the Scottish Ministers;

  (d) preventing the Scottish Ministers from exercising any relevant function (including one so modified) unless they have sought and obtained such advice of the Commission as may be prescribed by the order, or authorising them to seek such advice in connection with the exercise of any such function;

  (e) modifying any function transferred by such an order so far as it is to be exercisable by the Commission or the Boundary Committee for Scotland.

  (1B) In subsection (1A) "relevant function" means (subject to subsection (1C)) a function under any of sections 13 to 21 of, and Schedule 5 and paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 6 to, the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
  (1C) Nothing in subsection (1A)(a) authorises the transfer to the Commission of any power of the Scottish Ministers to make orders under any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1B).").
  Page 13, line 20, leave out ("of the functions transferred by") and insert ("functions in consequence of").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 19 [Transfer of functions of Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 43 to 46:
  Page 13, line 23, after ("transferring") insert ("(to any extent)").
  Page 13, line 27, at end insert—
  ("(1A) An order under subsection (1) may make provision for—

  (a) transferring (to any extent) any relevant function of the National Assembly for Wales ("the Assembly") to the Commission:

  (b) terminating (to any extent) any relevant function of the Assembly or the Welsh Commission without transferring it to the Commission or the Boundary Committee for Wales;

  (c) modifying (to any extent) any relevant function of the Assembly;

  (d) preventing the Assembly from exercising any relevant function (including one so modified) unless the Assembly has sought and obtained such advice of the Commission as may be prescribed by the order, or authorising the Assembly to seek such advice in connection with the exercise of any such function;

  (e) modifying any relevant or other function transferred by an order under subsection (1) so far as it is to be exercisable by the Commission or the Boundary Committee for Wales.

  (1B) In subsection (IA) "relevant function" means (subject to subsection (1C)) a function under—

  (a) section 30(3) or (4) or 31(3) of the Local Government Act 1972 (restriction on community applications during and after reviews), or

  (b) any of sections 54 to 60, 69 and 71 of, or paragraph 1A of Schedule 11 to, that Act (local government changes in Wales).

  (1C) Nothing in subsection (1A) authorises the transfer to the Commission of any power of the Assembly under any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1B)(b) to make orders other than those effecting alterations in electoral arrangements within the meaning of Part IV of the Local Government Act 1972; but, subject to that, the functions which may be transferred by virtue of subsection (1A) include functions with respect to the making of orders by statutory instrument.").
  630
  Page 14, line 3, at end insert—
  ("() Nothing in this section shall be read as affecting the generality of subsection (6).").
  Page 14, line 7, leave out ("transferred by") and insert ("in consequence or).
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 47:
  After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—

  COMMISSION TO BE PROHIBITED FROM INSTITUTING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
  (" . The Commission shall not themselves institute criminal proceedings against any person in any court in the United Kingdom.").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 47, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 48. I shall be reasonably brief. They are probing amendments which seek to clarify the position in regard to investigations and prosecutions. I do not think that the position is at all clear a) the moment.
  These issues were raised in Committee. In responding to the points made, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said:
  "So far as concerns the electoral commission, where a party member complains about possible fraud, either in his or in another party, I imagine that the electoral commission will investigate. It may, as may anyone, bring in the police if it feels that it needs to do so. If it does, then in the normal way the question of whether or not a prosecution takes place will, in the last resort, depend on the Director of Public Prosecutions".
  The noble Lord then went on to say that,
  "powers exist under the Bill to prosecute and the electoral commission will be in a position to do so. The position often changes when the police are brought into matters of this kind".— [Official Report, 12/10/00; col. 528.].
  Those are interesting words. We need clarification on two issues. The noble Lord used words such as "I imagine" and "may", which was perfectly reasonable in Committee. However, I hope that he will be able to go further today. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that the police would be involved if the commission felt the need to involve them. Does that mean that the commission could itself investigate criminal offences created by the Bill, such as those of evading restrictions on donations or giving false expenditure reports? Who would prepare a file for the Director of Public Prosecutions? Would it be the commission or would the matter be handed over to the police and it then become the responsibility of the police? Where would the line be drawn?
  Of particular importance, would there be circumstances in which the commission itself would be in a position to prosecute? The Minister's words in Committee gave me that impression and I should like to know whether or not that is the case. What would be the position in regard to prosecutions in Scotland and Northern Ireland? It would be very helpful if the Minister could explain that.
  I assume—I may be wrong—that the commission would not conduct any criminal investigations or prosecutions. It would seem unwise for that to be part

  631
  of its duties. In the light of what the Minister said, I should be grateful if he can confirm the exact situation. I beg to move.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, I am generally grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Viscount for tabling these probing amendments. The position was certainly not clear from my remarks last time. I intervened later to reverse what I had said but the noble Viscount has now given me the opportunity to make the Government's position clear and I shall attempt to do so.
  This group of amendments is concerned with the commission's powers in relation to criminal proceedings and investigations. The general powers of the commission in relation to enforcement of the provisions of the Bill are set out in Part X. Nowhere is it suggested that the commission should have the power to institute criminal proceedings in the same way as, for example, Customs and Excise. The Neill committee made clear its view that prosecutions in respect of breaches of the law relating to controls on donations and election expenses should be placed in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions and should not be the concern of the commission. The noble Lord's amendment accords perfectly with that policy. But we believe that the amendment is unnecessary. If it were the intention that the commission should be able to institute criminal proceedings, it would have been necessary to make explicit provision to that effect. There is no such provision; therefore the commission does not have that power.
  While the Neill committee did not intend that the commission should be a quasi-judicial body, it clearly did intend that it should have powers of investigation. The committee recommended that those powers should extend to investigating suspected breaches of electoral law. Against that background, Amendment No. 48 seems to propose a rather narrow role for the commission.
  The noble Lord's proposition in this probing amendment would appear to be that, if a piece of evidence or an allegation comes to the notice of the commission which gives rise to the merest suspicion that an offence may have been committed, it should immediately be referred to the police. It is quite possible that the commission may attract a good number of allegations which may give rise to mere suspicion. We do not think it sensible to require that the commission should immediately place such suspicions at the door of the police.
  The commission will be expert on the law in this area and it would therefore be entirely appropriate for its staff to undertake a preliminary investigation where it has cause for concern. Once it has established prima facie evidence of a criminal offence, it may—I choose that word carefully—then hand over its findings to the police or the Crown Prosecution Service for further investigation. An alternative course would be for the commission to initiate civil proceedings under Clause 144, in which case a reference to the police or the CPS might be inappropriate.
  632
  In short, the commission will be an enforcement authority but not a prosecuting authority. We should allow it space to undertake its proper enforcement role. I hope that my answer has cleared up some of the misunderstandings that may have developed as a result of our debate in Committee.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question; I hope I shall be forgiven if I am asking it at the wrong moment. Suppose that some strange circumstance arose and an offence was committed that the commission did not want to pass to the police or anyone else. Would it then be open, for example, to Parliament or to the police to pursue the matter? I am not quite clear whether the commission is the be-all and end-all of the decision on whether to take action.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not think that the powers of any other authority or individual are curtailed by the existence of the commission. In other words, other people's rights to investigate and bring charges (to approach the police, at least) remain.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his helpful explanation. It would be wrong for the commission itself to be involved in prosecutions. That would be the wrong role. I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying the position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
  Clause 21 [Parties to be registered in order to field candidates at elections]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 49:
  Page 14, line 17, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (4A).").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 50, 52 and 81, as well as Amendments Nos. 51 and 80 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. Amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 52 respond to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in Committee. At that stage, the noble Lord suggested that what is now Clause 21 of the Bill went over the top in applying the restrictions on candidates' descriptions to elections for parish or community councillors.
  I should remind the House that the purpose of these restrictions is to bring organisations that put forward candidates at an election within the controls on parties' income and expenditure. That said, we fully accept that there is no need for such controls to apply to a minor party—that is, one that operates solely at the level of a parish or community council. It follows, therefore, that the restrictions on candidates' descriptions need not apply at that level. Therefore, the amendments modify Clause 21 accordingly. It would remain open to a minor party to register, on a voluntary basis, under Part II of the Bill in order to ensure "copyright" of the party's name.
  Although we can relax the restrictions on candidates' descriptions at parish and community council elections, the Government cannot support a more general relaxation along the lines proposed by Amendment No. 51. As I have already said, these restrictions underpin the controls on donations and campaign expenditure. It has been no easy task to define a political party for the purposes of this Bill. The approach that we have adopted is to identify a political party by reference to what happens at the polls. The key defining feature of a party is that it puts forward candidates for election under a common banner. We know, for example, that a Conservative candidate in Edinburgh is a member of the same organisation as a Conservative candidate in London, or Cardiff. It is through a candidate's description that we can finger, so to speak, the supporting organisation and thereby apply the financial controls that are an important feature of the Bill.
  We believe that Amendment No. 51 would undermine this whole approach. Under the amendment, it would be open to an organisation to put up candidates across the country but without the need to register as a political party. The noble Lord has tabled a number of other amendments for this Report stage with a view to closing loopholes. Whatever the prospect of the loophole in question being exploited, we feel that the noble Lord is putting forward an amendment that has the potential to create quite a large hole in the scheme of controls, never mind a mere loophole.
  If this amendment were made, we could have "Independent against the Euro" or "Independent for one nation conservatism" candidates standing throughout the country in election after election. The organisations that backed those candidates would, at best, be caught by the provisions in Part VI of the Bill, but outside an election period they would not be subject to the accounting requirements in Part III, nor the controls on donations in Part IV. We do not believe that that is a consequence which is acceptable either to the Government or to the noble Lord. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord not to move his amendment.
  Finally, government Amendment No. 81 to Clause 32 addresses a minor drafting point that arises from changes made to the Bill in Committee. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for having spotted this point, but I hope that he will accept the Government's amendment in preference to his own. Schedule 23 will, in fact, apply to a minor party. Indeed, it is by making the appropriate declaration required by paragraph 2 of Schedule 23 that an existing registered party will be registered under Part II of the Bill as a "minor party". I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not move Amendment No. 80 but that he will support government Amendment No. 81 when we reach that stage. I beg to move.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the point behind this series of amendments is an important one. I shall begin by saying that I am grateful to the Minister and to the Government for bringing forward
  634
  their own amendments relating to candidates for parish and community elections. If we had left the position as it stood in Committee, it would have meant that people who were standing at these lower elections—if I may so describe them—would not have been able to add anything to the word "independent". If they were the independents against filling in the duckpond, or the independents against not filling in the duckpond, they would not be able to say so. That may appear to be a trivial local issue, but I have little doubt that it could be a matter of some heat and contention in various villages. It is important that at local elections people ought to be able to add to the word "independent" up to five other words to describe what they are standing for.
  I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I do not want to sound churlish when I say that I rather regret that the Government did not go a little further. My Amendment No. 51 goes that bit further. It states that a candidate who is an independent and who is standing for an election of any kind and at any level ought to be able to add up to five words to describe what he is standing for. We had a long debate on this matter in Committee and I do not intend to go over that. However, it is fair to point out, as did my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, that the further description would enable voters to identify what an independent stood for.
  I have no problem with candidates standing as independents, even when they occasionally stand in a way that is designed to try to take votes away from my party. It seems to me that one of the fundamental things about democracy is not just that one can vote freely and in secret but that one can also stand and tell the electorate what one is standing for. I do not want to speak at length at this time of night, but I worry about the kind of restrictions that the Bill occasionally imposes, often for well meaning reasons. However, they are there and they could be sorely abused in the future.
  As I said, I have no problem with independents. I have no problem with an independent adding words to describe what he is standing for. As I understand the position, a Labour candidate could add some words to the description on the nomination paper. At a certain period in history it was popular in Scotland for political parties to coin the phrase, "Labour against the poll tax", for example. I am not sure what that added to the Labour Party's candidature, but they thought that it add something. If that is still allowed under the Bill—I think that it is—I cannot see why someone should not be able to coin the phrase, "independent against the council tax", or independent against whatever the person wants to be an independent against.
  I hear what the noble Lord said about people standing in each constituency as independents against one particular thing and not falling foul—if I may put it that way—of the political parties route. But surely the electoral commission and the courts have some role in that. Members of the Conservative Party could all decide to stand as independent Conservatives and not have to obey any of the spending or the donation rules.

  635
  That cannot be a serious proposition. It would not be allowed—not that we should think of doing it for a minute. I am taking the measure to ridiculous extremes. Why, therefore, are the Government so frightened that a crowd of people will get together and say that they are independents for the euro or independents against the euro and thus manage to evade the rules? I find it hard to understand that argument.
  I accept that the Government have tidied up in their Amendment No. 81 what I attempted to tidy up in my Amendment No. 80. That is fine. However, I should like the Government to go a little further and try to address the matter of why an independent standing in an individual constituency with no connection to anyone else but wanting to make a point should not be able to describe what he is standing for? If the only argument put forward is that it is in case those who are anti or pro the euro decide to use that as a loophole, I believe that there are other ways round that rather than depriving an individual of his democratic right to stand and to describe what he stands for as he sees fit, provided that that does not confuse the electorate.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for having put forward an amendment which deals with the point which I raised initially in Committee about the undesirability of forcing small groups which want to put up a slate in a parish council—I refer to my old friends the Ambridge ratepayers—to go through all the rigmarole of registering as a political party in order to be able to do so.
  I am reluctant to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I wonder whether the amendment goes far enough. A candidate can currently stand in parish or community elections in the name of an unregistered party, such as the Ambridge Ratepayers. So why should any group wish to register as a minor party? It was suggested that that might give some copyright protection to the name. The only restriction that I can find in the Bill is that an unregistered party is not entitled to a party political broadcast. I hardly think that the Ambridge Ratepayers are likely to qualify for one anyway. I wonder whether it would not be simpler and better in this over-complicated Bill to go one step further and take out all references to minor parties. We could then get rid of the whole of Clause 32 and parts of many others. However, I am grateful for what the Government have offered. I am merely suggesting further tidying up.
  We support the principle behind the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, but there is a risk of abuse as it is currently worded. The Conservative Party is clearly not going to field candidates under the name "Independent Conservative" in every constituency, but there are other risks. The amendment would have allowed the Referendum Party at the 1997 election to have avoided the restrictions in other parts of the Bill by standing under the title "Independents for the Referendum". Without prejudice to any decision that
  636
  we might wish to take if the noble Lord were able to bring the amendment back in a form that did not lend itself to abuse, we feel unable to support him.
  Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I understand the Government's argument about the need for descriptions to underpin the controls on donations and expenditure. It is right that the provision is to be relaxed for parish and community council elections. However, I am still anxious about the use of the word "independent", for completely different reasons from those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay.
  I understand the argument about political descriptions being used to expound a political position, but what is to prevent an independent from having his occupation as a means of identification? I asked what might have seemed a simple and stupid question in Committee about what would happen if somebody changed his name by deed poll to the name of another candidate. The Minister's answer was that the middle name would count. If I went to the trouble of changing my name by deed poll, I would make sure that I did it properly and took the other person's full name. The only way to identify me in those circumstances would be to have some other words added. It would be useful to look at the possibility of adding an occupational title to the word "independent". That would get round a rather stupid anomaly.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Mackay. We should be extremely grateful to the Government for their concessions. I wonder whether they could listen sympathetically to what my noble friend has said. For instance, if an independent were to stand in North Dorset for Dorset UDI—an increasingly worthy cause because it is Dorset soil, after all—and at the same time another independent were to stand for continued integration with the rest of the United Kingdom, however loopy those two positions might or might not be, if there were an independent willing to do that and another also standing, it would at least be convenient to know which of those two positions we were voting for if we were minded to vote for an independent.
  I associate myself very much with what my noble friend has said. There is an extremely valuable tradition of independents standing for Parliament. I would greatly regret it if it were restricted in any way, particularly as the main political parties are becoming increasingly institutionalised, not least because of many of the provisions of this Bill. With all the powers that we are giving to this commission, would it not be possible to rely on its own judgment as to whether a party was trying to get around the rules by standing as independent but actually organising itself countrywide? I suspect that we would all recognise it when that happened. My noble friend has already given the example of the Referendum Party. I suspect that we all knew there was one financier for that party. It was extremely well organised during the course of the last general election. I am sure that it would have

  637
  fallen foul of any independent judgment made by a neutral and Olympian commission. I wonder whether the Government's proposed amendment, although welcome in its way, does not in fact restrict the admirable tradition of independents standing for Parliament. Can we not look to the commission itself to address the very understandable objection that the Minister has put forward?
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, perhaps I may also add my request to the Minister to have another look at this matter. We had a long discussion about it at Committee stage. I do not wish to rehearse all those arguments again. There is the in-built advantage of major parties; the fact that there is real importance in keeping the roots of local democracy alive for people to be able to believe that they can air a local grievance by standing for Parliament. Such people are perhaps necessarily of modest means and modest experience. They need a descriptive nomenclature as part and parcel of their arrangements.
  When we discussed this at Committee stage I asked the Minister whether or not this matter did not give an in-built advantage to major parties. He was kind enough to say that it did and that that was the price of modern democracy. I would like us to find a way to make sure that that was not the price we had to pay.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, the Government, too, would like to find a way because we also value the independents in an election, whatever stance they take. It is a healthy sign of our democracy. Our problem is exactly as I stated it when I moved my amendment. We have sought ways of trying to prevent parties evading the rules, but we cannot find any. If noble Lords opposite can produce something that avoids destroying the scheme that underpins the Bill, we would be very grateful. It is this provision which prevents, for example, Independents against the Euro-Party from escaping the controls that everyone else has to observe. It is a pity that independents cannot describe themselves, but we believe it is necessary to underpin the Bill's scheme. If I am throwing the matter back to noble Lords, they will understand why I am doing so. It is done more in sorrow than in anger. We do not have a solution to this particular problem and I am not sure that there is one.
  However, I do not believe that that would preclude the commission, once it is up and running, from looking at this matter if it should turn out to be a problem or if in practice it was unfair. I am sure that the commission will be robust in the way that it considers the procedures. We would certainly not be against that. However, we do not believe that we can move on this issue in the context of the Bill.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  10.45 p.m.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 50:
  Page 14, line 40, leave out subsection (3).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 52:
  Page 15, line 11, at end insert—
  ("(4A) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to ally parish or community election.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 23 [Office-holders to be registered]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 53:
  Page 17, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
  ("(4) The person registered as a party's treasurer shall be responsible for compliance on the part of the party—

  (a) with the provisions of Parts III and IV (accounting requirements and control of donations), and

  (b) unless a person is registered as the party's campaigns officer in accordance with section (Parties with campaigns officers), with the provisions of Parts V to VII (campaign expenditure, third party expenditure and referendums) as well.

  (4A) In the case of a party with accounting units the person registered as the party's treasurer shall, in relation to the provisions of Part III, be responsible for compliance on the part of the party's central organisation (rather than of the party).").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 53, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 55, 57, 64, 71, 73 to 79, 278 and 279. This group of amendments relates to the role of a party's registered treasurer. The government amendments respond to points raised in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Mackay and Lord Rennard.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, argued that, in order to undertake the key role of compliance officer, it was not necessary for the person registered as the party's treasurer to have overall responsibility for the financial affairs of the party. Indeed, the noble Lord saw a positive advantage in separating the two roles. I would not go so far as that, but in Committee I indicated that I accepted that, for the purposes of the Bill, it was not essential for the two roles to be combined. Accordingly, Amendments Nos. 53 and 57 redefine the role of both a party's registered treasurer and the treasurer of an accounting unit in terms solely of his or her responsibility for compliance with the provisions of the Bill.
  The other amendments address the long-standing concerns of the Liberal Democrats about the impact of the Bill on their federal party structure. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, indicated that his party's internal structures and lines of accountability could be better accommodated within the framework of the Bill if the person in charge of the party's day-to-day campaigning—namely, himself, as I understand it—instead of the registered treasurer were to be responsible for compliance with the provisions of Parts V to VII of the Bill. As I indicated in Committee, that would add a further complication to the Bill. However, arguably it would be a price worth paying if it helped to resolve the difficulties faced by one of the country's three main political parties.
  The amendments provide that a party may elect to be a party with a campaigns officer. Where a party so elects, the party's registered treasurer will be

  639
  responsible for compliance with the accounting requirements and the controls on donations under Parts III and IV, while the registered campaigns officer will be responsible for compliance with controls on election and referendum expenditure under Parts V to VII.
  The new clause to be inserted by Amendment No. 55 makes further provision for parties with a campaigns officer. I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, to subsection (1)(b) of the new clause. That would enable the person registered as a party's campaigns officer also to be registered as the party's leader or nominating officer, or both. I understand that the noble Lord is the Liberal Democrats' nominating officer and that it is his party's intention that he should also be the party's campaigns officer. That would be in order under the new clause and, therefore, that would be all right for the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.
  The amendments to Clause 28 and to Schedules 4 and 23 provide for the submission to the electoral commission of the details of a party's registered campaigns officer and for those details to be kept up to date. The two amendments to Clause 32 make it clear that the provisions in respect of campaigns officers do not apply to minor parties. I beg to move.
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I have to advise your Lordships that, if Amendment No. 53 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 54.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in so far as some of these amendments relate to issues which I raised, I am grateful to the noble Lord for heeding them. In so far as they allow the Liberal Democratic Party to continue their federal structure, in a manner entirely consistent with my usual stance during this Bill, I welcome them as well.
  Lord Rennard: My Lords, very briefly, I too welcome these amendments, and thank the Minister for having expressed the case for them so eloquently. They look very familiar to me, as indeed they are markedly similar to those which I put forward at Committee stage, with the exception of the change of title from nominating officer to campaigns officer. I think that is a clear improvement and makes it plain that the burden on myself and my day job will increase markedly as a result of this legislation. The amendments allow greater flexibility to all the parties in the running of their affairs. As the noble Lord the Minister said, it is especially important where responsibilities are organised on federal lines rather than in parties where perhaps the London party dictates to other local parties exactly how election campaigns should be run.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, which is: is he on performance-related pay?
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 54 not called.]
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 55:
  After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—

  PARTIES WITH CAMPAIGNS OFFICERS
  (" —(1) In the case of any registered party a person—

  (a) may be registered as the party's campaigns officer, and

  (b) may be so registered whether or not he is also registered as the party's leader or nominating officer (or both).

  (2) The person registered as a party's campaign officer shall be responsible for compliance on the part of the party with the provisions of Parts V to VII.
  (3) So long as a party is registered as a party with a campaigns officer, section 23(5), (7) and (8) shall apply in relation to a person registered as the party's campaigns officer as they apply in relation to a person registered as treasurer of the party, except that in section 23(5) the reference to the appropriate person shall be read as a reference to the person registered as treasurer of the party.
  (4) The person registered as a party's campaigns officer may appoint, on such terms as he may determine, one or more deputy campaigns officers of the party for the purposes of Part V, but not more than 12 persons may hold such appointments at the same time.
  (5) For the purposes of this section—

  (a) the provisions of section 72(2) to (10) shall apply in relation to a party's campaigns officer and the appointment of a person as deputy campaigns officer as they apply in relation to a party's treasurer and the appointment of a person as deputy treasurer, and

  (b) any reference in those provisions to a treasurer or (as the case may be) deputy treasurer shall accordingly be read as a reference to a campaigns officer or (as the case may be) deputy campaigns officer.

  (6) In relation to any time when a party is (or was) registered as a party with a campaigns officer—

  (a) the provisions of Part V (other than section 72) and Parts VI and VII shall apply as if any reference to the treasurer of the party were a reference to the registered campaigns officer, and any reference to a deputytreasurer of the party were a reference to a deputy campaigns officer of the party; and

  (b) the provisions of Part X (enforcement) shall apply in connection with matters relevant for the purposes of Parts V to VII as if any reference to a person who is or has been the treasurer of the party were a reference to a person who is or has been the registered campaigns officer.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 24 [Financial structure of registered party: adoption of scheme]:
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 56:
  Page 18, line 37, leave out ("For the purposes of this section") and insert ("Except for the purposes of Parts V and VII,").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 56. If I was of a suspicious nature I would say that this amendment takes us back to one of the ways in which the Government deliberately and cynically are rigging this Bill to benefit the Labour Party; but of course as I am not of a cynical nature I could not possibly say that.
  My amendment refers to the position of the trade unions which are affiliated to the Labour Party. Clause 24(4) makes it abundantly clear that they are not to be taken as part of the party for the purposes of the Bill. I do not have a problem, nor am I arguing about the trade unions being affiliated to the Labour Party. That is a matter for them and for the Labour Party. Perhaps I might say that by using the phrase "affiliated trade unions" I am referring only to those unions which have signed a political affiliation agreement with the Labour Party and joined themselves to it.
  Those unions make a conscious choice to join with the Labour Party, support its political aims and policies and participate in its internal decision-making process in a variety of ways, including through the National Executive Committee, the National Policy Forum and elections for the party leader. In fact, there are more trade union NEC members than constituency Labour Party, Parliamentary Labour Party and European Parliamentary Labour Party representatives combined.
  I will not go on, or indeed at the risk of seeming to pun unnecessarily, labour the point I want to make, but affiliated trade unions are an integral part of the machine. In Committee the Minister mentioned organisations in respect of which the Conservative Party had applied for exemptions under Clause 24(8)(c). I would just say to the Minister that these organisations are not involved separately in partisan campaigning, and certainly not to the extent of only affiliated trade unions; nor do they spend a lot of money. I understand that UNISON, which I think is an affiliated union, spent something like £1 million on partisan advertising at the last election.
  The Minister drew our attention to the Conservative Party's evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in 1992. That drove me to take another look at it, and I saw there the words of the then General Secretary of the Labour Party, who was giving oral evidence to the Select Committee on 23rd June 1993. He said this:
  "There was obviously agreement between the Labour Party and its affiliated unions as to how we fought that election".
  He was referring to the 1992 General Election. If the Minister thinks I am misquoting, he should perhaps consult the person who said that, namely, Mr Larry Whitty, who is now of course the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, a member of the Government and of your Lordships' House.
  I would also refer your Lordships to the website—just to show how trendy and modern I am—of the Labour Party in the trade union section. Referring to the 1997 election, it said this:
  "The scale of union support before and during the 1997 election was unprecedented and was 100 per cent targeted behind the successful key seat strategy"—
  that was certainly true—
  "The affiliated unions support the drive to make Labour as strong…as possible and continue to pursue many projects, collectively and individually, to this end".
  Undoubtedly the Labour Party and its affiliated trade unions campaign as one. I have no problem with that. However, the Bill makes an exception to that principle.
  642
  It states that any money they spend on political campaigning for the Labour Party will not count towards the Labour Party's spending limits, either in elections or, indeed, in referendums.
  Under the Bill the Labour Party can spend £20 million in the year before an election. It can spend £5 million in a referendum campaign. According to the Labour Party website, there are 23 affiliated trade unions. Each of those could spend £1 million, in the year before an election and £ £½ million in an election campaign. Therefore, they could spend together an additional £23 million in an election campaign and £11.5 million in a referendum. I recognise that those figures may be a little unrealistic in practice. Some unions may not be able to get anywhere near that level. Nevertheless, it is there in theory. Even if they spend 25 per cent of that amount, that would still be a significant addition to what the Bill states should be the capped expenditure on behalf of political parties. The words, "cake and eat it", spring to mind. That is what the Government are trying to do.
  In Committee noble Lords tried to cover their embarrassment by having one or two other arguments up their sleeve. They argued that the exemption was necessary in order to ensure that money given to the Labour Party by the unions is declared in the register of donations held by the electoral commissioner. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, stated:
  "Far from being a device to obscure these financial and political links, the very purpose of subsection 8 is to ensure that such funding and the relationship are transparent". — [Official Report, 10/10/00; col 291.]
  That is not a good argument. Not only does the Labour Party publish the details of the money it receives from the trade unions in its annual accounts; the details of the political funds of trade unions are regulated and made public at any rate. The unions are already required to make annual returns of the financial affairs available for public inspection. That is made clear in paragraph 6.21 of the Neill report. The argument that if the exemption were not made transparency would not otherwise be ensured simply does not stand up. The second argument was that if the unions were included as part of the Labour Party, the party's annual accounts produced under Part III of the Bill would have to include all the affairs of the affiliated trade union.
  I believe that Amendment No. 56 meets both those arguments. I am perfectly prepared to concede them to the Minister. Trade unions would still be separate from the party for the purpose of donating and accounting. They would be considered as part of a political party only when it came to campaign and referendum expenditure limits. No doubt the Minister will have some more arguments made out by this time and no doubt he will reject my amendments. However, I believe he must address the important central point I make. By going about it the way the Bill does, the Labour Party and its affiliated unions will be allowed to exceed the spending limits as they would otherwise apply. Is that fair, not only in terms of elections but in terms of referendums?
  We have discussed not allowing an independent candidate to put two or three names on the ballot paper if he was standing for parliamentary elections because he just might find a loophole. If that is a good enough argument for a poor old independent to find a loophole, here is a loophole a mile wide. If the Government were being honest to themselves and to the political process, they should consider either my way of closing this loophole or come up with their own between now and next week. I beg to move.
  11 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, sought to narrow the responsibilities of the registered treasurer. These amendments now seek to add to those responsibilities. The intention is to make the registered treasurer responsible for any campaign expenditure or referendum expenses incurred by a constituent or affiliated organisation which is not to be treated as part of the party by virtue of Clause 24(8).
  I am somewhat surprised that the noble Lord continues to pursue this point. While he seeks to bring Clause 24(8) organisations back within the registered party for the purposes of Parts V and VII, Central Office is working constructively with officials to include a number of organisations affiliated to the Conservative Party within the Clause 24(8)(c) order. There seems to be some confusion in the noble Lord's party about its policy towards this provision.
  The fact is that Central Office at least accepts that it is nonsensical to treat certain affiliated organisations, which are essentially free-standing, independent bodies in their own right, as part of a party. The Labour Party is not responsible in any way for expenditure by affiliated trade unions; nor is the Conservative Party responsible for expenditure by, for example, the Conservative Christian Fellowship or, for that matter, the Association of Conservative Peers. As such, the registered treasurer of either party cannot be held accountable for those bodies. If those bodies incur election or referendum expenditure, they do so on their own behalf and in their own right. It is they who will need to account for it under Parts VI and VII. It would be quite wrong to place any responsibility on the registered treasurer of the party.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, seems to see mischief in all of that. It is argued that the trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party will be able to incur election expenditure on a grand scale on the party's behalf, thus facilitating expenditure above the £20 million limit. Amendment No. 56 seeks to address that by providing that the exclusion for which Clause 24(8) provides does not apply to Parts V and VI.
  There are two strands to that argument. First, the noble Lord suggests that it is perfectly obvious that, given their links, political expenditure incurred by an affiliated trade union should be regarded as expenditure incurred by the Labour Party. However, it should be pointed out that the Neill committee did not see it that way. The committee noted NALGO's
  644
  campaigns in the early 1990s but adduced the example in support of its argument that controls on third party expenditure were required. That point now goes because it is not affiliated to the Labour Party.
  It did not suggest that those trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party should not be regarded as third parties at all. I do not see how one could come to any other conclusion. The Labour Party cannot compel a trade union to conduct a campaign on its behalf. If a trade union uses its own resources to conduct a political campaign, it is because it believes that such a campaign will be in the interests of its members. Those interests may not always accord with the interests of the Labour Party. I should have thought that some of our disagreements in the past would at least have adduced that point when we sometimes argue between and among friends within the trade union movement. The trade union movement is independent of the Labour Party.
  The noble Lord argues that the Bill offers scope for the subversion of limits on expenditure by political parties. The Labour Party could spend up to its own limit and at the same time conspire with its affiliated trade unions to mount a parallel campaign to promote the election of a Labour government. Not for the first time, the noble Lord sees dangers lurking in every nook and cranny of this Bill. The Conservative Party put forward a number of candidates for inclusion in Clause 24(8)(c), but the noble Lord seemingly does not regard them in the same light as the trade unions, albeit that the same possibilities arise.
  Similarly, how would the noble Lord react if the Conservative Party's corporate donors were to mount a campaign calling for the return of a pro-business government? He would no doubt argue that companies are not affiliated to the Conservative Party, so the same concerns do not arise. But the point is that a trade union has as much right to campaign in its own name and to register as a recognised third party or as a permitted referendum participant as has a company. There must be that equity. The trade unions and the Labour Party are distinct and separate organisations. There is no case for treating them as one for the purposes of Parts V and VII.
  I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, having heard those compelling arguments, will feel more than usually obliged to withdraw his amendments.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, although the argument was not in the least compelling, it certainly was not surprising. If there were equivalent bodies on the Conservative side which would be allowed to spend £1 million each, the noble Lord and his officials would have found a way of ensuring that the capping which the Bill imposes on political parties could not be breached by the use of the bodies affiliated to the political party and well able to spend lots of money.
  I hear his suggestion that the Conservative Party should find friends who will do the same thing. I wonder whether he would be happy to allow those

  645
  "friends" to drive a coach and horses through the capping expenditure, which is what he wants his friends to be able to do as proposed in the Bill.
  It is unbelievable that the Minister should try to persuade me that the trade unions are somehow separate from the Labour Party. I read out 33 NEC members, 12 of them nominated by the trade unions. I read out what was said by his noble friend Lord Whitty. It is the least convincing argument.
  He could put forward many other arguments. He could say that it would be difficult and bureaucratic—which would not surprise me, given the rest of the Bill—or he could simply say, "We do not believe that this should be done. The trade unions have a right to campaign for who they like and if they are campaigning for us, good and well". I say simply that if they were campaigning for the Liberal Democrats or for the Conservative Party, I would wager that he
  646
  would take a different view. But it is too late to put that bet to any kind of test and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Insolvency Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons on Friday 17 November agreed to with amendments; the Commons amendments printed pursuant to Standing Order 50.
House adjourned at eight minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Treasury Counsel
  Treasury Counsel
  Queen's University Freshers' Fair: OTC Stand
  Queen's University Freshers' Fair: OTC Stand
  Waste Incineration Emissions
  Waste Incineration Emissions
  M.25 Junctions: Traffic Lights
  M.25 Junctions: Traffic Lights
  Litter: Fixed Penalties and Convictions
  Litter: Fixed Penalties and Convictions
  Car Design: Pedestrian Protection
  Car Design: Pedestrian Protection
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Public Debt Repayment and Annuity Rates
  Public Debt Repayment and Annuity Rates
  Mental Health Act 1983: Responses to White Paper
  Mental Health Act 1983: Responses to White Paper
  Prostate Cancer and PC-SPES
  Prostate Cancer and PC-SPES
  Department of Health: Legal Advisers
  Department of Health: Legal Advisers
  Home Office and Lord Chancellor's, Department: Staff Numbers
  Home Office and Lord Chancellor's, Department: Staff Numbers
  Electronically Monitored Curfew Orders for 10 to 15 Year-olds
  Electronically Monitored Curfew Orders for 10 to 15 Year-olds
  Immigration Detainees: Internal Reviews
  Immigration Detainees: Internal Reviews
  Third Way Policy
  Third Way Policy
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Electronic Communications Act 2000, Section 8
  Electronic Communications Act 2000, Section 8
  Millennium Dome: Future Plans
  Millennium Dome: Future Plans
  Zanzibar: Free Elections
  Zanzibar: Free Elections
  Millennium Volunteers
  Millennium Volunteers
  EU Rural Development Initiative
  EU Rural Development Initiative
  E-Commerce: Customer Protection Directive
  E-Commerce: Customer Protection Directive
  Internet Fraud Prevention
  Internet Fraud Prevention
  Autism and MMR Vaccination
  Autism and MMR Vaccination
  Mirror Group Newspapers plc Investigation: Payments to Inspectors
  Mirror Group Newspapers plc Investigation: Payments to Inspectors
  Coal Industry Pension Scheme Surpluses
  Coal Industry Pension Scheme Surpluses