Sitting of 27 November 2000

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

    Bosnia and Kosovo
    Siobhain McDonagh: What recent discussions he has had with his European and NATO counterparts on Bosnia and Kosovo. [138571]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence take every opportunity to discuss issues relating to the Balkans, including Bosnia and Kosovo, with our European and NATO counterparts. The informal NATO Defence Ministers' meeting held in Birmingham in October this year covered these issues, as will the NATO Defence Ministers' meeting in Brussels next week. In addition, my right hon. Friend has recently met his French and German counterparts, and the Balkans region was discussed.
    Siobhain McDonagh: Does my hon. Friend agree that, with the onset of winter, it is particularly important to ensure that our forces in Bosnia and Kosovo are adequately housed? If so, will he inform me of what the Government are doing about this matter?
    Mr. Spellar: It is a question not just of what we are doing, but of what we have done. Although the temporary improved tented accommodation was by no means as bad as it was depicted, we certainly needed to make improvements. The new field accommodation is excellent, it is bedding in well and it has been well received. Arguably, it is among the best in the region.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: Can the Minister confirm that, in his discussions with NATO and European Union allies, he has continued to receive advice at the highest level on Kosovo and Bosnia from Sir Charles Guthrie, the Chief of the Defence Staff? Has not Sir Charles always offered high level, independent advice to successive Governments, not just as Chief of the Defence Staff, but when he was leader of the SAS? Are not the recent attacks on him by the Conservative press a thinly veiled political attack?
    Mr. Spellar: I can only find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I notice that the
    616
    hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) is laughing, but he was in the forefront of previous attacks on the Chief of Defence Staff during the Kosovo crisis. The politicisation of attacks on senior members of the military is disgraceful, but I firmly believe that they relate to the underlying problem that the "born to rule" lot on the Opposition Benches cannot accept a different Government. They will attack any public servant who does his job properly by working for the democratically elected Government.
    Mr. Fabian Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that KFOR will do all that it can to protect the interests of minority ethnic groups in Kosovo? That is the key to achieving a long-term settlement.
    Mr. Spellar: Not only can I assure my hon. Friend of that, but I have seen it in action when I have been to Pristina. It is enormously important to maintain the peace, and that is why urgent talks are taking place on the situation in the Presovo valley.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Can the Minister explain, for the benefit of the whole House, Her Majesty's Government attitude to the latest developments in the Presovo valley, particularly in light of Belgrade's demands that the Komanovo agreement be renegotiated? Over the weekend, three Serb policemen were murdered and President Kostunica has sent armoured troops into the area nearby. He wants the villages taken by the Albanians to be returned and he has made two demands, not least that armed Serb police be moved into the buffer zone.
    Will the Minister say for the benefit of the whole House and the nation whether, if President Kostunica gets his way, the Government fear that British troops will be put at risk by Albanians who are disgruntled that NATO is perhaps siding with the Serbs? Alternatively, if President Kostunica does not get his way, does the Minister think that that might result in his position in Serbia proper being destabilised?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his balanced question. It is a difficult issue and we went in to maintain a multi-ethnic Kosovo. We and the other nations involved in KFOR are concerned by any moves that could be destabilising. That is precisely why discussions have taken place between KFOR and the representatives of the Yugoslav Government, and I understand that a leading representative will go to Belgrade for further talks. I can also report to the House that arrangements are being made for the handover of the bodies of the three Serb policemen who were killed in the recent engagement, so there have also obviously been discussions with representatives of the Albanian side to try to stabilise the position.
    That is all that I can say today about an uncertain situation. I would argue that it is returning to normality, but that does not mean, by any means, that we are through the problems yet. Further talks are required, but I pay tribute to the leadership of KFOR, which is handling the matter extremely well on behalf of both communities in the area.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: My hon. Friend referred to the importance of stability in Kosovo.

    617
    Does he agree that any move by the new United States Administration to take precipitate action to withdraw their forces from Kosovo and Bosnia could only be destabilising, and could lead to an upsurge of violence and renewed conflict throughout the region?
    Mr. Spellar: We have had no indication from either representative who could form the new Administration that he is proposing precipitate action in Kosovo or the Balkans more widely.

    EU Defence Initiatives
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What plans he has to meet the German Defence Minister to discuss EU defence initiatives. [138572]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I met the German Defence Minister on 20 and 21 November at the capabilities commitments conference in Brussels, and I shall meet him again at the North Atlantic Council Defence Ministers' meeting on 5 and 6 December, at which the European defence initiative will undoubtedly be discussed.
    Mr. Swayne: The declaration from the conference on 20 November refers to a force catalogue which specifies the detailed commitments of member states. Will the Secretary of State place a copy of that in the Library?
    Mr. Hoon: As I have already told the House, the representation by United Kingdom forces in the force catalogue can be made available. The amount and nature of the offering from other member states are a matter for them.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that our decision to participate in the European defence initiative has been widely welcomed by Labour Members? In light of the robust support that it has received from Madeleine Albright and other spokesmen for the American defence department, can he assure the House that our participation in the joint strike fighter programme with the Americans, of which we are funding £200 million of the development phase, will be unaffected by our role in the European initiative?
    Mr. Hoon: We have also had a good deal of support from the Opposition—the former Deputy Prime Minister, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the former Foreign Secretary and the former Conservative party chairman—together with all the leaders of NATO who see improvements in the European defence capability as being good for Europe and good for NATO. As for the JSF, although no decisions have been taken, I can assure my hon. Friend that the proposal is being carefully considered.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: When the Secretary of State meets the German Defence Minister, will he tell him by how much the Government intend to increase the number of people in the British Army, at present 106,000, to meet the new obligations that will be incurred by membership of the European rapid reaction force?
    Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who usually speaks knowledgeably on such matters, has not read the observations that the hon. Member for Salisbury
    618
    (Mr. Key) made on the radio on Sunday, in which he made it clear that the European rapid reaction force is not a standing force. There is no additional requirement. We only have one set of British forces and we will be able to use them once at the behest of a British Prime Minister.
    As I listened to the hon. Member for Salisbury on Sunday morning, I heard the distinct sounds of a U-turn, perhaps provoked, from his point of view—or at least that of the Conservative party—by an unhelpful poll in the Mail on Sunday which showed that the great majority of the British public welcome Britain's participation in improving European defence capability.
    Mr. David Borrow: May I tell my right hon. Friend how important European co-operation in defence is to my constituents who are employed on the production of the Eurofighter? They are greatly concerned that if the Conservative party were to return to government, many of their jobs would be at risk as a result of the party's opposition to European co-operation. Will my right hon. Friend assure me and my constituents that a Labour Government will never put those jobs at risk?
    Mr. Hoon: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. That matter shows how much the Conservative party has changed. It used consistently to support European co-operation through the Eurofighter project, but now questions whether it is a useful additional capability for the British armed forces—and certainly questions consistent involvement with our European partners in almost any aspect of defence co-operation. That must be a matter of grave concern to those people in the Conservative party who support co-operation in Europe.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Has the Secretary of State made any assessment of whether it is more likely that United States troops will be withdrawn from Bosnia as a result of the creation of the European rapid reaction force? If they were withdrawn, is he satisfied that the new European rapid reaction force could fill, fully and effectively, the role of the United States forces in that region?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman really should know that there is absolutely no connection between the two subjects that he thrusts together in that way. The American Administration, from the President down, has consistently supported the development of European defence co-operation, recognising that that co-operation is good both for Europe and for NATO.

    Flooding (Armed Forces)
    Ms Sally Keeble: If he will make a statement on the deployment of the armed forces to assist the public during the recent floods. [138573]
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If he will make a statement on the deployment of the armed forces to assist the public during the recent floods. [138578]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Members of the armed forces from more than 60 different military units provided help for flood victims in numerous locations across 15 counties during the period 30 October to 14 November. In addition, personnel from

    619
    Territorial Army units also participated. I congratulate them on their achievements in saving life and protecting property.
    The Ministry of Defence is also helping in the recovery phase. Some 200 MOD houses have been made available to those evacuated owing to flooding, and around 50 of these have already been taken up. The armed forces and the MOD remain ready to serve the community and to respond to emergencies of all kinds, at all times.
    Ms Keeble: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I draw particular attention to the work of the Territorial Army which, in my constituency, played a prominent role in saving lives during the floods a couple of years back. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the experience of the TA and other forces will be properly pulled together and recorded, so that they can learn the lessons of how to protect people during floods and make sure that their excellent work continues? Will he pay particular tribute to the Territorial Army, which does an outstanding job, especially in such circumstances?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her observations, particularly about the Territorial Army, although its members and Regular Army units would have been the first to pay tribute to the role of all the emergency services in responding to the crisis all over the country. There is no danger of the experience or expertise being lost, simply because the organisation of the Army, particularly in respect of emergency assistance, parallels precisely the arrangement of the emergency services. When there is a crisis requiring help from the armed forces, the decision to assist is taken at local level, working with the experience acquired on previous occasions.
    Mr. Bennett: I echo the sentiments and expressions of appreciation of all the hard work put in by service personnel. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the view of the Environment Agency that the help was crucial in the protection of places such as York? Can he confirm that if, sadly, the weather goes on being bad for the rest of the winter, enough sandbags and sand to fill them will be available?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I went to York during the crisis and saw for myself the work that the armed forces were doing—together, incidentally, with some tremendous work being conducted by the Environment Agency. That was a great example of all the emergency services and Government, at both national and local level, working extremely effectively together. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance, if not about the specific number of sandbags, at least that the armed forces stand ready to assist should they be required again.
    Mr. Christopher Fraser: Does the Secretary of State accept that the invaluable contribution of the TA in the recent floods underlines the mistake that he made by massively slashing 18,000 TA officers?
    Mr. Hoon: On the contrary: the fact that the TA was operating so successfully across many parts of the country demonstrates the wisdom of the decisions that we took.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Secretary of State join me in paying particular tribute to the Royal Engineers based at Rippon and to the Environment Agency, particularly for the work that it did at Rawcliffe, where, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) implied, there were no sandbags available and no pumping? Does the Secretary of State accept that as a result not just of the cuts in the TA but of the overstretch brought about by the additional commitments of the regular forces, the severe weather forecasts for the Christmas and new year period are putting extreme pressure and intolerable demands on our armed forces?
    Mr. Hoon: It was—[interruption]—an example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) indicates sotto voce, of the rapid reaction capability of the British armed forces. I had the opportunity and privilege of visiting both Selby and Chilwell during the crisis. A member of the armed forces said—it is significant in this context—that he was pleased to assist local communities in the United Kingdom. He added that it was the first time in his military career that he had helped in the United Kingdom.

    RAF Portreath
    Ms Candy Atherton: What progress has been made by the land survey at RAF Portreath. [138574]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Earlier this year we engaged a specialist contractor, with significant experience in dealing with contaminated sites, to undertake further land quality assessment at RAF Portreath. This followed on from the phase 1 land quality assessment undertaken at the site by the RAF. The work is proceeding well, and sample results taken to date do not indicate any contamination by chemical weapons or their breakdown products. We have found small amounts of chemicals associated with general industrial activity.
    Ms Atherton: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the survey will include the mine shafts and dumps at RAF Portreath? Does he agree that it is outrageous that previous Governments failed to conduct safety surveys?
    Dr. Moonie: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she has undertaken on behalf of her constituents in pursuing this matter. This is the beginning and not the end of the investigations that we are undertaking at RAF Portreath. It is our intention carefully to examine the final results from this phase of the study when they are presented to us in the new year. We shall take further action as necessary.
    Mr. John Bercow: Is the hon. Gentleman anticipating compensation claims from employees who claim that their health has suffered in consequence?
    Dr. Moonie: I have no record of any such claims.

    Armed Forces (Education and Training)
    Fiona Mactaggart: If he will make a statement on developments in education and training for the armed forces. [138575]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): As has been well demonstrated by the recent deployments to Sierra Leone and in the Balkans, the training of our armed forces is of a very high standard. To maintain that standard and ensure that our training and education arrangements for the armed forces and Ministry of Defence civilians continue to meet defence needs in the 21st century, my noble Friend Lord Robertson, when Secretary of State for Defence, announced a wide-ranging and fundamental review of education and training in the Department. This review is due to complete next spring, when I will make a further statement to the House.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Can my hon. Friend assure me that the review will make a high priority of ensuring that service personnel obtain qualifications that they can use in their future careers when they leave the armed forces, so that they can participate fully in civilian life, which in the past people leaving the armed forces have often had difficulty in doing?
    Mr. Spellar: Yes; there is no doubt that the level of training that we provide for our service men and women is superb, as demonstrated by the number of employers who are often actively trying to poach many of our trained personnel. There has been a difficulty when qualifications do not necessarily match civilian qualifications, and are less portable in civilian society, which these days is far more certificate based. We are working with the relevant agencies to ensure that the training that our people undertake in specific skills and more general areas are properly recognised with qualifications that they can carry. That is good for the armed forces and very good, as my hon. Friend has said, when service men and women re-enter the civilian employment market, when they are able to capitalise on the training and experience that they have gained.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the Minister explain what the effect has been on the throughput of trained pilots into the Royal Air Force of the grounding of the Tucano aircraft? What are the technical problems; when will they be solved; what will the additional cost to the defence budget of rectifying the problems be; where are they being sent; and is this part of the problem with the shortfall of RAF fast jet pilots? Is the problem a lack of training facilities or is it something much more fundamental?
    Mr. Spellar: There has been a failure of a part, and we are working with the aircraft's manufacturers to rectify the problem as soon as possible. That introduces a training gap, so those who are in training will undertake part of their training in Australia. We have already reached an agreement with the Royal Australian Air Force to cover that, so we hope to be able to maintain training. However, the hon. Gentleman identifies, rightly, the difficulties facing all air forces throughout the world: there is a shortfall of pilots, especially because of the extremely
    622
    buoyant civilian air transport industry. We are working on several measures to alleviate the problem, some of which have been implemented, with others to follow shortly.
    Ms Sandra Osborne: My hon. Friend will be aware that the search and rescue function of HMS Gannet in my constituency is under review and might be removed. Is he aware that the site has the potential to provide an excellent education and training centre; and will he consider that as an alternative use?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We are considering suitable alternative defence uses for the site and, as usual, discussing with appropriate local authorities alternative uses in the event that defence has to vacate the site. We recognise the contribution that the Prestwick area has made to defence and, as always, we want to assist the area as much as possible in dealing with the inevitable and unfortunate consequences that arise whenever we reduce a capability. However, I take my hon. Friend's point and will draw it to the attention of the defence training review.
    Mr. Robert Key: Will the Government, on behalf of the whole nation, give their wholehearted support to the Royal British Legion campaign to construct an education centre on the site of the battle of the Somme, where 420,000 patriotic British soldiers laid down their lives? Is the Minister aware that the French department of the Somme and the European Union have each promised £300,000, but that the British Government, reluctantly, have promised only £30,000?
    Mr. Spellar: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we hold regular discussions with the Royal British Legion on a number of issues. I am not aware that the issue he raises has been discussed by Ministers and the Royal British Legion, but I shall certainly check. We shall look into the matter and we thank him for raising it.

    European Missile Defence
    Mr. David Atkinson: What recent discussions he has had with his Russian counterpart on European missile defence. [138576]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I have had no recent discussions with my Russian counterpart on European missile defence, but we regularly discuss ballistic missile defence during other consultations with the Russian Federation, and there has in recent months been discussion between NATO and Russia on the scope for co-operation on theatre missile defence and related issues. We want that dialogue to continue.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does the Minister recall the offer that President Putin made to President Clinton last June for Russia to help to put in place a missile defence system for Europe? Did the Prime Minister discuss that offer with President Putin during his meetings with him in Moscow last week? Can he tell the House the nature and the source of the threat to Europe that could have motivated President Putin to make the offer in the first place?
    Mr. Hoon: It is right to say that Russia has presented, at least in outline, a number of proposals on co-operation

    623
    on ballistic missile defence involving Russia and NATO; it is however fair to say that the Russians have not yet set out any specific details of those proposals. When they do—we have encouraged them to do so—we and our NATO allies will consider them carefully, as the House would expect.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new United States Administration—whoever eventually wins—should take full account of both Russian and European concerns before taking any decision on national missile defence, and that they should pay heed to the report by our own Select Committee on Foreign Affairs?
    Mr. Hoon: That is the position that the present US Administration have taken. We believe that it is an extremely responsible position; indeed, we have encouraged it.
    Mr. Hoon: That is the position that the present US Administration have taken. We believe that it is an extremely responsible position; indeed, we have encouraged it.

    Cadets
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: What steps he plans to take to encourage participation in the cadet forces. [138579]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The cadet organisations are primarily responsible for their own recruitment, but the Ministry of Defence provides practical support and funding. Between April 1999 and April 2000, the total number of cadets rose by more than 3,600, to 131,954. We hope to see a continuation of that very encouraging trend over the coming years, so that more young people can benefit from the personal development opportunities offered by cadet organisations. If the hon. Gentleman is not already aware of the fact, I am happy to inform him that the Army cadet force in his constituency is the largest in Sussex.
    Mr. Waterson: I am grateful for that answer. People in Eastbourne and elsewhere take real pride in the obvious enthusiasm and commitment of the young people in the cadet forces, who go on to provide 35 per cent. Of serving officers in our armed forces. That being the case, why are the Government putting some cadet forces at risk by cutting back Territorial Army facilities?
    Dr. Moonie: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, far from putting facilities at risk, we have guaranteed that whenever a TA hall is closed, funding will be provided to give cadets proper accommodation.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: The cadet forces are warmly welcomed in Rotherham. I reached the highest rank of my life as company sergeant-major in my school's combined cadet force. That taught me quick thinking under pressure, the value of partnership and the need to accept discipline—which are all attributes of the parliamentary Labour party. Would my hon. Friend consider creating a special combined cadet force for the rabble on the Opposition Benches so that they can learn to march in step, speak in unison and stop accepting orders from extraneous people such as the editors of the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph?
    Dr. Moonie: I am not sure how to answer that, other than to point out that if my hon. Friend's record is as good as he seemed to suggest, we may well need him in future.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Landlocked Bedfordshire is not normally associated with the Royal Navy. Nevertheless, there is a sea cadet corps unit in Flitwick, which is well supported by young people. For many years, that unit has requested affiliation to one of Her Majesty's warships. Will the Minister expedite that?
    Dr. Moonie: I should be very happy to follow up what sounds like a very good idea.

    Sierra Leone
    Mr. Phil Woolas: If he will make a statement on the deployment of British armed forces in Sierra Leone. [138580]
    Mr. David Heath: What the current deployment of forces is in Sierra Leone, including Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships in the immediate vicinity. [138586]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): British armed forces are deployed in Sierra Leone in accordance with the Government's policy to help build a lasting peace in that country. That policy was set out by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons on 6 June. At present, there are about 600 service personnel deployed in Sierra Leone, including the crew of RFA Sir Percivale. That is higher than usual, owing to the handover that is currently under way from the joint taskforce headquarters to 1 Mechanised Brigade headquarters, which is taking over the role of providing the operational HQ. Once that handover is complete, the numbers in theatre will be over 400, depending on the type of training that is being conducted.
    Mr. Woolas: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he assure me that, contrary to the political sniping from the Opposition, the recent landings involving the Royal Marines, HMS Ocean and HMS Fearless show that, as a result of the reforms, our forces are more deployable and capable than they were before? Will my hon. Friend further assure me that, despite the success of the training that is being given to the Government forces in Sierra Leone, there are no plans to withdraw United Kingdom forces?
    Mr. Spellar: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the landing conducted by the amphibious group. It demonstrated once again the superb professionalism of our forces and, as he said, their deployability and flexibility. As my hon. Friend knows, we have been undertaking a considerable amount of training of the forces of the Government of Sierra Leone. However, there is still further work to be done, not only with troops, but with personnel at officer level. We will continue our work so that those forces can ensure peace and stability in their country.
    Mr. Heath: Given that there was a clear justification for protecting British citizens in Sierra Leone and for providing support to its democratically elected

    625
    Government—I acknowledge also that the recent show of strength by the amphibious ready group was justified and demonstrated its excellent capabilities—does the Secretary of State agree that it is impossible to justify an open-ended agreement that would effectively provide a garrison to Freetown or any expeditionary activities in the wider sense in Sierra Leone? Is not that a job for the United Nations and for a properly constituted international force? What agreements has the Secretary of State secured with other countries to provide such a force?
    Mr. Spellar: We are working with the United Nations to persuade other countries to make a significant contribution, and that work is starting to come to fruition. I would not say that our action was merely a show of strength. It was also a genuine exercise to demonstrate the deployability of our forces, not only in the situation in question, but in any comparable one. I do not want to give a defined time limit, not least because we do not want to provide an indication of termination to opposing people or forces who might take it the wrong way and be encouraged.
    As I said, we are trying to ensure that the forces of the Government of Sierra Leone—the Sierra Leone army—are increasingly better trained, better equipped, better able to move forward, and thus able to secure their own country and establish peace and stability there. We are playing our part and United Nations mandated forces, with which we are working, are playing their part. That is enormously welcomed by the people of Sierra Leone and is appreciated in the wider world.
    Dr. George Turner: Will my hon. Friend say a little more about the tangible benefits of the training and explain whether the capability to deal with rebels is being significantly changed? Furthermore, does the training programme have a defined schedule and time scale to which we are working?
    Mr. John Bercow: "Schedule" is an American word.
    Mr. Spellar: It is interesting that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is now becoming anti-American as well as anti-European. That is an historical throwback—now it is foreigners whom the Conservatives do not like.
    In response to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner), we have a programme and we are also working with other agencies on the disarmament and reconstruction programme, to ensure that those who have been involved in rebel bands can be reintegrated into society—another important aspect of our activities. We have been enormously encouraged by the progress made by troops in the Sierra Leone army. As I said, we are now working on the structure of command and control in those forces and providing assistance in that respect. We are not working to an exact or predetermined time scale, but we are satisfied that we are making considerable progress with which the Sierra Leone forces are also very pleased.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: The Secretary of State cannot be allowed to get away with blatantly inventing citations of Conservative policy. The Conservative party is utterly committed to the Eurofighter
    626
    programme, which we launched. We are also looking forward to taking delivery of the first aircraft on forming the next Administration.
    On Sierra Leone, there have been stunning examples of military professionalism and courage since our forces were deployed there. There is no question of that. However, our forces and the public are surely entitled to what they have not received from the Government during their involvement for the past several months: a clear authoritative statement about our interests in Sierra Leone; about the criteria on which we decided to become involved there and not in any other nasty civil war elsewhere in Africa; about whether the Government have any clear idea about the maximum resources that we might utilise to restore peace; or about a deadline. Do they have any idea even in their own mind, or is their involvement simply an open-ended, undisciplined commitment?
    Mr. Spellar: Opposition Defence Front Benchers—let alone other Conservatives Members—know all about ill discipline, as we have observed over recent days.
    Imposing a deadline or timetable on any operation would be the best encouragement to the Revolutionary United Front and others to hold out until such time as the deadline was reached. That would not help us to achieve the objectives that I am sure we all share.
    On our reasons for intervening in Sierra Leone in the first place, there was a real risk of Freetown falling and of murder, massacre and mayhem taking place in the area. The British public understand very well, having seen on their televisions the appalling acts that were perpetrated on civilians during the war in Sierra Leone, exactly why we intervened—to try to bring peace and stability and the chance of a better life to those people. That is the right action; it is endorsed by the international community and I hope that it will be more generally supported.
    On the previous aside of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), it is interesting that the Conservative party has come late in the day to the defence of Eurofighter. Perhaps it has decided that Lord Tebbit is dispensable and that his slurs on Eurofighter have to be taken on. Opposition Back Benchers and Front Benchers still refuse to commit themselves to the A400M, which will give us a considerable heavy lift capability and which is important for the European—and British—aerospace industry.

    Nuclear Threat
    Mr. Graham Brady: What his assessment is of the threat to the UK from nuclear weapons. [138581]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We assess that there is no significant threat to the United Kingdom from nuclear weapons at present, but we continue to monitor developments very closely.
    Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his response. Does he accept that within five years the Iranian regime may have the capacity to produce nuclear

    627
    weapons? Does not that make it essential for the British Government to give full support to America's steps towards ballistic missile defence?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman needs to distinguish carefully between a threat to the United States, which is the current concern of national missile defence, and a threat to the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, we continue to monitor threats from around the world as they might affect the United Kingdom and our allies.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend knows of my interest in RAF Fylingdales, which is adjacent to my constituency. The people of Scarborough, Whitby and the north York moors are very interested in who will form the future American Administration. If a President Bush is appointed, many people in my constituency will be concerned about the likely effect on my part of the world, which may become a defence target. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had about the future of RAF Fylingdales in that respect?
    Mr. Hoon: The Americans have decided, for the moment at any rate, not to take national missile defence forward, and will not therefore be making any requests of the United Kingdom in relation to Fylingdales or any other facility that might be available until they reach a decision.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: The next United States Administration is likely to take ballistic missile defence forward at an early stage. If they do so, will they have the involvement and support of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Hoon: When and if a new Administration is appointed in the United States, and when and if they reach that conclusion, we might well consider it.

    European Defence
    Mr. Syd Rapson: If he will make a statement on recent progress towards the headline goal on European Defence. [138582]
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What recent discussions he has had on the European security and defence policy project with (a) the EU's Foreign Affairs Commissioner and (b) French Ministers. [138584]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): As I have already made clear today, I attended the capability commitments conference on 20 and 21 November in Brussels, where European partners—both in the European Union and outside it—identified the type and level of forces that they might be able to make available to Petersberg operations. Those constitute not a standing European army but a pool of potentially available national forces. The UK contribution to the headline goal was announced to the House on 20 November.
    628
    I last met Javier Solana and the French Defence Minister at the conference.
    Mr. Rapson: Following the success of the conference, what other countries outside the European Union but in Europe have volunteered forces and facilities for the purpose of the Petersberg tasks?
    Mr. Hoon: At the conference there was a meeting not just among the 15 EU member states but among the 15 applicants for membership, all of which expressed willingness to participate in an appropriate way—according to their national capabilities—and all of which strongly supported the idea of developing a European capability. That contrasts with what I described to the House on 20 November as the complete isolation of the Conservative party, which appears in this context to be opposed not only to every European nation, but to the United States Administration.
    Mr. Robathan: I am sure that every Conservative Member applauds greater co-operation with our European allies in defence, and would applaud any greater commitment on their behalf to increasing their defence spending. But will the Secretary of State tell us his assessment of the motivation behind the enthusiasm of the French for the project, especially given that they left the NATO military structure in 1968 and show no inclination to return to it? Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us his assessment of Turkey's reaction, given that throughout the cold war it was a vital European ally on the southern flank of NATO? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what financial commitment any of our European allies have made to extra defence spending specifically for this project, in terms of training, headquarters planning or, indeed, C3I—command, control, communications and intelligence.
    Mr. Hoon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not seriously inviting me to assess French motivation. I find it difficult enough to understand the psychological obsessions of Conservative Members when it comes to questions affecting Europe.
    Turkey attended the meeting that I mentioned, and offered its own contribution to satisfying the headline goal. Indeed, it did so in terms that indicated its enthusiasm about participating in an improvement in European military capability. [Interruption.]
    As for finance, if the hon. Gentleman—instead of shouting from a sedentary position—gave a moment's thought to what is being attempted in terms of improving European capabilities, he would realise that satisfying the headline goal will require some countries to contribute extra expenditure. That is precisely the purpose of establishing the goal and trying to work towards it.
    Mr. Casale: Is not recent progress in European defence a result not only of Britain's leadership in Europe but of the qualitative shift in the relationship between Britain and individual European nation states?
    Do not the idea of a rapid reaction force in general, and the idea of a headline goal in particular, have their origin in British-Italian diplomatic initiatives, some of which go back to the time of the Maastricht treaty, when Lord Hurd was Foreign Secretary? The last Government, however,

    629
    lacked the support of other European nation states for the bringing to fruition of such initiatives, whereas this Government are demonstrating that they can deliver what is best for Britain through constructive engagement with Europe.
    Mr. Hoon: I have certainly been puzzled in recent days by the attitude of certain elements of the Conservative party—what I might call their "ground zero" attitude to any event that took place before May 1997.
    The Conservatives have a track record, and as far as European defence co-operation is concerned it is quite a good one. I find it astonishing that the present incumbents of the Conservative Front Bench, and large sections of the present Conservative party, seem to want to deny any involvement in effective European co-operation in the past. Fortunately, however—as I said earlier—the Conservatives' former Deputy Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Foreign Secretary, Lord Hurd, as well as their former party chairman, all have rather better memories than their present Front-Bench team.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I absolutely agree that we need greater European capability and greater European co-operation. I agree with Lord Healey and Lord Owen; but I also agree with Lord Hurd, who stated clearly in 1993:
    A common foreign and security policy does not transform the European Union into a defence organisation.—[Official Report, 30 March 1993; Vol.222, c. 179.]
    Before the Secretary of State starts going on about Maastricht, perhaps he will bear in mind what was said when the legislation went through—although he, it must be said, voted against it.
    Last week, did not we yet again have the Prime Minister being a little economical with the truth? When he decided to say why he voted against these very proposals in 1997, he said that they
    would have meant that NATO and European defence ran alongside one other.—[Official Report, 22 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 301.]
    That was his fear, but is not the reality the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to exactly that? There is not one single link between NATO and the European Union force. General Ralston, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said the other day that he would play no direct part in the European endeavour, and that all he had was the prospect of linking NATO and the European Union together, so that is the reality. Will the Secretary of State answer this simple question: is the proposal not exactly the same as that refused in 1997 by the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Hoon: We have made it clear in the negotiations, in which we have been closely involved, that there will be a close link between the European Union rapid reaction capability and NATO planning processes. Indeed, much of the work on describing the scenarios that are part of the headline goal was done in NATO planning units. That will continue. We have made it absolutely clear that we anticipate the use of NATO planning processes in order to achieve deployment of any rapid reaction force, in a situation where, formerly, NATO itself was not engaged.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, it is all very well agreeing with all manner of people who appear to be putting forward contradictory views. The real
    630
    question for him is whether he agrees with Baroness Thatcher, who is clearly leading the Conservative party on the issue.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Here we go again. The Secretary of State does not bother to answer the question. All Ministers do is try to claim that our position will end co-operation and production on EFA—European fighter aircraft—and so on. Soon they will be talking about its being the end of televisions in Europe and of bath tubs. They never deal with the key point, which is: what is the initiative for? The reality is, as he knows, that the French said clearly in 1999, "You would never get a right of first refusal for NATO." If we do not get that right of first refusal, we will have NATO and the EU in due course disagreeing about which will operate. Is not that the point? There is no military capability enhancement. It is far from being a European rapid reaction force. It is not even European. It certainly is not rapid. But it is reactionary, anti-US and anti-NATO.
    Mr. Hoon: Perhaps it might help if I said it a little more slowly. I shall try to explain it in such a way that the Defence Secretary can understand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah"]—so that the shadow Defence Secretary can understand it—[Interruption.] I already understand it. Let me make it clear. NATO fully supports the European Union's work on European defence. It absolutely unequivocally supports what is happening, as do the current Secretary-General of NATO, the United States President and the United States Defence Secretary. They have all said categorically that it is good for both European defence and NATO. Is the shadow Defence Secretary saying that they have all got it wrong—each and every one of them—and only he knows the truth? If that is his position, no one will believe it.
    Mr. David Winnick: If the position gets even worse, and in order to maintain the peace, about which we are all concerned, has any discussion taken place at European level about using the rapid reaction force to stop rival Tory factions from tearing each other apart over Europe? Is that a possibility?
    Mr. Hoon: The Petersberg tasks include humanitarian relief, so that might be appropriate.

    Western European Union
    Mr. Stephen Day: If he will make a statement on the merging of the WEU's functions with the EU. [138583]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Western European Union is not merging with the European Union. As announced at the WEU Council of Ministers in Marseille on 13 November, the WEU is being wound down and it is planned that some of its functions will be transferred into the developing EU defence structures. Those functions will include the WEU Institute for Security Studies, the WEU satellite centre and the WEU multinational advisory police element in Albania. A residual WEU body will be maintained to

    631
    service commitments under the modified Brussels treaty and to administer other remaining functions, pending decisions about their future.
    Mr. Day: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I see that he has lost none of the Government's Orwellian talents in using language. The fact is that only one organisation will come out of what is effectively a merger of the Western European Union and the European Union. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to explain why, in 1997, the Government made it clear that such a merger—or, if he prefers, a joining together—of the two organisations would be a threat to NATO, whereas now the Government say that the same action will strengthen NATO. Which is right?
    Mr. Hoon: I feel that I should apologise to the hon. Gentleman for answering the original question before he asked his supplementary one—which, unfortunately, has already been dealt with. The reality is that the two bodies are not merging; significant parts of the WEU will still be in existence. His question has already been answered.

    Defence Medical Services
    Laura Moffatt: If he will make a statement on recruitment into the defence medical services. [138587]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence(Dr. Lewis Moonie): Recruitment into training is generally satisfactory. We have increased our targets for medical cadets and trainee nurses, and I am happy to say that we have attracted a good response. Recruiting fully or partially trained personnel, particularly doctors and nurses, is more difficult, and we are currently working on measures to improve that.
    Laura Moffatt: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that the Department could work very closely with the NHS in dealing with the difficulty in recruiting trained people to the defence medical services? As the NHS knows a little bit about the difficulties of recruitment, are there discussions with it on how to ensure that the armed forces get the very best personnel that they deserve?
    Dr. Moonie: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. A number of liaison groups and committees are discussing a range of matters of common interest, such as personnel issues, operational planning and the application to the defence medical services of developments in civilian medical practice. Additionally, a joint steering group has been established by the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health, with the Scottish Executive and the Wales Office also represented. Its work includes matters such as future manpower planning and the recruiting of reserve medical personnel. Moreover, I work very closely with my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health on what I consider to be a very important issue.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Minister confirm that, at a time of extreme manpower shortages, more than 5,000 personnel are medically unfit? Will he also confirm that, this year, the defence medical services
    632
    took a hit in so-called efficiency savings in its budget, and that the number of people on that unfit list is still increasing?
    Dr. Moonie: I have been concerned for some time about the number of personnel who are medically downgraded. That is why the defence medical services has recently introduced schemes in certain hospitals to hasten people through surgical treatment. It is also why, when I recently visited Redford barracks, in Scotland, I was very pleased to see a very strong system for providing orthopaedic and physiotherapy support, which provides quite a dramatic means of shortening the time in which personnel are downgraded.

    Armed Forces (European Exchanges)
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on the programme of exchanges between British armed forces and those of other EU states. [138588]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): British armed forces carry out wide-ranging exchanges with the armed forces of other European Union states, as they do with other, non-European Union states. The exchanges are designed to be of mutual benefit to both parties.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Given the Secretary of State's overwhelming enthusiasm for the European rapid reaction force, can he give us any good reason why the force catalogue is not to be published, so that we could see precisely what the other European nations are committing to the force?
    Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman had stuck to his question and asked about bilateral exchanges, I would have been able to tell him that, even in the context of improving European capabilities, it is important that forces work together, regardless of whether those forces are in the European Union or in other European nations. When the forces are deployed together into crises, it helps that they have had previous experience of training and conducting exercises together and of developing the type of mutual understanding that is necessary. That is precisely why it is such a good thing that we have developed the headline goal and improvements in European capability.

    Service Accommodation
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: If he will make a statement on accommodation for (a) single and (b) married members of the British armed forces. [138589]
    Ms Hazel Blears: If he will make a statement on accommodation for (a) single and (b) married members of the British armed forces. [138594]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The Defence Housing Executive, which manages and allocates service housing for armed forces personnel and their families, is continuing with its modernisation programme of service families accommodation in Great Britain and is on target

    633
    to complete 3,000 upgrades to standard 1 at a projected cost this financial year of about £68 million. The DHE aims to bring most of its core housing stock—that which is needed in the longer term—up to the standard required over the next five years. We have a firm projects programme and contract strategy in place to ensure that this programme can be achieved.
    A review of single living accommodation has been completed recently and steps are being taken to improve the standard of such accommodation across all areas of the Department.
    Mr. Prosser: Does my hon. Friend accept that the effectiveness of the armed forces is linked closely to
    634
    morale, which is linked closely to standards of accommodation and conditions, and that there are areas in which accommodation falls way below the standards that we should have in the armed forces? The five-year plan is ambitious and encouraging. Will he do all that he can to accelerate it and put things right as soon as possible?
    Dr. Moonie: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have recently seen accommodation in some barracks in which I was ashamed to think of our armed forces personnel being housed. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I are engaged in constructive discussions with officials to accelerate the programme of upgrading.

Climate Change Negotiations
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): As the House will know, the outcome of the climate change talks in The Hague last week was a real disappointment for all concerned—[Interruption.] It was indeed a disappointment, but at the end of the conference all parties remained committed to reaching agreement when they meet again in May next year.
If nothing else, the negotiations have highlighted the pressing need to take action to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It was clear that all countries are experiencing climate change problems, that the situation is getting worse and that a global solution is needed. The House will recall that the Rio convention said that developed countries should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000.
At Kyoto in 1997, we agreed legally binding targets for developed countries to take us up to 2012. Most notably, the European Union agreed a target of an 8 per cent. cut in 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions; the United States agreed 7 per cent.; and Japan agreed 6 per cent.
Nations signed up to the Kyoto agreement under conditions that involved mechanisms for implementation, including the clean development mechanism, joint implementation between developed countries, emissions trading and the use of carbon sinks such as forests. Those were contentious issues, and after Kyoto groups were set up to decide how the proposals could be implemented.
The Hague conference was about how the mechanisms would work. The talks started on Monday 13 November. On the evening of Thursday 24 November, the president of the conference, Jan Pronk of the Netherlands, tabled proposals for compromise solutions to the most contentious problems facing the conference, but they failed to gain agreement.
Between 2 am and 3 am on Saturday morning, we consulted the president of the European Union delegation, and indeed the president of the conference. They were extremely pessimistic about the pace of negotiations. I agreed with the European Union president, the French Environment Minister, Dominique Voynet, that we would urgently explore a possible compromise with the United States and its allies in the umbrella group. The key issue concerned carbon sinks such as forests, which absorb and store carbon, and how far they could be used in developed countries and elsewhere under the clean development mechanism.
I must make it clear that both the sinks and the clean development mechanism were part of the Kyoto protocol, not loopholes first raised in The Hague. It was always understood that they would form part of the 5.2 per cent. overall cut in emissions to which developed countries agreed. Early on Saturday morning, I met Ministers from France, Germany and the United States to draw up compromise proposals to solve the main issues of contention between the European Union and the umbrella group. I then agreed these with a core group of 10 Ministers representing the European Union and the umbrella group.
The agreement, if accepted, would have been passed on to the president of the conference, to feed into his final proposals for consideration by the G77 and other countries.
636
The agreement would have prevented developed countries from gaining credits from the clean development mechanism for planting forests in developing countries. This was felt by many countries, particularly the green groups, to be a huge loophole. The agreement would have placed a ceiling on the use of forest sinks by the United States, Japan and Canada—a ceiling which Europe had been asking for—and strengthened the scientific requirements applied to the domestic sinks.
Overall, compared with the president of the conference's original proposal, we estimate that that would have saved around 150 million tonnes of carbon a year. However, European Union Ministers failed to endorse the proposals. Many felt that a deal was very close and welcomed the initiative, especially the exclusion of sinks from the CDM, but expressed uncertainty about the overall impact on the emission reduction targets agreed at Kyoto. They believed that further negotiations were necessary and that that should be communicated to the conference president. However, the president took the view that there was not enough time to present a new compromise package.
The failure of these talks is not the end of the story. We have a meeting of the European Union Environment Ministers in December.
Let me make one thing clear to the House: I have worked and negotiated with Dominique Voynet for three years now. Her commitment to securing an agreement is as passionate as mine. We will both work together to ensure that the agreement is reached. Let me also make it clear that my experience in negotiations in these areas leads me to believe that working together with other European countries can provide a stronger negotiating position in achieving those ends. [Interruption.] That is precisely how the Kyoto agreement was achieved.
I also want to emphasise that the climate change conference did not end formally on Saturday. It will be reconvened in May.
The outcome of The Hague is disappointing. We all did our best, and we came very close to agreement. I still hope that we can secure sufficient agreement in May to secure ratification by the European Union and others by 2002. We should remember that we are not just looking to the first 10 years but to setting up a framework that will hold for 50 and 100 years. That is what really matters to this and future generations.
Mr. Archie Norman: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement on a setback that will be regarded on both sides of the House with great regret. The Deputy Prime Minister has had our support in his efforts to bring about progress on climate change. The groundwork for the Hague talks were laid not just at Kyoto but by the previous Government, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). The Deputy Prime Minister has pursued the matter with determination and has made progress on climate change the hallmark of his green credentials. We applaud him for that.
The right hon. Gentleman set high expectation for the Hague talks. He said, in the vernacular of the professional footballer, that he was "gutted" by the breakdown. This was a unique opportunity, but the talks have broken up amid disarray and recriminations. The world will pay a price for the breakdown. Yet the omens seemed so promising.

637
Does the Deputy Prime Minister now believe, with hindsight, that the breakdown was inevitable or was it a failure of diplomacy? If it was inevitable, why did the Minister for the Environment say on the "Today" programme on Saturday morning, only a few hours before the collapse, that the compromise they tabled was "a very important achievement"? Yet, only three hours later, the Deputy Prime Minister found himself completely outvoted by our European partners. How does he explain this misreading of our negotiating position?
Does the Deputy Prime Minister now regret that more time was not spent laying the groundwork and understanding the subtleties of the European position? He started the week posing for photo calls on the Dutch flood defences and ended it claiming victory on the "Today" programme at the most delicate stages of negotiation. Is not the real truth that he has been more concerned with the media and with exploiting the talks for party political reasons than with the hard grind of negotiation? He wanted all the credit for success; does he now accept part of the credit for the failure? Does he feel that he had sufficient support from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary?
President Chirac played a direct role at The Hague, but where was the Prime Minister? What part did he play? What has happened to his much-vaunted claim to be at the heart of Europe? Where is his influence now? Was there any contact at all between Downing street and the French Prime Minister during the course of the week? Was there a single telephone discussion between the Prime Minister and the White House, or does his renowned disdain for all matters environmental mean that he did not want to be involved, and that the Deputy Prime Minister was hung out to dry? [Interruption.] No, that is not all.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister now regret the recrimination that followed the breakdown of the talks? Was not that the moment for statesmanship, for understatement and for understanding of our partners' point of view? The French Minister held the presidency, and whatever the right hon. Gentleman may feel about her personally, it was not helpful of him to storm out with such petulance, and to dismiss French anxieties as "cold feet". The French Minister, for her part, said that the right hon. Gentleman had lost his nerve and his cool, and described him as "an inveterate macho man". Does not that breakdown of personal relationships suggest that, in trying to salvage his own reputation, he has not only burnt his bridges but set back the prospects for any future settlement?
Is not this breakdown the last nail in the coffin of the right hon. Gentleman's stewardship of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, following the collapse of the transport system, under-investment in the roads, the flop of the urban White Paper a week ago, the row about National Air Traffic Services, and the stalemate over the tube? Is it not the final indignity that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—the man whom the right hon. Gentleman held up to the world as a crab in a jar—is now briefing that he wants the right hon. Gentleman's job? Was not the Evening Standard right to
638
describe the Deputy Prime Minister as "Blair's greatest embarrassment"? Was not yesterday's collapse the final collapse in credibility of a failed Deputy Prime Minister?
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman often fails to speak to the issue, but it particularly annoys me to hear him talk about the collapse of the transport system, given that he was a director of Railtrack—an organisation that even his own party has disowned as unable to do anything for the railway industry.
I shall return to the issue under discussion. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support and the regret that he rightly expressed over the breakdown of the talks. I also acknowledge that the previous Administration were involved in the early stages—in the Rio conference—and in the early stages leading to the Kyoto conference. Despite their involvement, they did not hold the same position that we do, nor did they necessarily endorse the agreement that we reached at Kyoto. However, I am grateful that they were involved in the process. I inherited their programme and developed it.
On climate change, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that more than 160 nations were involved in the negotiations at The Hague. It is very difficult to get agreement between 160 nations. It was difficult to get agreement at Kyoto, where only 40 nations were involved, but we managed to do so. Nevertheless, our great problem was that there was no further time for negotiation.
In the early stages of the negotiations when my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment was involved with me, with European Ministers and Ministers from the umbrella group, we reached the agreement that I mentioned to the House. My right hon. Friend then went to the programme, hoping that the agreement that we had all reached would be taken to the president. However, the European Ministers decided—[Interruption.] They did not hold a vote on the issue—they did not reject the proposal; they said that there was not enough information. They assumed that the agreement would be taken to the president to put into his final document—[Interruption.]
I can only give hon. Members the facts as they were: there was no vote on the matter; there was no rejection by Euro Ministers—they did not have enough information to endorse the agreement. The agreement was then to be sent to the president, who would discuss it with the Group of 77. That was the negotiation process that had been agreed. We put those negotiations to the president so that they could be put before the whole conference. That is what we were involved in doing.
There were great difficulties—certainly passions were involved—but when I left the negotiations, they had well finished. We had reported back to the group. Other Ministers had left. My plane home was at 2 o'clock. I left that building after other Ministers had left and after the president had made clear that there would be no further negotiations. In fact, I had not been home for three weekends, so I admit to the weakness of wanting to go home that night. I leave the House to make a judgment about that.
As to the accusation that I am a macho man—moi? The remark leaves me most gutted. I did what I thought was best. We came close to an agreement, but time ran out for us. The conference president has now remitted the conference to its next meeting in May. I shall work hard with my French colleagues and with European Ministers

639
to reach a final agreement. This country and the rest of the world expect us to do something about climate change and we are committed to doing that.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for all the hard work that he and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment put in to the negotiations. I share his frustration that an agreement was not reached; I hope that he can go back and get that agreement. Does he agree that most people in Britain, and many in British industry, cannot understand why the United States is unable to make the sort of contribution that a civilised country should make to this problem?
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks, but I must correct him on one point. Those of us who negotiated at Kyoto know that the concepts involved—clean development mechanism, emissions trading and some forest sinks—were part of the agreement and were put forward by the Americans. If they had not been, we should not have been negotiating at The Hague. To be fair to the Americans, the concepts about which we had reservations, but which the Group of 77 have very much come to accept, were part of the final agreement.
There may be disagreements with the Americans about their proposals; after all, they negotiate according to their interests—and why not? That is precisely what European nations should do, too. However, the process of negotiation is to try to set limits on what is agreed, and that is what is difficult. The Americans played their part in the negotiations just as much as anyone else.
Mr. Don Foster: May I join the Deputy Prime Minister in expressing genuine regret at the failure of the Hague talks? What lessons on climate change can he take from the Conservative party, which recently announced its intention to scrap the climate change levy? Will he confirm—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the business of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Foster: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that at lunch-time he held a meeting with representatives of a large number of non-governmental organisations; that he was specifically asked whether the deal that he had negotiated would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the US; and that he was unable to give a straight answer? Given the confusion that clearly exists on this issue, can he understand why other countries were not prepared to sign up to the deal that he put on the table? Is it not the case that—at least on this occasion—no deal is better than a bad deal?
Mr. Prescott: It is for all of us to make judgments on whether no deal is better than a bad deal. I personally think that it was a good deal. Had we been able to get the package together, we would have reduced carbon emissions, which was the proposal; we would have tightened it up so that the countries would not have exploited the planting of forests in developing countries, which was a major concern; and we would have had an overall reduction in carbon gas emissions in 2010.
640
The hon. Gentleman refers to the meeting that I held with the green groups. I told them that, yes, there was a reduction and I gave the amounts.
Mr. Foster: What are the figures?
Mr. Prescott: I shall give them now for the record, and the hon. Gentleman can write them down and then tell the green groups. It was clear that the Americans proposed that forest sinks would equate to 300 million carbon tonnes. That figure went down to 125 million tonnes during the negotiations. I negotiated it down further to 75 million tonnes, and I believe that that was still not the end of the road, but time was short and the document had to be taken up to the conference itself so all the parties to the negotiations could endorse or reject it. It is not true that I did not give the amounts earlier, and they are now on record. On that basis, it can be seen that there was good faith in the negotiations. We got a reduction and, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his knowledge of such issues, planting forests in developing countries under the clean development mechanism was seen as a major loophole. I was the first to get it removed from the deal with the Americans.
Joan Ruddock: May I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on the role that he has played? May I tell him how important many of us regard the removing of forest sinks from the clean development mechanism and, indeed, the capping of the contribution that such sinks could make in the United States? Will he do his utmost to ensure that both the outline agreements are kept on the table in all future talks, while continuing his pressure on the United States to make real cuts in domestic emissions?
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for her words of support. As I have said, I am pleased that we stopped the development of forest sinks under the clean development mechanism. That major, fundamental change was very much welcomed by the European Ministers when I proposed it to them. On the capping of the United States, it is true that the amounts that we were talking about required not only a ceiling, but greater scientific assessment so that we could judge, over time, whether the science worked and whether it was being abused. The Americans agreed to that at that stage.
On whether the same documents will be put on the table, I must be fair, as one of those in the negotiations, and say that when Ministers get to that stage they have to cut a political deal. At the end of the day, that is what it is all about. Politicians have to use their judgment because all the evidence might not be as clear as they would want. A deal has to be made, and no party to it would want to start the negotiations again if they had already given everything that they thought they could at that stage.
I regret that it is most likely that the negotiators will go back to their original positions. We have already been told that the document used by the president is likely to be used. Given that the settlement that I negotiated, with others, was far better than the president's, we will start off in a worse position, but I hope that we shall reach the better one than I proposed.
Mr. John Gummer: I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister would agree,

641
especially after today's announcement, that it would have been better if he had not made the personal comments that appear to have been made, given that he has to negotiate further with those people? Does he agree that there is considerable doubt about the effect of the agreement that he wanted? His recent answer did not dispel that doubt, so will he answer a simple question? By how much would the United States domestic emissions have been reduced under the agreement that he hoped he would get, and how does that compare with the domestic reductions of the European Union?
Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman was greatly involved in leading the negotiations in the early stages. I think that I must be the first Minister to include an opposite number on the delegation; I recognise the role that he has played. He will know that it is difficult to get precise information when it is based on such variables. Indeed, that was my real problem with the European Ministers, who asked exactly what the reduction would be. Let me give an example. If the opportunity to include forest sinks in the clean development mechanism for developing countries no longer exists, a judgment has to be made about how much they save. Some say that it is as much as 35 per cent. of the effort required, but what is that as a proportion of the American or, indeed, global contribution? It was very difficult to make a precise definition in the two hours that we were negotiating—I readily admit that. We talked the matter over with the Ministers, but, at the end of the day, we have to obtain a reduction in emissions and make sure that it is a reduction and not a plus. All the figures show that an agreement would have led to a clear reduction in Europe as well as in America. It would have been a greater reduction in America, because it is the greatest emitter.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend has been talking to representatives of a Democratic American Administration and we are likely to have a Republican one in January. Can he assure us that he will develop close relations with the people with whom he might have to sit at a future conference to re-address the same issues?
Mr. Prescott: I must admit that that was one of my considerations, although people will understand that I do not wish to pass comment on who should be the next President of the United States. The political climate can change in six months as it can in six years. It is an important consideration for anyone in negotiations and it certainly was in my mind. We had an opportunity, because Ministers from America and other countries were prepared to come to an agreement. As we have seen from past negotiations, Ministers, Governments and policies change, and we have one opportunity to reach an agreement. I thought that this was the opportunity, but I will not give up looking for another one. However, it is a pity that we did not take this one.
Mr. John Redwood: I believe that the US and the UK position has to be different from that of the French and that we need to move the French to reach an agreement, so will the Deputy Prime Minister take advantage of this opportunity to apologise to his opposite
642
number in France? I do not think that personal abuse helps to achieve agreement. Does he agree that, if he apologised now, we might get the agreement that he wants?
Mr. Prescott: As the right hon. Gentleman has a reputation in the House for apologising for nothing and for being highly personal in most of his comments, his question is a bit of a cheek. Let me make the position absolutely clear. It was not simply the French who opposed the deal. European Ministers agreed by about 2:1 that they did not have sufficient information to endorse the agreement. However, all that was required was to send the agreement to the president to put it to the conference of delegates who were negotiating. I put together an agreement between two important parties—the umbrella nations and the European nations. An agreement was reached by 10 Ministers from Europe and the umbrella countries but, when it was properly and democratically presented to Ministers from the European Union, those Ministers took the view that, although they endorsed the initiative and particularly the clean development mechanism proposal, they did not have enough information to judge whether it was a good or bad deal. They wanted more negotiations and the deal to be sent to the president.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Was the European Union supposed to be negotiating as a single bloc at the conference? If so, was that done under the specific provisions of the treaty or was it merely an informal ad hoc arrangement?
Mr. Prescott: My right hon. Friend knows that the Commission has certain responsibilities in international negotiations and often negotiates on behalf of the Community. We were at this conference as European Ministers deciding common policy in negotiations. As he knows, even if we come to a common European position, as we did for the target of 8.5 per cent., Europe then decides the variation of targets between the nations known as the "bubble" and Britain's contribution was 12.5 per cent. We all signed individually to the protocol; it was not signed simply by the Commission, which signs in its own right.
Mr. Michael Howard: As someone who helped to broker agreement between the European Union and the United States in the run-up to the Rio summit—which started the whole process—may I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on the efforts that he made last week? However, does he think that the anti-American tirade in which President Chirac engaged early in the week was helpful? Does he not think, on reflection, that the French were probably always determined to do what they could to subvert any compromise so as to enable them to pillory the United States and put it in the stocks?
Mr. Prescott: I am not sure that that is entirely right, although when President Chirac made the valid point in his opening statement that, taking account of population, the amount of gas emissions in America is far greater than that of France, it was interpreted as a criticism. He also said that there should be a levy—a kind of tax—on the mechanisms so that they can be accepted by the third world. Although that was proposed by the president of the

643
Council of Ministers, it was opposed by many European countries at the conference which interpreted it as an anti-American, and therefore difficult, proposition because the Americans had made it clear—as we did—that they would not accept such a deal. The conference president included that and other measures, including our proposal, in his document, but it is important to get on with making a deal and negotiating to produce the agreement that is necessary to improve our climate by implementing the changes advocated in the protocol.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: In joining others who have congratulated my right hon. Friend on his role in searching for a deal, can I urge him to reconsider the matter so that next time the deal sticks? Does he believe that public opinion in the United States—which is, as he said, the overwhelming emitter of carbon gases in the world—is being led by the political leadership in a way that allows it to realise the enormous tasks that American society faces if we are to achieve such changes?
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. We have to return to all the parties involved. It has been suggested that perhaps we could negotiate without including the Americans, but people who believe that America, as the greatest emitter of gases, should not be part of the negotiations are kidding themselves about a successful conclusion. We must bear it in mind that, although the overall cut in emissions worldwide under the Kyoto agreement was estimated to be about 5.5 per cent., all the environmentalists tell us that it needs to be nearer 60 per cent. to achieve any real effect. Although this is only one small step, it is an important step in the right direction with the machinery that can bring about far better changes.
As for public opinion, I have no doubt that it is changing in every country, including those that I have visited, such as India, China or the United States. People, including Americans, are connecting the climates in their countries with climate change problems. The oil companies, the car industry and others formed a coalition against the changes proposed at the Kyoto conference three years ago, and I am especially pleased that those interests have changed their minds completely and are working to bring about the technological changes that are necessary to improve the environment. We will hear the same arguments, hopefully with the same people, and, hopefully, with a better result.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Although in parts of the United States the opposition to such issues is diabolical, is there not a whiff of hypocrisy from the French Minister, whose Government allow French hauliers to enjoy the advantage of diesel at 62p a litre compared with 87p a litre here? What chance is there of getting a sensible compromise and a level playing field on such issues within Europe when the French Government seem to take a mutually contradictory posture?
Mr. Prescott: To be fair to the French Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Why not? To be fair, European Union nations reach a common decision on most agreements. We have agreed in the climate change protocol that the world target should be reduced by 5.5 per cent., of which Europe would contribute 8 per cent., but nations will have different objectives—I think
644
that Germany's is 21 per cent. and ours is 12.5 per cent. Each European nation must have a set of proposals to achieve those objectives, some of which are to do with fuel prices and other matters with which this country is involved. There may be different priorities, and we will have to live with those, but achieving the overall objective is the most important consideration.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Those of our constituents whose homes are threatened by rising sea levels will want to know the answer to a simple question: where next? In particular, how do we make the green politicians on the continent accept the practical realities of the situation in which they have to negotiate, and how do we get the United States to start moving forward in lieu of an agreement?
Mr. Prescott: It is important to get movement. Three years ago in Kyoto, the European nations wanted a target of a 15 per cent. decrease in gases, whereas we eventually settled for an average of 8 per cent. The European nations agreed a set of policies and a set of targets to achieve the objectives. The fact that a compromise was reached, with the European nations moving from 15 to 8 per cent, and the Americans moving from 0 to 8 per cent, and that compromises took place at The Hague on the part of the Europeans, the Group of 77, the Americans and the umbrella group, fills me with enough confidence to believe that an agreement will eventually be achieved. The overall feeling at the conference was in favour of an agreement. We came close, but unfortunately we did not achieve one.
Miss Anne McIntosh: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall ask the question in English, for the benefit of the Deputy Prime Minister. What was the extent of the mandate that the Deputy Prime Minister was given to negotiate on behalf of the European Union delegation with the American delegation? Bearing in mind that he wishes to be regarded as a sensitive, charming soul, did he really mean to offend the French Minister by referring to her lack of understanding of the complex issues involved? Was it a lack of time or a lack of charm on his part? What damage does he think has been done to the entente cordiale in the run-up to the Nice summit?
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Lady's question would have sounded better in French. What we should keep to the fore of our minds is the importance of getting an agreement, whatever the passions, feelings and expressions of the Ministers involved.
May I make a correction? I did not say that the lady was tired; she herself constantly said that she was too tired at the time to take in all the complexities. That is not condemnable, as the negotiations were extremely complex. That must be taken into account. I quoted her words; I did not pass the judgment. I was trying to explain why we did not come to an agreement when she sat with the European Ministers, took part in the negotiations with me, and then went into the main meeting and said that she was too tired to think through all the complexities. To be fair, it was the same for most Ministers who had

645
been involved in negotiations for 36 hours. I did not intend any comment about her tiredness; it was her comment.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at many such summits, someone trots out a long declaration of all the wonderful things that have been achieved, and when one deciphers it, one finds that the summit has probably been a failure? When my right hon. Friend came out of those discussions and said, "I'm gutted", that said everything. It was like a breath of fresh air. In the heartlands in Britain, my right hon. Friend's statement was enough for people. They knew what had happened. One of the things that sticks in my craw is the fact that those Tories, who have jumped on every bandwagon that they can find, have now jumped on a French bus round the Paris périphérique.
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend sums up the position very well.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Did the Deputy Prime Minister have a chance to read the comments of the Danish representative at the conference, who suggested that the right hon. Gentleman's description of the French arose from the fact that he was under strain? Will he assure the House that that was not the case, and that it was all part of a careful and subtle piece of diplomacy to sweet talk the French round? Does he understand that, in talking the French and our other European partners round, the most important thing is for him to be able to answer the basic question: after his compromise deal, will the United States' level of emissions be greater or less? If they will be less, by how much?
Mr. Prescott: I shall deal first with the remarks of my Danish colleague, if that is what he said. There is a great danger in commenting on press reports which wrongly attribute remarks to me. The same may have happened in his case, so I shall not enter into that game of exchanges. He was in the negotiations with me, sat in the committee, heard what the final agreement was, chaired a committee that dealt with the clean development mechanisms with the Group of 77 and the Americans, and entirely failed to get what I achieved—getting the Americans to drop the clean development mechanism. [Interruption.] I have been asked about individuals who were involved in the negotiations. My Danish colleague then congratulated me on achieving that. It might be thought that I was under strain, but we must keep our eyes on the main ball. Our intention was to remove sinks from the clean development mechanism—that was the main ball. I achieved that. That alone was a major change in the negotiations. We were able to deny developed countries access to planting forest sinks, which meant that the deal was reduced, the American proportions being cut back. The tonnages were reduced from 300 million tonnes to 125 million, down to 75 million. That made a considerable difference.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend resist the new Conservative policy to sweet talk the French, and instead turn his attention to the Americans and bring home to the new American President
646
the deep concern throughout the world that the Americans cannot continue to consume a quarter of the world's oil supply every year when they have less than 4 per cent. of the world's population?
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the factual point that he makes about America. I have had many discussions with Vice-President Gore during the past three years, and I have no doubt that he understands the point. He has used it in the elections when talking about the environment. It perhaps is more difficult to make the point in America, given public opinion, than it is here. Nevertheless, there is awareness of it. Vice-President Gore has been an active campaigner for global environmental changes.
Dr. Vincent Cable: As the Deputy Prime Minister has attributed the breakdown of the negotiations to one issue, can we assume that the other big issues, which were matters of difference, such as compensation for oil-producing companies and the demand of the large intensive energy developing countries such as China for financial assistance, have been resolved?
Mr. Prescott: I am sorry if I misled the hon. Gentleman into believing that the negotiations broke down on one issue. It was, however, a major issue between European countries and umbrella countries that could be settled only by ourselves. That is why I sought to intervene as I did. Many contentious issues were being dealt with. As for the specific issues to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, there was talk of compensation being paid to the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. There was not a great deal of sympathy for the idea that we should raise money and give it to the oil companies. That was a matter of contention for the oil companies, which were quite strong in the negotiating group, the Group of 77.
There was the prospect of a major agreement of a billion-dollar fund that would be available to help developing countries, which they welcomed. It would have come from various sources of funding. There had been agreement between the three major parties to the negotiations. I am sad that the fund has not been put into effect because we did not reach an agreement. We will keep on trying.
Mr. David Chaytor: May I ask about another issue that was originally in dispute between the United States and the European Union, and that is the role of nuclear energy in the clean development mechanism? The issue has not been reported over the weekend. Can my right hon. Friend say something about what agreement, if any, was reached about the role of nuclear energy and the CDM?
Mr. Prescott: That is an important point, and a controversial one in the European group of Ministers. The issue is that, with any aid that is given to developing countries under the CDM, we should not be supporting any nuclear projects. There are those who say that even the huge dams that are being created should not be included. There was great disagreement about that within the European group. More importantly, the Group of 77 took the view—I am sympathetic to the view—that it was not prepared to

647
have developed countries tell developing countries how they should deal with their industrialisation. I think that I referred to that approach as a new form of economic colonialism. There was a controversial debate within the European group. However, the Group of 77 would not agree that developed countries should dictate to developing countries. I have some sympathy for that. The discussion added nothing to the process of agreement, but because the European group was talking about the issue, that added to the problems of time, delay and eventual failure.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on to the next statement.

Local Government Finance
4.14 pm
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about local authority revenue finance for England for 2001–02.
The Government are committed to improving public services, because they make a real difference to peoples' lives. That commitment underlies the proposals that I shall outline for the finance settlement. Taken together with best value and modernised leadership, it will give local government the means to provide effective, efficient services that best meet people's needs.
We know that that presents a challenging agenda for local government. Councils are having to address a backlog of past under-investment, they are modernising decision-making processes, and they need to engage in partnership with a range of local stakeholders and deliver best value across the whole range of their responsibilities. To deliver that agenda, they require adequate financial support from the Government. They also require a reasonable degree of certainty about future funding, so that they can plan ahead with confidence. Erratic and unpredictable funding leads to the stop-go approach that has bedevilled public sector investment and service provision in the past. Today, I shall address those two issues: adequacy of funding and stability of funding.
The Government are delivering a stable economic environment and can therefore provide the resources needed for strong public services. Total support from Government grant and business rates will be £44.4 billion next year—an increase of £2.8 billion or 6.7 per cent., which is three times the underlying rate of inflation. Of that total, £8.3 billion will be specific and special grants available to councils; those will be the subject of separate announcements. My primary concern today is the £36.1 billion of general Government support, made up of £21 billion of revenue support grant and the £15.1 billion of business rates that the Government will redistribute to local authorities next year. That will be 4.4 per cent. more than in 2000–01.
The 4.4 per cent. increase in general grant is a national average figure. It must be allocated between authorities. The current method of allocating grant uses the standard spending assessment formula, but the operation of the SSA formula for 2001–02, if left unchecked, would produce what I regard as an unacceptably wide range of outcomes: some authorities would receive grant increases of nearly 10 per cent., whereas others would have their grant cut in real terms. Many hon. Members will know the facts. There are large changes in the estimated population of local authority areas, and there have been changes in the earnings data used to calculate the area cost adjustment.
In the interests of predictability and stability, we already publish three-year plans for total grant and limit the extent to which the SSA formula will change. From this year, we will go further and provide information on the majority of capital allocations and specific grants on a three-year basis. The population and earnings data changes in the SSA formula threaten to undermine those benefits, and I am particularly concerned about the effect that that would have on the delivery of the Government's

649
priorities of education and social services. Nevertheless, I have concluded that I should use the new data. I cannot justify ignoring them.
I consider that the best approach is to accelerate the introduction of a reform canvassed in our Green Paper on modernising local government finance. It involves setting floors and ceilings on grant increases. Therefore, in the consultation on the local government finance settlement which I am launching today and which is to run until 9 January, I will make it plain that I am minded to include floors and ceilings in the distribution of revenue support grant for 2001–02 to authorities with education and social services responsibilities. RSG would be distributed so that all such authorities receive at least 3.2 per cent. more Government support in 2001–02 than they did in 2000–01; that is 1 per cent. more than underlying inflation. The ceiling for such authorities would be set at 6.5 per cent.
A floor increase of 3.2 per cent. should be sufficient to allow an authority that is improving its efficiency to maintain and enhance its services. The 6.5 per cent. ceiling represents a good increase in grant for the authorities that receive it, and helps to support the cost of introducing the 3.2 per cent. floor. However, it is not possible to set a ceiling to cover the whole cost, so those authorities that are not at the floor or the ceiling will receive an increase in support that has been marginally scaled back. For example, an authority that would otherwise have received an increase of 5 per cent. will receive 4.8 per cent.
There will be no floors or ceilings for local authorities that do not have education and social service responsibilities. I propose to continue the guarantee provided for the last two years, which ensures that no such authority will receive less central support from the Government in 2001–02 than it did in 2000–01. Some may feel that the Government are jumping the gun if floors and ceilings are implemented before consultation on the Green Paper is complete. However, this year shows conclusively how unwise the Government would be to rely totally on the traditional data-driven formula to distribute grant. Indeed, the current method of distribution by SSA has included the principle of a floor below which increases for authorities would not fall.
We would be wise, therefore, to avail ourselves now of what appears to be the best available solution. For the future, the Government will consider further whether floors and ceilings should be a permanent feature of the grant distribution system, whether they should be extended to all local authorities, and the levels at which they should be pitched. I realise that many councils will have expected proposals on grant distribution to follow a similar pattern to that which we used last year. I am therefore issuing for consultation a proposal that distributes grant without incorporating any rules about floors and ceilings. That proposal, however, includes the same minimum grant guarantees as last year, which means that no authority would receive less Government support in 2001–02 than it did in 2000–01. Support for authorities with education and social services responsibilities would be increased by at least 1.5 per cent. All those comparisons need to be adjusted to allow for changes in the functions of councils or the financing of particular services to permit a fair year-on-year comparison.
650
I want to touch briefly on three other issues. First, following consultation, we intend to make one adjustment to SSAs. The under-fives education SSA methodology will change, following the transfer of funding for nursery education for four-year-olds. That will improve stability of funding by ensuring that its distribution matches as closely as possible the previous distribution under specific grant.
Secondly, the guideline for the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme for the 2001–2002 scheme will be the same as last year, so there will be a 4.5 per cent. increase in council tax or such increase as is necessary to give the council an increase in its budget requirement equal to its full cash SSA increase. The scheme will continue to operate cumulatively. For each authority, we will use the previous year's council tax guideline, after certain adjustments, as the starting point. I am issuing today full details and guidance on the scheme for 2001–02.
Thirdly, the additional resources being provided through the neighbourhood renewal fund will help the most deprived authorities to target services on their most deprived areas. That will contribute to the neighbourhood renewal strategy objective of bringing the outcomes achieved by core spending programmes in those areas up to the average standard of the rest.
Having considered the responses to the recent consultation paper on the neighbourhood renewal fund—most of which welcomed the new funding—I have decided to proceed with the arrangements proposed in the consultation paper and am today confirming the initial allocations to the 88 eligible authorities.
In addition to the sums that I propose to allocate to social services today, I can also tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will shortly announce details of an additional £100 million for personal social services in 2001–02. It will support improved care and rehabilitation services for older people.
My right hon. Friend will also ensure that, as part of the service planning round for 2001–02, health authorities, primary care groups and trusts give local authorities a clear indication of the NHS funds that will be provided to support social and intermediate care services through pooled budgets and other joint initiatives in time to inform the final local government finance settlement.
My Department is today writing with details of the core proposals to every local authority in England. Copies of that material have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library, and are being made available over the internet.
The proposals are another step in the Government's modernising agenda. They provide a solid, substantial grant increase and a stable financial environment. Together with best value and our other reforms, they will enable councils to plan and deliver better services for their citizens. I commend them to the House.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I thank the Minister for her usual courtesy in letting me see the statement in advance. I hope that she did not find the whole affair too tiring. It is unfortunate that the Deputy Prime Minister has left the Chamber when we are discussing a subject that is perhaps of even more immediate concern to many people in this country than global warming.
Will the Minister confirm that she originally intended to sneak the statement out last Friday through a written answer to a parliamentary question that the hon. Member

651
for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) tabled? Will she confirm that, in the past two years, the average council tax has increased by 6.8 per cent. and 6.1 per cent. respectively, and that over three years, council tax has increased by a staggering 23 per cent., or £150 for band D payers? Today's figures mean yet another sharp rise; in effect, another stealth tax. The average family will pay some £200 more in council tax by the time of the next election. What is the Minister's prediction for increases this year?
Was the right hon. Lady the senior Minister who was quoted extensively in The Sunday Times? Whether she was or not, does she agree with that Minister's comments? He or she said:
Publicly, ministers will claim that this is generous. In private they concede that the rise is not big enough to prevent an average council tax increase of more than twice the underlying inflation rate of 2 per cent.
He or she continues:
Council tax bills will go up by 5 per cent. on average and in some cases it will be double that.
Will the Minister also confirm that shire counties and London have already lost £650 million and £250 million respectively during the Parliament due to the Government's fiddling of the funding formula? Does she accept that ignoring up-to-date data in calculating the area cost adjustment would have had a massive effect on some councils in London and the south? Doing that would make nonsense of the right hon. Lady's pretence that there is currently a freeze on SSA methodology. Does the Minister realise that that could have cost East Sussex county council £3 million and Kent £8.7 million?
If the extra costs have been incurred, the grant should reflect them. What calculations has the Minister made of the effect of introducing floors and ceilings on grant increases? Will not that have a distorting effect on some councils, especially those in London and the south-east?
May I at least commend the Minister on changing her practice in previous years of refusing to have face-to-face meetings with local authorities? Does she agree with the NHS Confederation, which spoke of bed blocking due to cuts in social services funding in areas as diverse as East Sussex, Hertfordshire, west Surrey, west Kent, Cheshire and parts of the south-west? I wonder whether she agrees with its conclusion:
The NHS Confederation is concerned that the NHS is not seen as an alternative to properly funded local government.
Why did she not heed my warning on that issue a year ago? [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Minister finds this funny. We naturally welcome the additional £100 million that is said to be available for social services, but will that sum be genuinely new money, not re-announced old money? May it not already be too late to tackle the problems that I have described? Has she seen the survey by the Association of Directors of Social Services, which showed an average projected overspend on social services of £200 million, which is double the amount she announced today?
Is the Minister aware that some councils are already nervous about having to increase council tax to cover the costs of recent severe flooding, despite the Bellwin formula? Has she calculated the likely rise in council tax in affected areas that will be attributable solely to flooding?
652
On education, can the Minister confirm that much of the so-called increase involves ring-fenced funding, includes the transfer of existing grants into SSA or is previously announced money for the new sixth form curriculum?
Many local authorities are reporting very high extra costs in implementing the best value regime. The Local Government Association recently asked for £175 million extra funding to cover so-called modernisation. Will the Minister today announce extra grants to cover that?
Finally, when can local government expect action on some of the less controversial aspects of the local government finance Green Paper, including the ability of councils to charge for the discretionary services they provide? Does the Minister accept the criticism that all the Green Paper does is kick into the long grass difficult long-term decisions on local government finance—in particular, whether we have a plan-based or a formula-based system and whether, in the long run, central Government should give more power back to local councils and the communities that they represent?
Ms Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, you must forgive my slight smile at the hon. Gentleman's speech.
There was never an intention to make the announcement in a written parliamentary answer last Friday. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his leaks from, but they are not very reliable. As ever, he believes what he reads in the paper, which is clearly how he gets all his information, but it is never accurate.
I make no predictions about council tax, other than to say that I am confident that council tax rises for next year will be lower than in the current year; the rises in the current year are lower than they were last year. In other words, we are, in the words of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), in a period of unprecedented prosperity. The Government are delivering a stable economy and, year on year, councils are bringing down council tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "What? Where?"] They are bringing down the increases in council tax; of course they are. Opposition Members seem to have had an exciting weekend, but they should get on with realities.
I may have disappointed the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), whose main point was that we are not implementing data changes by implementing an area cost adjustment. I hate to disappoint him—we have done that; we have done as we promised. We committed ourselves to data changes and we have upheld that promise, but we mitigated the excesses of that through the floors and ceilings mechanism. That mechanism is an advance on what previous Governments did to dampen the changes for some authorities year on year. We took that further by introducing ceilings as well as a floor. We introduced a floor that means that all authorities will get an increase above inflation, and they should be able to tackle the challenges that they inevitably face year on year.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about consultation. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), and I will be seeing authorities that are affected by the ceiling.

653
The hon. Gentleman spoke about bed blocking. I hate to tell him this, but bed blocking is being reduced.
Hon. Members: Where?
Mr. Waterson: No, it is not.
Ms Armstrong: Yes, it is. The hon. Gentleman can have those arguments elsewhere. According to my information, bed blocking is being reduced over the current year.
We are committed to putting substantially increased amounts into social services. Nearly £400.43 million is already going in, and there is also the additional £100 million that I announced today. I believe that local authorities throughout the country—and, indeed, the ADSS—will welcome that.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Bellwin scheme, also introduced by the last Government. Perhaps he has not noticed that this Government have increased the payment under Bellwin to 100 per cent. We are also considering various other changes in flood defence policy, to ensure that we get the problems under control. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my Department and the Treasury are undertaking a review, and will report next year. Moreover, we are consulting the LGA and the Environment Agency to ensure that local authorities, along with the agency, can play a full part in both increasing flood defences and properly addressing the problems that arise following floods.
I reject the hon. Gentleman's allegation that costs are soaring in best value. There are some soaring costs, but there are also some substantial savings. Authorities are already recording significant savings: I invite the hon. Gentleman to go and talk to them.
The hon. Gentleman had some interesting things to say about the local government Green Paper, and about when we would implement other aspects of it. As the consultation period has not yet ended, I am not in a position to say exactly how we will implement all aspects of the Green Paper. I like to think that we are engaged in more than just a technical consultation process, and that we will consider the responses seriously.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to put more money into the settlement. He seems to forget how much his party took out of the settlement year on year, and how much this Government have put into it since the general election. There have been substantial increases. Opposition Front Benchers really must make up their minds. Are they Portillo-ites who believe that there is currently a splurge in public spending and that there should be no more of it, or are they developing a new line—that there should be more public spending, and that they are prepared to go back to boom and bust and lose the good, prosperous, stable economy that this Government are delivering?
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Bearing in mind that the current financial crisis in Hackney has been caused by a combination of political instability and the gross negligence of senior officers over the past five years—led by the former
654
chief executive, Tony Elliston—will the Minister tell us what she can do to help? If she cannot tell us today, will she write to me?
Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend knows that the Government have been in close contact with Hackney, where there are serious problems. It is, of course, up to the council to sort out its finances, and it is now getting on top of the problems caused by the amount that has been lost—the amount for which it was unable to account. I hope that, with the support that the council is now receiving, it will be able to turn things around, for it is in all our interests for the people of Hackney to be better served than they have been. I shall certainly keep in close touch with my hon. Friend about developments.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I also thank the Minister for letting me have a copy of her statement in advance.
Is not the message of the statement that £8.3 billion of local government expenditure is now devoted to special and specific grants? Does that not mean greater centralisation? The decision about what those grants will be spent on rests with central Government, rather than with the local councils, which in the past have received the money in their normal block grant.
Does not the increase in special and specific grants heighten the unpredictability for local government? When local authorities wish to plan their budgets, they will be unsure about whether they will have access to those grants. Does not such a bidding process have a cost implication, with many council officers devoting much of their time to bidding on behalf of their authority, in the knowledge that they may not succeed and that their time will have been wasted if they do not?
Overall, will the statement meet the rising costs, some of which have been imposed by the Government? In particular, there is no mention in the statement of how local government will fund the bus concessionary fare scheme from next April. There is no mention of the increased costs from best value. No decision has yet been reached on the cost of nursing care and how that impacts on social services budgets throughout the country. There is no mention of the costs of climate change, the impact of which falls on local councils that suffer from flooding, coastal erosion and other natural disasters.
The Government talk a lot about giving local government more power over decision making. In effect, all they have done is allowed the dog out for more walks, but they have kept it on an ever tighter leash.
Ms Armstrong: I was waiting for another line from the hon. Gentleman. I think that this is the first time that he has ever spoken in a settlement debate without predicting a double-digit increase in council taxes—I was waiting for him to perform his normal role. He has got it wrong every year and I was looking forward to being able to point that out.
I referred to the issue of specific grants in the statement. This year, we will set out the three-year programme for local government. I think that local authorities will welcome that. They will be given information before they set their budgets, for example, they will know what they can expect from special grants. Therefore, the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises will not arise.

655
There are some special grants that local government has asked us to set up: for example, revenue support for public finance initiative projects. It was not considered fair that that should be in the general settlement; it was felt that PFI should be the subject of a specific grant. Therefore, if an authority gets a specific PFI project, we specifically allocate the revenue support to it. I am sure that, as the hon. Gentleman looks at the detail, he will begin to see the logic of what I have announced in relation to special grants.
In formulating the overall amount, we have taken account of all the pressures on local government. The settlement reflects a substantial commitment to investment in public services because public services are so important.
On concessionary fares, clearly, the financial implications will vary widely from one local authority to another, according to whether a scheme is being operated and what that scheme provides. Our estimate of the total cost of the scheme nationally is £54 million, and we have provided for that sum in the settlement.
I am confident that, despite the hon. Gentleman's doom and gloom, the settlement is good news for local government. I look forward to working with him and with others to ensure that, next year, local government is able to perform the tasks that its citizens expect to be done.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on the commitment to public services, and I believe that she is genuine in that commitment. However, I must draw attention to the fact that the difference between actual local government spending and the standard spending assessment is about £4 billion. The gap began to emerge when service cuts were imposed by the previous Government, and it is still causing problems because it has to be compensated for in charges for services and in local taxes.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the area cost adjustment, which is estimated to be equivalent to a £51 million reduction. With a data estimate of a reduction of £72 million, it is thought that the special interest group of municipal authorities—SIGOMA—will suffer a £123 million loss. As that loss is almost twice the sum that has been allocated to SIGOMA for neighbourhood renewal, some thought should be given to that problem.
Will my right hon. Friend also clarify how specific grants will work? Will the £219 million for care leavers or the —127 million for learning and skills councils count against SSAs?
Could we also have full details of all funding—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has given the Minister enough to go on with.
Mr. O'Brien: May I also just ask the Minister if she will give us a breakdown of all the special grants made to local government?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must appeal for shorter questions and, of course, shorter replies. Many hon. Members are seeking to ask questions, but some will be disappointed.
Ms Armstrong: I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that Wakefield is receiving a 3.2 per cent. increase. I can confirm that the money for adult
656
education has been transferred out of the SSA settlement and into learning and skills councils. I can also assure him that special grant information will be presented to the House for approval.
Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister recall that, two years ago, she said that Labour would make the local authority settlement more simple? Now, however, the settlement is massively complicated by her floors and ceilings. Does she recall saying that she would make the settlement more fair? However, by abandoning the incorporation of objective data, the Government have made the settlement more unfair. Does she remember saying that the Government would make local government more independent? However, the increasing amount of direct grant has made local government more dependent. Does she agree that when the Labour Government talk about modernising local government, they mean making it more complex, more unfair and more dependent?
Ms Armstrong: No. I have not abandoned objective data, but used them. I also believe that the situation is now very simple: no authority will receive an increase of less than 3.2 per cent. or more than 6.5 per cent. I think that that is very simple and straightforward and that folk will understand it.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to floors and ceilings, to dampen the percentage increases that are caused by data changes. However, has she considered the proposal made by the all-party fair funding group that there should be a floor on the education funding allocation per child?
Ms Armstrong: Of course we have considered that; I have met the group, and I frequently meet group members. Every authority has a different idea of what will be fair. The area cost adjustment, about which I know my hon. Friend is very concerned, has been an attempt—a flawed attempt, I think—to reflect differential costs across the country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is still pursuing a basic entitlement per pupil approach, as outlined in the local government Green Paper. I am not at this stage able to say where that will end up, but whatever system is adopted, we will still have to reflect need as well as the differing costs. That is always a problem. Simply dividing up the cake equally, as it appears, does not really end up being fair to anyone.
Sir Paul Beresford: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, the Minister seems to have made a complicated system even more complicated and introduced the potential for political bias. We will certainly have to watch that. Is she aware that, for many local authorities, if their grant was set at average, about 25 or 50 per cent. of it, or, if it was set at floor, perhaps all of it, would go in the increased bureaucratic costs of the two systems of which she is, mistakenly, so proud—best value and the new scrutiny system? She should recognise that any competent authority—and there are some—could produce the savings that she talks about without those additional costs.
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman should know all about political bias in local government settlements.

657
We are seeking to get rid of it. We believe that best value and modernising the political structures are a means of ensuring that councils can respond more effectively to the needs and aspirations of local people.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: My right hon. Friend and I have formed the habit of crossing swords at this time of year over the past three years. I welcome the announcement of a 4.4 per cent. increase this year and the inclusion of the data changes in this year's settlement. I would also welcome the floor of 3.2 per cent., were it not that, last year, my local authority, the London borough of Brent, found itself not on the floor but in the basement. I would welcome this year's announcement even more if she could assure me that this year Brent will be found closer to the ceiling, in which case she may have to scrape me off it.
Ms Armstrong: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that Brent will receive a 4.5 per cent. increase this year. It will also benefit from the neighbourhood renewal fund allocation.
Mr. Michael Howard: What evidence does the Minister have that bed blocking is coming down in east Kent? What effect will the imposition of a ceiling on the formula have on the amount of grant made available to Kent county council to allow it to fund its social services department in a way that would put an end to bed blocking in Kent?
Ms Armstrong: Recent evidence submitted by the Department of Health to the Health Select Committee in the summer showed that bed blocking is coming down. We set further targets to reduce it in the national priorities guidance. Clearly, there are particular pressures in different parts of the country, and that is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is putting an additional £100 million into this year's settlement and is examining other national health service budgets. When the right hon. Gentleman was in charge, nothing like that happened.
Mr. David Watts: I welcome the overall statement, but many of us are bitterly disappointed that the system has not been completely reviewed after three years of a Labour Government. When does my right hon. Friend believe that the full review will have taken place, and when are the changes likely to be implemented?
Ms Armstrong: We are still in the middle of consultation on the local government finance Green Paper. I share my hon. Friend's frustration at its not having been possible to have a more root-and-branch reform. I have tried to move so as to take as many people with us as possible. There are sharply differing views on this matter from authority to authority, so trying to find a way forward that does not leave one authority feeling that it is being discriminated against is not easy. We are working with authorities to find an effective way forward. The Green Paper has been well received. I have yet to receive the written responses, but that is the impression
658
that I get from talking to people. In the early months of the next Parliament, we ought to be able to make the full reform.
Mr. Steve Webb: My local authority of South Gloucestershire, as the Minister knows, fares badly under the existing standard spending assessment formula. Will the Minister confirm that the decision to take account of wage pressures in London and the south-east but not elsewhere in the country is particularly unfair on fast-growing authorities with tight labour markets such as South Gloucestershire?
Ms Armstrong: I know that the hon. Gentleman has an oral question on this tomorrow. I simply remind him, however, that all the Liberal Democrat authorities, as I understand it, asked us on Friday to implement the ACA changes. I understand that he may be making a separate point for South Gloucestershire. We have sought to be as fair as possible to everyone and that is the reason for the floors and the ceilings.
Ms Karen Buck: I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision not to make methodological changes this year that affect the area cost adjustment in respect of London authorities. Is she aware, none the less, of the extreme pressures on London local authorities because of factors such as population growth and homelessness, with some 40,000 families currently in temporary accommodation in London? I agree with the need to put a floor under authorities suffering the consequences of population loss, but will my right hon. Friend address sympathetically the needs of local authorities that have reached the ceiling through no fault of their own?
Ms Armstrong: Of course I understand the difficulties faced by authorities in London for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend, and the problems faced by authorities in other parts of the country for other reasons. We are acutely aware of the costs of homelessness in London, and I understand the points made by the Association of London Government about that. The part of the settlement dealing with that is the best for many years, with a 1.8 per cent. real-terms increase in each year and 2.7 per cent. more in 2001–02. However, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning and I are discussing how we will continue to keep a close eye on this and make sure that people do not suffer.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Is it not the case that residents of most London boroughs will face seriously increased council taxes next year and, of course, the supplemental charge of a precept for the Greater London Authority? Why has the Minister not mentioned the additional costs of refugees and asylum seekers for London boroughs? Is she not aware that my borough of Hillingdon, which covers Heathrow airport—through which a quarter of asylum seekers to the United Kingdom come—has submitted to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), a memorandum pointing out that unaccompanied refugee children will cost the borough £3.15 billion a year above grant. [Interruption.] I mean £3.15 million—forgive me. I exaggerate. It is easy to get

659
worked up because homelessness and the additional costs are serious burdens on local people, and they feel extremely strongly about it.
Ms Armstrong: I understand that. The costs of asylum seekers are not met through the settlement. That is the result of a special grant from the Home Office. I am in constant touch with my Home Office colleagues to discuss this and to ensure that we do whatever possible to alleviate the problem, not just in London, but particularly in London. We recognise that there are serious problems in London, but the dispersal programme means that other authorities are also involved.
Ms Claire Ward: I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to include the new earnings survey. Hertfordshire will need to look at the ceilings and floors to see where we benefit.
May I take it from the Government's decision that they accept the principle that it is more costly for schools in Hertfordshire in particular and in the south-east in general to be able to do the job that they need to do, and that that must continue to be reflected in the finance that becomes available from central Government to local government?
Ms Armstrong: The House now knows why this statement is always difficult: some of my hon. Friends hold one view and others another. We recognise the need for some acknowledgement of costs. We are not convinced that the current ACA is the most effective method of achieving that, which is why the matter is under review. We recognise, and the alternative methods demonstrate, that this factor cannot be ignored.
Mr. Christopher Fraser: The Minister will be aware of a letter to the Secretary of State from Purbeck district council regarding statutory mandatory travel concessions. She will also be aware that, for a predominantly rural council such as Purbeck, even a prudent approach to the scheme, including essential cross-boundary travel, will, on the basis of the figures available so far, require an increase in council tax of £5, or 6.5 per cent.
The Minister's answers have been less than clear so far. Will she confirm that all additional costs faced by councils such as Purbeck will be completely covered by the Government when they introduce the scheme?
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman seems to want me to say that there will be no council tax increases. Of course, local authorities and local citizens will contribute through council tax. I do not know how he can tell us the exact amount of council tax that will be needed to cover whatever decisions are taken in future, given that he has not yet read the figures, and nor, I suspect, has the council. I am confident that councils will be able to implement reasonable council tax increases, lower than last year's, because the statement has covered all the pressures on local government, and there is a substantial increase this year in the amount that the Government are giving.
Mr. Jeff Ennis: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially on additional SSA help for the worst-funded local authorities, such as Barnsley and Doncaster, which serve my
660

constituency. There is no doubt that, under this Government, the increases in block grant have been exponential compared with those introduced by the previous Government. Will the Minister also comment on the increase in the other services block grant for next year?
Ms Armstrong: I thank my hon. Friend. I have already said that the increase in that block grant is greater than it has been of late. I recognise that that grant has been starved for many years. Over the past couple of years, we have tried gradually to increase it, and it will increase further over the next three years. I understand that some local authorities have had real problems, and that is one of the reasons for implementing the floor.
Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister said, and obviously believes, that spending for local councils had increased under this Government, but not under the previous one. Will she review the huge injustice done to Rochford council, to which the Government's allocation of money has been exactly £3.21 million for each of the past three years, with no increase for inflation. That compares with £4 million allocated by the previous Government. Is there not a case for a special procedure by which the Government could investigate cases of great injustice in relation to councils such as Rochford, which have obviously had a rotten deal and been unfairly treated, and whose special needs and demands have not been taken into account?
Ms Armstrong: I am sure that, when the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for Rochford this year, he will be pleased to see that it has been given a reasonable increase for a district council, which does not have to bear the expense of major services such as education and social services. The Government's priorities—and local government's priorities—lie in those areas, and that is where the bulk of the investment has gone. However, the overall allocation for the other services block, from which shire districts largely benefit, has increased. I have also referred to the substantial increases that local government as a whole has received during this Parliament.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister comment on her discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on the cost of homelessness, especially in London? She seemed to suggest that there would be an increase of 2.7 per cent. in the forthcoming year, which is rather less than the floor increases that she has announced for other services.
Will she also give an indication as to when the Government expect to make an announcement on future housing investment? Does she concede that the terrible housing crisis faced by many in inner London can be adequately solved only by a large public investment in good-quality homes for many of the poorest and most dispossessed people in this country?
Ms Armstrong: As I have already said, I am in discussion with my hon. Friend the Minister about homelessness costs in London so I shall not repeat my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck).
This year, in the spending review 2000, a substantial increase was announced by the Government in capital spending for housing. That is the largest increase for many

661
years and builds on the £5 billion that the Government are spending as a result of the capital receipts initiative. We understand the particular problems in London; that is reflected in our handling of the settlement.
Mr. Paul Burstow: Can the Minister confirm that the introduction of floors and ceilings of the type announced today will mean that my authority, which would have benefited this year from an extra £1.5 million as a result of the data changes, will receive less than that? As a consequence, it will be faced with an even bigger funding gap, resulting in higher council tax increases but more cuts in local services.
Ms Armstrong: I have made it clear that, in order to ensure that some authorities do not suffer excessive loss in grant, every other authority must contribute. Although there is a small contribution from the hon. Gentleman's authority, it will none the less receive a 6.1 per cent. increase—even with the floors and ceilings. In any settlement, I suspect that there would have been a damping mechanism—so the overall amount allocated to his authority would have been less. The redistribution on which we are engaged means that those who do well from the settlement have to contribute a little to those who do not do so well.
Mr. David Kidney: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her good sense in agreeing to set a funding floor and ceiling. Is that a recognition of the logic of the position taken by the Government in their Green Paper—to reduce disparities between local authority settlements? Is it also an acknowledgement that applying the existing formula untrammelled would have added further injustice to those who have suffered for the longest period?
My right hon. Friend said that she will hold consultations on a permanent system of floors and ceilings. I understand that, but is it her intention that floors and ceilings will continue temporarily until the new settlement is finalised?
Ms Armstrong: I have announced floors and ceilings for this year's settlement as a consultation exercise.
662
I cannot predict what will happen in future years. Consultations on the Green Paper continue. Obviously, I think the proposals offer a sensible way forward, otherwise I should not have made them today, but that does not mean that I am pre-empting the long-term solutions, or indeed what we shall do next year.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Does the Minister recall that the Leader of the then Opposition, just days before the last general election, told the Cambridge Evening News that a Labour Government would review the area cost adjustment with a view to implementation in 1998ဣ99? Will she therefore confirm that this is the fourth successive year in which the Government have failed to keep that promise? How much longer will the Government continue to do that? In this context, stability means continuing unfairness, especially for an authority such as South Cambridgeshire district council, whose labour costs and population are high and rising. The unfairness will grow if data are incorporated in the area cost adjustment for those authorities that benefit from it as compared to those that do not.
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman is somewhat disingenuous. He knows that we announced three-year stability in methodology changes and we are keeping our word. Perhaps he finds it unusual when a Government are prepared to keep their word.
Cambridgeshire county council is receiving a 3.9 per cent. increase this year. We have reviewed the ACA, but we are unable to achieve consensus on any of the 21 options proposed. Through the local government finance Green Paper, we are considering other changes. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's constructive contributions.
Several hon. Members roseဤ
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Orders of the Day

  Freedom of Information Bill and Countryside and Rights of Way Bill (Allocation Of Time)
  5.10 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Freedom of Information Bill and the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill:—

  Lords Amendments
  1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Freedom of Information Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at midnight.
  (2) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill shall be completed on the allotted day and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 p.m. on that day.
  2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on either of the Bills to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
  (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
  (3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

  (a) a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

  (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

  (4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

  (a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

  (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

  (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
  (6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
  (7) As soon as the House has—

  (a) agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or

  (b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to,

  the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

  Subsequent stages
  3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on either of the Bills.
  (2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall. if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
  4.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 3.
  (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
  (3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  (4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
  (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Reasons Committee
  5. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
  6.—(1) The Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
  (2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
  (3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2), the Chairman shall—

  (a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and

  (b) then put forthwith successively Questions on Motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

  (4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

  Miscellaneous
  7.—(1) The following paragraphs apply to—

  (a) proceedings at today's sitting on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Freedom of Information Bill,

  (b) proceedings on the allotted day on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill,

  (c) proceedings on any further message from the Lords on either of the Bills, and

  (d) proceedings at today's sitting or on the allotted day on the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons (and the appointment of its Chairman) and the Report of such a Committee.

  8. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  9. The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  10. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  11.—(1) If on a day on which any of the proceedings take place a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion stands over until the conclusion of any of the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time, and

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any of the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion after that time is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (2) If a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day to such a day, the bringing to a conclusion of any of the proceedings on that day is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
  12. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any of the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Interpretation
  13. In this Order, "allotted day" means any day on which the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.
  The House will know that this timetable motion, which was tabled by my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the President of the Council and myself, deals with the Freedom of Information Bill and the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Straw: I hear muttering from a sedentary position on the Opposition Benches that there is some objection to the motion. Of course that is the Opposition's traditional role, and I do not particularly criticise them for that. However, to save time, I remind Opposition Members that introducing a single guillotine motion to cover two Bills is not unusual. There are plenty of examples—if pressed, I will bring them to the attention of the House—of the previous Administration passing similar motions between 1979 and 1997. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) carries on twittering, I shall mention the many occasions on which she and many of her right hon. Friends, including the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), voted for such timetable motions.
  None of us particularly likes having to use timetable motions. Sometimes they are necessary. [Interruption.] It does not lie well in the mouth of any Opposition Member, with the single exception of the hon. Member for Brownhills-Aldridge—
  Mr. John Bercow: Aldridge-Brownhills.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that correction.
  It does not lie well in the mouth of any right hon. or hon. Member who was a Conservative Member of Parliament at any time between 1979 and 1997 to complain about the use of guillotine motions, because they were sometimes used with gay abandon—for example, in 1988–89 and 1989–90.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I shall do so in a second.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald will refer—in her speech, no doubt, as well as from a sedentary position—to the misuse of such motions.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe indicated assent.
  Mr. Straw: I think that she will say that Conservative Governments use such measures properly, but Labour Governments misuse them.
  Mr. Forth: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: Of course I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, as I always do.
  666
  The Freedom of Information Bill has been the subject of very extensive pre-legislative and legislative scrutiny, including two days of fine debate at the beginning of April, which happily was not guillotined. We are now drawing towards the end of the Session, so it is necessary for the House to have the opportunity to vote on a raft of Government Bills. Of course, the House may take a different view—it is for the House to dispose of matters; it is for the Government to propose them.
  There is a difference between any Conservative Government and any Labour Government: Conservative Governments always had a built-in majority in the other place, and they could always rely on that majority to ensure that debates were truncated and that they got their business—that has always been a fact of life, and it continues to this day—whereas Labour Governments do not have a built-in majority in the other place; they have a built-in minority.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way, with his usual courtesy. He seems to have forgotten that the guillotines apply to the House, not to another place, and that it is the procedures here with which we are rightly concerned. Will he dig into his papers and provide some quotations from the speeches that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends made during the 1980s and 1990s on the similar occasions when the previous Government felt obliged to introduce timetable motions? He has made great play of the idea that because the Conservatives introduced such motions, it is all right for him to introduce them. Will he give us the other side of the coin and remind us of the outrage that he and his colleagues felt when confronted with the fact they had only one or two days to consider several hundred amendments to Bills to which I hope he will refer later?
  Mr. Straw: I will refer to those Bills if I am tempted to do so. Of course the then Opposition typically voted against guillotine motions. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking me whether I, as an Opposition Back Bencher or Front-Bench spokesman, protested against the Conservative Government's guillotine motions, the answer is yes. However, I draw his attention to the fact that towards the end of our time in opposition, we were serious about being an effective Opposition—[Interruption.] We were so serious that we are now in government. Because this Opposition are not even any good as an Opposition, and still less as an alternative Government, they continue to fail to make any sensible arrangements to secure the proper passage of Bills.
  Mr. Forth: Arrangements?
  Mr. Straw: Of course, there have to be arrangements through the usual channels. Our record in opposition between 1994 and 1997 was exemplary. In the Session 1994–95, the then Government introduced no guillotine motions, because we had reached accommodation with them through the usual channels. I say to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that there was a guillotine motion in 1995–96 on proceedings on the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill. However, if my memory serves me right, that motion was unusual in that I supported it from the Opposition Front Bench. I was persuaded that the additional powers were necessary and that the matter had to come before the House to be dealt with before the end of the Session.

  667
  In 1996–97, I recall—my recollection is usually accurate—that the guillotine on the proceedings of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill was introduced not because of fire from the then Opposition, but because of friendly fire from those who did not wish there to be effective control of firearms. That fire came from the then Government's Back Benchers.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way, but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman oblige me by reminding me of his constituency? That will help.
  Mr. Hogg: The Home Secretary knows full well that I represent Sleaford and North Hykeham.
  Many of us are concerned about the practice of allowing the unelected second Chamber, in effect, to make legislation. Does the Home Secretary understand that 123 amendments are before us, and that inevitably, we shall not discuss them all? Many will not be reached and we shall simply be asked to accept many of them. That means that the peers, as an unelected body, will make law in this country. Does that make him content?
  Mr. Straw: There is always time for sinners to repent. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view these days is against an unelected Chamber, that is interesting.
  Mr. Hogg: I am for an elected Chamber.
  Mr. Straw: That is fine, and I accept that statement as accurate. However, that was not the view of the Conservative party when it was in government. It was perfectly happy to rely on a huge majority made up not only of unelected peers but of those who were in the other place for no other reason than that they were their fathers' sons or their grandfathers' grandsons.
  When the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was an adornment of the previous Government and they introduced the poll tax, they ensured that people who had never been seen in the other place, but who had a Conservative ticket there, were pulled out of the woodwork to vote for that legislation. If that had not been the case, the previous Administration would have been done a great favour.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will remind the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that the Conservative Government guillotined the consideration of Lords amendments on 34 separate occasions? In which Lobby did the right hon. and learned Gentleman vote then? Did he come into the Labour Lobby to vote against those guillotines?
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise that matter. The previous Administration used the guillotine not only at the end of the Session, when it is more justifiable, but at other times, such as on 14 December 1993, when they guillotined the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill just a few weeks into the Session.
  668
  I must tell the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and the rest of the House that although there are many amendments, a great many of them were passed in the other place in response to undertakings that I gave during two days of extensive debate on the Floor of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not all of them."] No, not all of them, but many were, and they relate to those key debates. It is a fact of life that guillotines mean that some amendments go undebated. I regret that because I would prefer Bills to be timetabled properly. None the less, it is a timeless verity that never worried Opposition Members all that much before.
  Wherever possible we try, as we did on Report, to reach understandings through the usual channels so that there is proper time for debate. I would prefer that, but I hope that both sides of the House accept that Governments have the right to ensure that their legislation is put before Parliament for a proper conclusion before the end of a Session.
  Mr. David Winnick: If there were no guillotine motions, what possible chance would the controversial measures that are most opposed by the Conservative party, such as the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, stand of getting through Parliament by the end of the Session?
  Mr. Straw: No chance at all.
  Mr. Bercow: Sit on a few more Fridays.
  Mr. Straw: I do not deal with the business of the House, but I would be happy to sit on a Friday.
  Miss Widdecombe: Sit for a few more hours.
  Mr. Straw: We have previously been charged with sitting for too many hours. As ever, the right hon. Lady wants it both ways. If we were to sit on a Friday, there would still be no guarantee that we could get these Bills through Parliament unless an undertaking were reached through the usual channels, which would have to maintain proper Back-Bench discipline. The eloquence of some hon. Members quickly fades and they become exceptionally prolix when they have an interest in keeping our proceedings going for ever and ever. They regard that as their task; I do not complain, but we have to take action as a result. Everyone knows that that is a fact of life.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is right to say that the Freedom of Information Bill and the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill would have no chance of being enacted without the guillotine motion. The Opposition did not oppose the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, or, as far as I recall, the Freedom of Information Bill, on Second Reading, but they will not be bothered if those two measures are not enacted. We know their real view of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. As for the Freedom of Information Bill, we were famously told in the Conservatives' campaign guide at the general election that such a Bill was of interest only to "left-wing busybodies".
  Mr. Winnick: Is there one example of a controversial private Member's Bill being agreed to on a Friday? Is it not pretty obvious that if people are opposed to a Bill,

  669
  there is no possibility of it ever being agreed to, even if we sit on Saturday and Sunday? That was the case when I opposed certain measures. The essence of the argument is that unless there is a guillotine, as there is on this measure, some Bills will never be enacted.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. Not only have very few controversial Bills been passed on a Friday, but many non-controversial Bills, supported by a majority on both sides of the House, have also come to grief because of the lengthy contributions by certain hon. Members.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Is the remark attributed to the Home Secretary true—that freedom of information legislation is for Oppositions, not for Governments?
  Mr. Straw: No. If freedom of information legislation is for Governments, it certainly strengthens the hand of Oppositions—and opposition. I celebrate the fact that that is so, because I happen to believe that good government is made better when Ministers are accountable. For them to be accountable, more information is needed.
  Mr. Damian Green: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. To clear up a factual error that has crept into the debate, the controversial Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill, which was a private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon earlier this Session—[Interruption.]i—was passed, despite extensive and exhaustive debate on Fridays. It is on the statute book and is an extremely good Act.
  Mr. Straw: There was some perplexity on our side about who the hon. Member for Basildon was. That constituency was the subject of a famous victory by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith). The hon. Gentleman to whom the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) referred went on the notorious chicken run and now has a safer seat in Southend-on-Sea, West. [HON. MEMBERS: "Southend, West".] Southend-on-Sea, West.
  Miss Widdecombe: No. Southend, West.
  Mr. Straw: I have spent more days in Southend than many other hon. Members—[Interruption.] It is not far from Brentwood, and we used to go down to Southend for pleasure.
  I shall put on record why we think that, although regrettable, the guillotine motion is justified. I remind the House that we published a White Paper in 1997 and a draft Bill consultation paper in 1999, which was subject to extensive pre-legislative scrutiny during the summer of 1999. Since then the Bill has been subject to substantial scrutiny—40 hours in Committee in this House and two full days on the Floor of the House at the beginning of April this year, as well as 28 hours in the other place.
  The House will recall that there were detailed debates on specific issues in the House on those two days. In the other House I sought to meet in full the commitments that 1 gave to this House on those occasions. There had been
  670
  concern about the Executive override, and I said that we would introduce changes to make it clear that it was no longer based on a discretionary element in the Bill, but that there would be a strong and enforceable duty to disclose information where the public interest required it. That has been put in.
  Yes, there remains the possibility that a Minister of the Crown will exercise what is called an Executive override, but when he does so—again, because of an amendment that we accepted in another place, which I do not believe will be controversial—that must be reported to this House.
  I have considered carefully whether we could introduce into the body of the legislation a duty for Ministers collectively to consult other Cabinet colleagues, or whether there should be a collective Cabinet decision. For reasons that we can debate when we come to the subject, that has not proved possible.
  Colleagues on both sides who have studied various constitutional texts will know that the Cabinet per se has no formal constitutional standing, but I will give undertakings that, save where it relates to a quasi-judicial decision, which by definition normally has to be taken by an individual Secretary of State, guidance will be given, which will be made public, requiring Ministers to consult their colleagues. In addition to that, anyone who has served in government knows that it would be a poor career move for any Minister to make such a decision without consulting his or her colleagues.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am having difficulty following the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He seems to be arguing that if proceedings on a previous stage of the Bill have been thorough, he can dispense with thoroughness at later stages. Given that every stage sees changes to a Bill, and given that 123 amendments affected the present stage of the Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman please justify not guillotines in general, but this guillotine on this stage of this Bill?
  Mr. Straw: I am seeking to do so. It is a fair bet that whatever I say, unless I withdraw the motion, the right hon. Lady will not be convinced by my argument—but sometimes she gets the point in the end, albeit a bit late.
  In this instance, the point is simple, and has been discussed at length. Many of the amendments relate to issues that were discussed at length in the House or in Committee. Amendments have been introduced to deliver undertakings made in the House. If the right hon. Lady wants to have an exchange about the number of occasions when the House has considered Lords amendments when the debate has been subject to a guillotine, I could go through the list—but I think we should take that as read.
  In addition to constraining the circumstances in which the so-called Executive override can be used, and the important related matter of removing the discretionary element in the public interest test, there are important Lords amendments that, if accepted by the House, will improve the Bill. They will do so by removing the powers to add to the list of exemptions by order and, importantly, by reversing the way in which the public interest balancing exercise is carried out. They will introduce a duty for Government Departments and other public authorities to assist those who are seeking information and to help them make their applications. They will introduce other improvements in the way in which both factual and statistical information is dealt with.

  671
  I refer the House to amendments Nos. 26 and 27 to clause 33, which we shall move on to. They go some way to meet concerns about the availability of statistical information—I accept that they do not go the whole way, but I hope to explain why not. The changes that will ensure a better supply and availability of factual and statistical information need to be seen alongside something that is not in the Bill but which represents a huge change—the reform that we as a Government have introduced to the national statistical service, together with the establishment of an independent statistical commission, to ensure that never again do we have the scandal of the 1980s, where in the face of mounting unemployment the then Government changed the definition of unemployment 18 times, to massage the figures downwards.
  Mr. Forth: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the many important and substantial amendments on the amendment paper for the House to consider. Will he explain why the House is expected to give proper consideration to the amendments over a period that will almost certainly be less than four hours? I accept his point about the number of amendments and their importance, but will he tell us how we can do justice to them in the pathetic amount of time that he is allowing?
  Mr. Straw: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's description of the time available. We have from now until midnight to consider the amendments. Although there are many amendments, the right hon. Gentleman, as an experienced parliamentarian, knows that they are grouped by the Chair. There are nine groups of amendments, and of those—
  Mr. Shepherd: The amendments are grouped by the Minister in charge.
  Mr. Straw: Yes, even better. They are grouped by the Minister in charge of the Bill with a little guidance from the Clerks. In only three of the nine groups are there amendments to amendments, and I think that only three groups will prove controversial.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I shall do so shortly. Then I want to talk briefly about the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, and then other right hon. and hon. Members can contribute to the debate.
  Mr. McLoughlin: When the decision was made to move the timetable motion, did the Home Secretary know that two statements would also be made, which would eat into the time originally allocated?
  Mr. Straw: No. I think that the decision was made towards the end of last week. I knew that there would be a statement on revenue support grant and associated matters. I did not know until 12.50 pm that there would be a statement on climate change following the meeting at The Hague.
  I shall now make progress on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.
  Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of the Home Secretary's comment,
  672
  would you at this stage accept a manuscript amendment to the motion to allow additional time for consideration—time in proportion, at least, to the time taken by the second statement, of which the Home Secretary was unaware when he judged how much time should be made available?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I am not in a position to do that.
  Mr. Straw: I shall now deal briefly with the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, which will be addressed in greater detail by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who will wind up the debate.
  The Bill completed its passage through the Commons last June after 69 hours of debate; the other place completed its consideration after a further 102 hours of debate. As the House knows, there are 281 amendments to the Bill, dealing with 16 separate subjects. The Bill will make important provision to grant new rights of access on foot to mountains, moor, heath, down and common land in England and Wales. It will improve the complex law relating to rights of way, significantly strengthen the law on nature conservation and the protection of wildlife and enhance the protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty.
  In both Houses, provisions relating to the new right of access to open countryside have proved to be the most controversial aspect of the Bill, and we understand that. However, the principle is not controversial, and the Opposition did not vote against either Second or Third Reading in either House. At issue is the balance between the new access right, and the ability of owners and occupiers of access land to manage that land to best advantage. Those who are familiar with the measure will know that a great deal of effort has gone into determining where that balance should rest.
  Many of the amendments to the access provisions made in the other place address the concerns, often highly practical, of landowners and managers. We have listened carefully to those concerns; when we have been persuaded that they are justified, we have made the necessary changes. Some of those changes reflect concerns expressed in Committee and on Report in the House of Commons. The debate on the access provisions themselves did move forward in the Lords.
  Mr. Hogg: As the Home Secretary knows, the timetable for the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill requires debate to end at 10 o'clock on the allotted day. So that the House is better informed about how much time it will have to consider the 283 amendments, will he tell us whether we are to have any statements tomorrow, and if so, how many?
  Mr. Straw: I know of no statements due to be made tomorrow, but the truth is that I cannot guarantee that none will be made tomorrow.
  There has been plenty of consultation on all matters covered by the Bill. The statutory agencies—the Countryside Agency, English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales—have been fully involved, as have

  673
  many non-governmental organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Ramblers Association and the Country Landowners Association. Many useful ideas have emerged from the national countryside access forum, which brings together representatives of many of the key interests.
  The parliamentary process has worked openly and well in respect of the Bill, although it has taken time: 170 hours is at the top end of the amount of time given to such Bills, whether by the current Government or by previous ones. Everyone knows that there are only a few days left before Prorogation and it is the Government's submission that there are no issues in the Bill on which we need to disagree with the Lords.
  Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. James Paice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No. I am about to finish and I have already given way many times.
  I have acknowledged that guillotines are to be avoided whenever possible. They are regrettable, but I believe that the guillotine on the two Bills is entirely justified. We shall, no doubt, hear the Opposition express the usual protests, as is their right, but I ask the House to bear in mind the scores and scores of guillotine motions that were moved under the Conservative Government.
  Mr. Brooke: Will the Home Secretary tell the House whether there was a guillotine on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981?
  Mr. Straw: I suspect that there was not, but I can easily find out and shall look it up for the right hon. Gentleman. Between 1980 and 1981, there was not a guillotine, but I shall not detain the House by reading from a long list.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Those are interesting years to pick. In just two years, between 1980 and 1982, the previous Conservative Government introduced a string of about 11 Bills, all of which they guillotined.
  Mr. Straw: Those years were light on legislation.
  Finally, much has been made of the statement on climate change made today by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. I understand that that statement was made in response to a request from the official Opposition, who cannot have it both ways, although they always seek to.
  5.41 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: Here we are at the beginning of national guillotine week. The Government have imposed a guillotine, first because they are incompetent, and secondly, because they are arrogant. They are incompetent in hopelessly overloading the parliamentary timetable, which is why the forthcoming Queen's Speech is the latest in the year since the one in 1928. The Government have tried to pack far too much into little time, and as a result, they have to
  674
  choose between losing Bills altogether or brutally and cynically cutting parliamentary debate to achieve their timetable. That is the position to which the Government have brought themselves.
  It is not surprising that there is a Home Office Bill in the list of those be guillotined. The Home Secretary is almost historically incompetent. For the first time in our history, the Chair rejected a reasoned Government amendment because the right hon. Gentleman tabled it to the wrong Opposition motion. He has already lost one Bill—the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial)(No.2) Bill—in the House of Lords. Indeed, that is the second time a mode of trial measure has been lost. Another Bill has been reduced to such complete nonsense that it makes no sense. That is the state of affairs to which the Government have brought their legislative timetable.
  This guillotine is an affront to democracy. In the summer of 1996, the Prime Minister said:
  It is time to sweep away the cobwebs of secrecy which hang over far too much government activity. If trust in the people means anything … there can be no argument against a Freedom of Information Act.
  It seems to have escaped the Home Secretary that there is considerable irony in curtailing debate on the Freedom of Information Bill. The measure will make more—not fewer—things secret and will give the Government more, not less, power to withhold information. The right hon. Gentleman has suffered embarrassment about that through the Bill's various stages, so I understand his desire to cut his embarrassment short tonight. However, doing that says a great deal about the Government's contempt for the House—indeed, for both Houses. They are unprepared, in failing to allow adequate time, to allow the House to discuss the amendments tabled in the other place. They are therefore utterly contemptuous of the democratic system.
  The guillotine means that there will be 27 minutes in which to debate each of the nine groups of amendments—[Interruption.] Labour Members may find that amusing, but that time does not even allow for Divisions. If there are Divisions, there will be even less time to debate serious amendments to a major Bill. [Interruption.] Labour Members think that funny. Of course they do, because they have used their enormous majority throughout the current Parliament simply to push through whatever measures they want, regardless of due process. They regard that as funny, but I do not think they will find it so funny when they have to justify their stewardship to the electorate.
  The guillotine does not come as a great surprise. The Government have a history of forcing their ill-thought-out legislation through Parliament. So far during the current Parliament—I remind the right hon. Gentleman, in case he needs reminding, that it has lasted only three and a half years—the Government have guillotined more than 18 Bills. That compares with the 17 Bills that were guillotined in twice the period, between 1991 and 1997.
  Mr. Straw: We were a good Opposition.
  Miss Widdecombe: The Opposition were obviously so utterly ineffective that they did not find much to set against us.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady makes my point for me. There were so few guillotines because we co-operated

  675
  with the Government[Interruption.] It is true. After some years of experience of being a poor Opposition—I promise that the Conservative party will enjoy a similar experience—we decided to make ourselves a decent Opposition and to concentrate on the things that mattered. If the right hon. Lady thinks that it was all so bad, she must explain why we were such a good Opposition that we won the general election in May 1997 with a huge majority.
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman says that he co-operated. The opposite of co-operation is frustration and delay. Will he now assert that the Opposition have improperly delayed this important Bill at any stage of debate on it? I give way to him.
  Mr. Strawrose—
  Miss Widdecombe: Come on, come on. I thought the Home Secretary was going to speak, but he has changed his mind. His silence speaks for itself. Of course, we can assume that silence may now be interpreted as having a guilty motivation.
  Mr. Shepherd: I think that my right hon. Friend is understating the case, if that is possible. Including the Bills that we will discuss this evening, 40 Bills have been guillotined during the current Parliament. There has never been anything like that cascade of guillotines. I regret that Opposition Front Benchers agreed to 18 of them, but we are still left with an extraordinary record of the Labour Government imposing their will on the Chamber.
  Miss Widdecombe: This must be the first time I have ever understated a case, but I yield to the considerable expertise of my hon. Friend. However, neither he nor the Government will argue about the fact that more than 453 amendments were tabled to the Freedom of Information Bill in the other place. At Committee stage in the other place, 368 amendments were tabled. More than 150 of those amendments were tabled by the Government. They cannot say that the Bill is in such good order because of previous stages of its passage that we need not spend long discussing it, when they have seen fit at every single stage to table a raft of amendments to improve the Bill and to tidy it up.
  That is proof positive that we need as thorough a discussion during this stage of the Bill's passage as during previous stages. The other place agreed to 118 amendments. We want to consider them today. Within the available time, it is utterly impossible to do justice to so many amendments, even if they are grouped, as the Home Secretary pointed out rather unnecessarily. After all, the Government removed an entire clause and introduced a new one after clause 1. That is a significant change to the Bill's structure and alters its mechanism for ensuring that information is released. If something so central and significant has occurred, it is only right that the House should have the opportunity for a full and thorough discussion.
  There is another matter that we have not had a chance to debate: the deal between the Liberal Democrats and the Government. We all remember what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said during earlier stages of the Bill's passage. He argued that it was wholly inadequate and unsatisfactory and said that
  676
  the Liberal Democrats would alter it and stand up and be counted for true freedom of information. Then, lo and behold, in the other place, they meekly trotted along to the Government and did a deal to frustrate Opposition amendments that might have had a significant impact. Indeed, Maurice Frankel of the Campaign for Freedom of Information said:
  we find it incomprehensible that, in return for these modest concessions, the Liberal Democrats are proposing to abandon their support for essential amendments which would have given the public greater rights to safety information and denied ministers the right to veto decisions of the independent Information Commissioner.
  However, we will not have an opportunity properly to debate that today.
  The Government also plan to guillotine the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, despite the fact that they have tabled nearly 300 amendments and introduced a entirely new section on—
  Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. The right hon. Gentleman has obviously found his place in his brief.
  Mr. Straw: I am prompted to intervene by the right hon. Lady's late adoption of the Campaign for Freedom of Information. At the general election, the Conservative party campaign guide said:
  The only group in Britain who are seriously interested in a Freedom of Information Act are inquisitive left-wing busy bodies.
  What led her to change her mind about that?
  Miss Widdecombe: The stupid Bill that the Government introduced. I should have thought that even the right hon. Gentleman could work that one out. If his position has moved no further since the general election, all that I have to say is that he has not studied his own Bill, which reverses the significant improvements that we made through our code—it gave access to information, which he will deny. That is the background to our opposition to the Bill.
  To the shame of the Liberal Democrats, having made so much of their commitment to freedom of information, they have done a deal with their partner, the Labour party, to ensure that our amendments would not be agreed to in the other place. It is high time the right hon. Gentleman came clean. Arrogant and incompetent, the Government do not want freedom of information, and they do not even want freedom of debate.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I find it extraordinary that we go through this performance whenever a guillotine is imposed. There are not many aspects of the political system in the United States that I admire, but we might emulate the arrangement under which, in the Senate, one can read into the record speeches that do not need to be heard by anyone else.
  On every such occasion, the Secretary of State rises to his feet and, by contrast with the usual protestation—which involves saying that the previous Government were an awful, anti-democratic shower, that they treated the House with disdain, and that they were totally devoid of respect for the procedures and democratic opportunities in

  677
  the House—argues that the fact that the previous Government used so many guillotines a year gives the present Government a good excuse for doing so. That is ridiculous. Rather than having to come to the House to make such a speech, the right hon. Gentleman would find it much easier if he could simply read his speech into the record.
  Equally, the speech of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—the spokesman for the Conservatives, those repenting sinners—could be read into the record. That approach would also make life much easier for me: as I always argue on these occasions, would it not be better for the House to decide when and how it discussed such an issue, with an agreed programme motion so that we would give the proper moment—
  Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyler: No; I shall be speedy, unlike the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.
  Such an approach would allow us to debate and vote on those issues that are important rather than having an all-embracing final vote and generating a lot of heat, but no light. That is precisely what the Conservative party wants—it does not want to vote on the individual issues. If it did so, the remarkable transfer of its allegiance to the freedom of information movement would become apparent.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) could read into the record his usual sermon and his Old Testament denunciation of all Governments who did anything to try to get business through the House, even via programme motions and with agreed timetabling, and despite all Members having had an opportunity to put their point of view on a specific issue.
  Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyler: No, I will not.
  The Government should respond to a specific issue: by using a timetable motion that is tied to an hour of the night, they have prevented us from having a proper debate. An indication was given to the House—I notice that Labour Members are nodding—that there would be sufficient time, through to midnight, for us to examine some of the issues. However, the fact that the format of the motion is tied to a specific time rather than to a number of minutes and hours means that we will not have the amount of time suggested. I understand that there is no technical reason whatever for denying us the appropriate time that we require—perhaps six and a half hours. If the debate lasted until midnight, there would be eight and a half hours—
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyler: No, I will not.
  The Government are obliged to explain why they opted to use a guillotine motion that effectively takes the time used by the statements out of today's debate. It has already been pointed out that there are more than 120 amendments to discuss. If the Government's business
  678
  manager calculated last week that eight and a half hours were required to debate the amendments, why have we been restricted by the format of the motion to a particular time?
  There are also problems with the arrangements for tomorrow. The Government appear to have taken exactly the same view, and have decided that the guillotine will come down at 10 pm. We do not know, but we are told that it is highly likely that there will be a statement on the rural White Paper—that was pointed out in an intervention. If that is true, it would be much better if tomorrow's guillotine motion provided a specific length of time, and did not bring down the shutters at a particular hour.
  I ask the Government, even at this stage, to consider whether it is possible to re-table tomorrow's timetable motion. After all, the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill is as complicated as the Freedom of Information Bill. In addition, more than 280 amendments cover, as I believe the Home Secretary said, 16 different subjects and three specific policy areas—access, rights of way and conservation—which, in normal circumstances, could have been dealt with in three separate Bills. To compress that debate into an even shorter time than tonight's debate shows, I am afraid, that the Government have lost control of their business.
  The motion is misguided in principle and even more misguided in practical detail. I hope that the Government will learn their lesson, not only about today's proceedings, but about what should happen tomorrow. They should re-table tomorrow's timetable motion and enable us to have a proper debate.
  Such debates have become something of a ritual, and the House does not perform well when we go through the motions ritualistically. I hope that we shall promptly get on to the substance of the debate, but I very much regret that there is a comparatively short time in which to debate some extremely important issues.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I intend to speak for only about two minutes. I want to place on record what happened under the previous Government.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred to a ritual. Perhaps we need some text to which all hon. Members could refer when they condemn our Government for introducing guillotines. The record is as follows: the previous Conservative Government guillotined 65 Bills.
  Mr. Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I want to complete my argument. I shall give way at the end.
  The previous Conservative Government guillotined 44 proceedings in Standing Committee and 34 sittings of the House dealing with Lords amendments. They guillotined 58 debates on Report, all on separate Bills, and 58 Third Readings of different Bills, but the Conservatives have the hypocrisy to condemn a Labour Government for introducing guillotines. [Interruption.] I have not even finished my list. The Conservative Government even guillotined, on two separate occasions, business dealt with by a Committee of the whole House. On four occasions, they guillotined Second Readings.

  679
  This should be on the record, and the public should know about it. The hon. Member for North Cornwall was right to talk of ritual, but I want to put that in context and give the background. Under the last Conservative Government, 201 separate proceedings were guillotined in the House of Commons.
  6 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Once again, we are being asked to consider a timetable motion. We considered one last week. It is the business of those who are concerned with good government to protest about this practice, because it is profoundly wrong.
  I do not pretend that the fact that we are dealing with two Bills is exceptional, but it is at least unusual. We should remind ourselves that the two Bills that we are proposing to guillotine are by any stretch of the imagination important, and that many Lords amendments are attached to them. Nine groups of amendments—123 in all—have been tabled to the Freedom of Information Bill, but the debate will finish at midnight. We should also bear in mind the fact that when Members express their views by means of a Division, which they will from time to time, that Division will be included in the timetable.
  Tomorrow we shall debate the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, to which 281 amendments have been tabled. I do not know how many groups of amendments there are, but I know, because it is in the timetable motion, that the debate will finish at 10 pm. It is very probable that a statement will be made on, for example, the rural White Paper, and that is bound to take some time because Mr. Speaker is bound to allow a decent period for discussion.
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend need not speculate. The Order Paper tells us, does it not, that tomorrow will feature a ten-minute Bill, which may be controversial and on which the House may divide. In that event, the first half hour of business after 3.30 pm will inevitably be taken up with the ten-minute Bill, notwithstanding the possibility of a statement as well. So the time available is diminishing before our very eyes.
  Mr. Hogg: Indeed. Moreover, it would only take another crisis engineered by, for instance, the Deputy Prime Minister to trigger a private notice question, which would eat away at the time allowed for tomorrow's extremely important debate.
  To make matters worse, there is another timetable motion on Wednesday, also applying to two Bills. That, no doubt, is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) described this as national guillotine week—a phrase that resonates especially strongly from her lips.
  Mr. David Maclean: Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to comment on the information given by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—for which the House is grateful —that the last Conservative Government guillotined an average of only three Bills per annum? This week we shall deal with three guillotines: that is three guillotines in one week, in one Session of Parliament.
  Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I always enjoy listening to the speeches of the hon.
  680
  Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), but he will forgive me for observing that he, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, went in for double counting in a quite extraordinary manner—and, furthermore, took care that we were not reminded of the divider of 18. That was my right hon. Friend's point, and it brings us to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who reminded us that the guillotine had been applied to 40 separate measures since 1997. That puts the speech of the hon. Member for Workington in its proper context.
  I find it extraordinary that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was not prepared to give way; but the Liberal Democrats, of course, have become a sub-set of the Labour Government. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I would certainly be prepared to agree to consensual timetable motions on occasion if, and only if, we were also consulted on the volume of legislation to be announced in the Queen's Speech. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman nodding. If there were an agreement entitling us to a decisive say on the volume of legislation and other business, there might—I put it no higher than that—be a case for a consensual timetable motion.
  Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm, for the elucidation of the public, that even if there were no votes tonight—which is an unlikely contingency—and even if every amendment were debated, an average of less than two minutes would be allowed for consideration of each amendment? Does that not demonstrate the Government's contempt for the House of Commons?
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I shall come to the consequences of that in a moment, but I think that we need to remind ourselves of what the Home Secretary told us. I am sorry that he is not present now; he has left his two sidekicks to deal with the debate. He told us that a number of important amendments had been introduced in the other place, which, if we considered them at all, we would consider for the first time tonight.
  Let us focus on what is bad about this process. For one thing, when we are dealing with nine groups of amendments—when we are dealing with 123 amendments, or 283—the inevitable consequence of a timetable motion is that a substantial number of them will not be discussed. It is no good the Home Secretary saying that some amendments moved in the other place were moved in pursuance of undertakings that he had given here. That may be true, but we are not in a position to scrutinise the language he has used, or to ask ourselves whether those amendments meet the undertakings he has given. Such an assurance constitutes no justification whatever.
  As a result of these increasingly numerous timetable motions, elected representatives cannot scrutinise important legislation. That means that we cannot express our views on the amendments before us; it means that the interested parties who look to us to articulate their concerns will not have their concerns reflected in discussion; and it means that our constituents will not be able, through their elected Members, to express their views on legislation. All that is profoundly wrong.
  With these timetable motions, we are stripping out part of the democratic process. If that were not bad enough, we are also stripping out part of the legislative process,

  681
  and our ability to improve legislation is being greatly diminished. There is yet a third offensive element, which I put to the Home Secretary. All the amendments originated in the House of Lords, and many will not be discussed here. That means that the unelected other place is making law. What possible justification can there be for that, in the 21st century?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Ask Daddy.
  Mr. Hogg: That, I assume, is a reference to my right hon. and learned kinsman the former Lord Chancellor, who warned the country about an elective dictatorship. That is exactly the answer that he would give the hon. Gentleman. What he warned of is coming to pass: a tyrannical, dictatorial Government are using their Back Benchers to force through legislation. What is so bizarre is that the Government are using Labour Back Benchers to force through legislation emanating from the other place that has been voted on, or discussed only in the other place.
  That is a scandal. Were it not happening now, we would not believe that it were possible. It reinforces strongly the case for an elected second Chamber. I believe—I make no bones about it—that we should have a wholly elected second Chamber. That at least would give some legitimacy to the process that we are seeing thrust upon us.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. First, we are not here to discuss the other place in any depth. Secondly, I am starting to hear arguments that I have heard more than once this evening.
  Mr. Hogg: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have heard those arguments on other occasions, too. We are being told by Ministers to approve a timetable motion. Those of us who are against timetable motions come to this place whenever they are moved to debate them. Inevitably, the arguments are much the same; they go to democracy. It is an offence for us to be asked to approve such a timetable motion.
  I have already this evening and on previous occasions described how such a motion undermines the legislative process, but worse than that, it undermines democracy. The country looks to the House of Commons to ensure that legislation is properly scrutinised. It assumes that legislation is properly scrutinised. The fact that people are willing to acquiesce in a given law reflects their belief that their elected representatives can and do scrutinise the legislation.
  Mr. David Taylor: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a Minister in previous Administrations, was a guillotine ever used for legislation for which he or his Department was responsible?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: And did the right hon. and learned Gentleman vote for it?
  Mr. Hogg: I am sure that I did: I make no bones about it. I was in government for 13 years and, as part of the process of collective responsibility, I supported many things publicly that I privately disagreed with. That is
  682
  thenature of collective responsibility. One of the joys of being with the Back Benchers is that I can say whatever I please without the slightest fear of committing either myself or those on the Front Bench.
  Mr. Forth: Regrettably, I was in government for only nine years, so I cannot speak with quite the same authority as my right hon. and learned Friend. Will he concede, though, that what is radically different now is that we have not only an arrogant Government with a huge Commons majority, who have proved themselves capable of trampling over all our traditions and conventions and changing our rules, but a House of Lords that has been radically changed? The combination of the changes in the two Chambers of Parliament, the changes to Standing Orders and, now, national guillotine week, has removed all possibility of true accountability of Government to Parliament.
  Mr. Hogg: I need to be careful about what I say about the other place, lest you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, call me to order, but my right hon. Friend has made an important point. The other place contains many fewer independent-minded people than it did. I have never tried to defend the hereditary composition of the other place. I have always favoured an elected one, but at least the hereditary composition provided for an independent number of Members, as opposed to the present nomination system, which, on the whole, does not. We have lost the independent Members.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, on the particular legislation on which the Government are putting forward their guillotine tonight, we have an extra lack of independence, in that there has been a squalid deal between Liberal Democrat peers and the Government, apparently to the enormous displeasure of the Liberal Democrat spokesman in this Chamber, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—which is why he is not here? He is too embarrassed and has sent the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) to try to defend the indefensible.
  Mr. Hogg: If there has been a squalid deal between the Liberal Democrats and Labour, that does not surprise me. After all, we now understand from the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) that there was a secret deal to impose some form of coalition government on this country which was never disclosed to the electorate at the time of the general election, so I am not in the least surprised to hear that there has been a squalid deal between Liberal Democrat and Government Front Benchers.
  Let us go back to what really matters because, in the end, the Liberal Democrats do not. To have authority, legislation depends on the process being properly adhered to. I do not believe that one can go on indefinitely passing laws that have neither been discussed nor scrutinised, without the electorate waking up to the fact that the law-making process is breaking down. Once that happens, we get a disenchantment with the process so great that the foundations of democracy are undermined.
  The Government in that respect, as in many others, are undermining the foundations of democracy. Therefore the House—and those of us who are seriously concerned about representative government—needs to protest and go on protesting whenever such a motion is moved.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: I offer absolutely no apology for having opposed guillotine motions when sitting on the Opposition Benches. I opposed them for the simple reason that I opposed the Bills themselves. As I did not want the Bills to pass into law, obviously, I used every opportunity to oppose guillotine motions. I have no objections to Conservative Members who basically oppose the Freedom of Information Bill and the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill saying that they oppose the guillotine motion. Some Labour Members may be of the view that that is wrong. I am not at all of that view. I opposed guillotine motions when in opposition; it is understandable that Conservative Members are doing so now.
  As I said when I intervened on the Home Secretary, if there were no guillotine motion covering the two Bills, they could not pass into law in the current Session. If they do not pass into law in this Session, they are dead. There is no carry-over.
  It is nonsense for the Conservatives to claim that they are really in favour of the Freedom of Information Bill and the right to roam Bill. One previous attempt to introduce a freedom of information Bill was made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), but his Government opposed it. When my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) tried again to introduce such a measure, it was also opposed because the Conservatives did not want a freedom of information Bill. There may be certain new clauses and amendments that could strengthen the Bill. Some of are perhaps a little critical and believe that it could go further, but the Conservatives in office opposed any such measure. There would never have been a freedom of information Bill had the Tories been elected at the last election. That is a fact of life; it is no use pretending otherwise.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman mentioned a time constraint. He seemed to imply that the motion was essential for the Government to complete their legislative programme against some deadline or other. Does he agree that the deadline is of the Government's making? Having set that completely arbitrary deadline—a Prorogation date; a Queen's Speech date—they must now introduce this motion, denying us the opportunity for debate. The motion is to meet their own self-imposed deadline.
  Mr. Winnick: It is a bit odd because the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) criticised us for beginning the new Session later than usual. Conservative Members cannot have it both ways. No hon. Member—certainly no Conservative Member—could be more opposed to the Freedom of Information Bill and the right to roam Bill than the right hon. Gentleman, so let us be clear what we are debating.
  As we know, the right to roam Bill is strenuously opposed by many Conservative Members, especially in the other place. They do not like the Bill, and we know why: as they see it, their interests would be adversely affected by it. Can anyone imagine a Conservative Government introducing a right to roam Bill such as we shall be debating tomorrow? Of course not; Conservative Members are absolutely opposed to right to roam legislation.
  Mr. Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that Opposition Members did not vote against the Countryside
  684
  and Rights of Way Bill on either Second Reading or Third Reading? Will he also confirm that, in Committee, it was made abundantly clear that, although we would have preferred not to have the Bill, the Opposition's sole objective was to improve it? A testament to that fact is the vast number of Government amendments that have subsequently been tabled to the Bill.
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman himself has just said it: Conservative Members would rather not have a right to roam Bill. Of course they did not oppose this Bill on Second Reading, but that was because of political opportunism. It would have been better and more honest if they had opposed it—as he has just done by saying that they would rather not have it.
  I simply repeat my belief that the two Bills are useful and necessary. Although the Freedom of Information Bill could certainly be strengthened as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) would like, I want the two Bills to be enacted. If there is not a guillotine motion, the Bills will die, and that will be the end of it. There is every justification for the Government to ensure that they do not die, but go on to the statute book by the end of this Session. I have no hesitation at all in supporting the Government's guillotine motion.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. James Paice: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate—which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, is but the first of a series of debates in national guillotine week, in which the Government are seeking to curtail debate.
  I do not want to reiterate arguments that have already been made. I shall restrict my remarks entirely to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, in which I have taken a close interest. I shall also try to demonstrate that, in relation to that Bill, the timetable motion has nothing to do with events of this week or with the artificial timetable that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst mentioned, but everything to do with Ministers' incompetence from the very first day on which they entered Government. Although the legislation was a manifesto item, it has taken Ministers until their third parliamentary Session to introduce it. One might have thought that Ministers would have wanted to introduce and implement it very quickly.
  Conservative Members have never made any bones about the fact that, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) implied, we do not think that right to roam legislation is a sensible way of improving access to the countryside. However, such legislation was part and parcel of the Government's manifesto, as it had been part of Labour's manifesto for very many years. The fact that it has taken until the middle of the Government's third parliamentary Session to introduce a Bill defies the belief that Ministers are competent in managing their affairs.
  The Bill was not introduced until this calendar year, well into the Session. Moreover, Ministers themselves have delayed the Bill. Not only were they late in introducing it, but, while it was in Committee, they moved an amendment to delete one entire schedule and to replace it with another very long and complicated schedule. Indeed, the new schedule was so long and complicated

  685
  that the Government decided to cancel an entire day's consideration in Committee, so that Committee members could consider it. Although I do not belittle the Government's generosity in thinking that we needed extra time to consider the new schedule, if they had got the confounded thing right initially, we would not have had to lose that day and the subsequent time in considering it.
  In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and the Minister for the Environment—who seems rapidly to be assuming the title of Minister for hot air—consistently opposed sensible amendments moved by me and my right. hon. and hon. Friends. However, when the self-same amendments were moved in the other place, Ministers accepted them. Although I am pleased that Ministers have accepted them, and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will express their pleasure—if they have time tomorrow, given the vast number of amendments that we have to consider—that they have been accepted, the 100-plus hours to which the Home Secretary referred that were taken up considering them in the other place were unnecessary. The Government should have accepted the amendments when we moved them initially.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary will no doubt reply, "All we are doing is considering points that were seriously made in Committee, and returning to them as we promised to do." There were some occasions—which Opposition Members will welcome tomorrow, if we have time—when Ministers quite properly agreed to consider an argument made in Committee and to return to it. Previous Ministers have done the same and, I hope, future Ministers will do so, too. However, as I shall explain in more detail shortly, in Committee, the Under-Secretary and the Minister vehemently opposed many amendments and gave them no quarter, but they accepted them in the other place.
  Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a major matter of principle here? If one is going to move substantial amendments, it should be done in this place, not least because we represent the electorate who will be affected by the consequences of the legislative change? Although I willingly concede that the other place brings great expertise, it does not accurately reflect or represent those on whom the legislation will directly impact.
  Mr. Paice: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a case with which I cannot disagree. I was planning on addressing the issue later, in relation to areas of outstanding natural beauty, but, as he has touched on it, I shall do so now.
  AONBs are a major part of United Kingdom conservation legislation and, in Committee, my right. hon. and hon. Friends gently inquired why they were not included in the Bill. Ministers waited until the legislation was considered in the other place before moving copious amendments to establish not only the concept of AONBs, but conservation boards and all the paraphernalia that goes with them.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, as those matters are dealt with in new clauses and could be considered, if at
  686
  all, only at the end of our consideration tomorrow, there is a risk that they will not be debated in the House. Before any hon. Member jumps up and seeks to intervene, let me make it clear that I hope that we consider those matters. I shall certainly not be responsible for preventing us from considering them.
  Although the Home Secretary seems to be ignorant of it, everyone else seems to know that, tomorrow, there will be a statement on the White Paper. Therefore, it is likely that we will not start considering the Bill until 5 o'clock, leaving us about five hours to consider 16 groups of amendments, in at least six of which there are also amendments to Lords amendments.
  Mr. Maclean: Although it is very important that we debate those provisions in part III, if we get to them, I hope that my hon. Friend, as a Front-Bench spokesman, is not suggesting that we skip over the vital amendments on improved or semi-improved grassland or the provisions touching on clause 13 and occupiers' liability, which would impose horrendous burdens on our constituents and which need to be dealt with properly in the House. That is to mention only a few amendments.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not respond in too much detail on those amendments, because that is not what we are dealing with.
  Mr. Maclean: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was seeking a general, broad-brush response.
  Mr. Paice: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I was about to refer to the matters that we will need to deal with before we get on to areas of outstanding natural beauty. I referred to them only because my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) mentioned them.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) mentioned some of the amendments. It is worth while considering Ministers' responses to points made in Committee. We had a considerable debate about the definition of curtilage. The Minister for the Environment said:
  Curtilage therefore has a meaning that can be flexibly applied to the facts of each case—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: What has this to do with the motion?
  Mr. Paice: A lot.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not appreciate such sedentary interventions. The Chair will decide what is or is not in order.
  Mr. Paice: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am seeking to demonstrate that the Bill has had to be timetabled because of the Government's own incompetence during earlier stages.
  The Minister for the Environment said:
  Curtilage has a meaning that can be flexibly applied to the facts of each case. There is no reason to suppose that a statutory definition of curtilage will be any more helpful than the court's interpretation.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 4 April 2000; c. 144.1

  687
  Despite all that, Lords amendment No. 153, a Government amendment, inserts
  Land within 20 metres of a dwelling
  as a definition of curtilage.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now doing precisely what I asked him not to do. If he is not careful, he will attempt to have a debate today that we will probably have tomorrow.
  Mr. Paice: There is of course the argument that there will not be much time tomorrow. I seek not to rehash the arguments but to demonstrate the fact that, if the Government had not taken such a bull-headed approach in Committee and rejected the selfsame amendments that they agreed to in the other place, we would not need to be having this debate, because proceedings in the Lords could have been completed and the legislation enacted some weeks ago.
  Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is on a very important point of principle. In view of the principle established in Pepper v. Hart, whereby a Minister's words can be used in interpretation, is not it vital that the Minister for the Environment comes to the Dispatch Box tomorrow to reverse what he said? Otherwise, when a court is faced on judicial review with a question concerning the interpretation of legislation, it will be faced with a Commons Minister saying one thing—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not relevant.
  Mr. Paice: I believe that my right hon. Friend is entirely right. I am sure that when Ministers consider what they said in the past and what they will almost certainly have to say tomorrow, they will want at least to show some shame-facedness.
  We also discussed in Committee the definition of mountain, moor, heath and down. We had a long debate on semi-improved and improved grassland. The Minister for the Environment said:
  let me be absolutely clear: the cultivated land exception is not intended to be the mechanism for excluding improved or semi-improved pastures and fields from a right of access.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 6 April 2000; c. 167.]
  Yet Lords amendment No. 2 says that mountain, moor, heath and down does not include land that consists of improved or semi-improved grassland. That is a complete and utter volte-face.
  I might be tempting providence if I read out countless more examples, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Hogg: One of the problems with the timetable is that we may not be able to probe Ministers about why they have changed their position so fundamentally. Does not that emphasise the injustice and lack of wisdom associated with a motion of this kind?
  Mr. Paice: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. Part of the House's duty is to challenge the Government about their reasons for tabling certain amendments, just as, in earlier stages, we challenged them about their reasons for opposing certain amendments. If their two positions are completely contradictory, we have to ask why, and we should have time for that.
  688
  I would like to think that the change of mind was all down to the persuasiveness of our arguments or those of my noble Friends but, whatever the reasons, we have a right to know.
  Mr. Maclean: It is not only ourselves but the thousands of people out there who will be affected who have a right to know. If a case turning on the definition of improved grassland goes to court, the court would have a problem.— The European Court of Human Rights would have a problem—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is repeating a point that he made earlier.
  Mr. Paice: I apologise to my right hon. Friend if I did not answer his point adequately the first time. I agree with him, and his point is very important.
  I will give one more example and—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the House has now heard enough examples. The arguments are getting rather repetitive. I hope that some new points will be made soon.
  Mr. Paice: If I may say so, these are all new points, because they concern different issues on which the Government themselves have caused time to be wasted. Had the Government agreed to the amendments in the first place, we would not have wasted all that time in the other place, which has led to the need for the timetable motion.
  The Hansard report will show that the Government clearly misled the Committee over occupiers' and owners' liability and then accepted that they had done so. The Minister for the Environment made a statement that proved to be entirely untrue, and he accepted that when he was challenged on it later. On liability and dry stone walls, he said
  Listening to hon. Members' comments on walls, one might think it remarkable that there are any walls left in Dartmoor, much of the lake district, Snowdonia or many other areas that already have statutory rights of access—[Official Report, Standing Comtnittee B, 18 April 2000; c. 398.]
  Surprise, surprise, Lords amendment No. 9 introduces an absolution for owners and occupiers from liability for
  a risk of that person suffering injury when passing over, under—
  believe it or not—
  or through any wall, fence or gate.
  There is a catalogue of examples of the Government's wasting the time of Parliament in its entirety: this Chamber and the other place. Had they introduced the Bill earlier and got it right, rather than doing it at the very last minute, and had they acceded in Committee to amendments to which they subsequently acceded in the other place, the motion would not be necessary.
  Despite what the hon. Member for Walsall, North said, the Opposition have never sought to delay the Bill. Hon. Members need not take my word for that. The Minister and the Government Whip in Committee both put on record the statement that the Opposition were not wasting time. It is the Government's fault that we are in this

  689
  position, and the Government should pay the price. I do not want the Bill to fail, but the Government should have allowed us time to complete the debate on it.
  Mr. David Taylor: You said that you did earlier.
  Mr. Paice: I did not. I have said quite clearly that I do not want the Bill to fail because it contains a number of measures that I support. Yes, there are aspects that I do not wish to see implemented, but I have accepted that they will become law. My sole intent is to make the legislation more practical and feasible for all those whom it affects.
  Mr. Taylor: Nineteen minutes is an awfully long time, particularly when it contains a large amount of tedium. Will the hon. Gentleman remind us whether he said at the start of his speech that he and his party, broadly speaking, did not want to see the Bill hit the statute book?
  Mr. Paice: If the hon. Gentleman had attended the earlier debates and listened to what I said, he would know that there has been no doubt in my mind—nor, I believe, in the minds of my colleagues—that we would rather not have had part I on the statute book. However, we have accepted that it will be law, and that simple bull-headed opposition will achieve nothing. We have thus concentrated all our efforts on trying to make part I more achievable, practicable, enforceable and understandable. Most of the arguments that we put forward earlier in the Bill's proceedings were rejected by the Government in Committee. They have subsequently seen the light, for which I rejoice, and have accepted many of those amendments in the other place.
  It is the Government's fault that we are in this position. They had the opportunity to get the Bill through the House earlier, more effectively and more cleanly. They could have ended up with a piece of legislation that the House would in general support, although perhaps not in every aspect. As it is, we can be clear that whatever happens tomorrow night and however quickly my right hon. and hon. Friends and I move through the list of amendments, not all will get discussed. For that reason, I oppose the motion.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I thought that I heard the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) sighing, but he introduced a quite novel principle into the application of the guillotine. It was his submission, if I understood him correctly, that there should be no distinction in principle between the measure and the guillotine motion. He extended that principle to say that so long as the Conservative party was opposed to a measure, that was itself a proper reason for imposing a guillotine on it.
  At least the hon. Gentleman had the courtesy to give way during his speech, which is more than can be said for the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip. However, the hon. Gentleman had a very good reason for not giving way. I see the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) smiling; I am coming to him.
  690
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall said at the outset that he was in favour of a system whereby speeches could simply be read into the record without having to be delivered at all. As that option was not available to him, he nevertheless went for the next best thing by reading his speech into the record. It follows, therefore, that he could not take interventions, and, indeed, he refused to do so.
  The hon. Member for Workington made a very mischievous speech.
  Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Swayne: Yes, I will.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is right to object to the way in which the Government propose to truncate the debate. He is also right to upbraid the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). [Interruption.] I am indeed addressing the Chair; 1 do not need lectures from a sedentary position from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). Does my hon. Friend agree that the rather tribal attitude that the hon. Member for Walsall, North habitually displays might be one of the reasons why the late Lord Wilson famously described him as the silliest man in Parliament?
  Mr. Winnickrose—
  Mr. Swayne: I will give way to the hon. Member for Walsall, North.
  Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside the rubbish of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) misinterpreted what I said. I said that if the Opposition oppose a measure, it is understandable that they would oppose a guillotine to hasten the progress of that measure, such as the one that we are debating today.
  Mr. Swayne: I take the hon. Gentleman's correction. I entirely understand his desire to see a timetable motion used to get a Bill of which he approves on to the statute book. However, it has been our case all along that this would not have been necessary if the measure had been properly handled.
  The hon. Member for Workington drew attention to what he described as 201 separate pieces of business on which the previous Government imposed a timetable motion. He sat down before he could be interrogated about whether that was a record that he admired—because he seemed to imply that it was—and whether it was his intention that the Government should attempt to emulate it. The hon. Gentleman gives every impression of being prepared to support the Government in this timetable motion.
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has done the House a marvellous service tonight. He is man of honour and integrity, as well as being my next-door neighbour. He has confirmed—and I do not think that anyone in the House will challenge

  691
  his word—that during the 18 years of the previous Tory Government we averaged only three guillotines a year. Now we are running at four a week.
  Mr. Swayne: It is clear that the hon. Member for Workington has done us a singular service.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Which school did my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), go to that taught that three times 18 equals 201?
  Mr. Swayne: It is not for me to intrude on this private matter.
  Mr. Macleanrose—
  Mr. Swayne: I dislike being the go-between but I will give way to my right hon. Friend once more.
  Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Perhaps I should make it clear, so that there is no misunderstanding, that one was referring to the number of Bills guillotined by the previous Government, not all the individual motions which the hon. Member for Workington double counted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah !"] However, he has confirmed that the previous Government guillotined, on average, slightly more than three Bills per annum.
  Mr. Swayne: The key principle is not how many, or by whom, but whether this brings us any further forward.
  Mr. Campbell-Savoursrose—
  Mr. Swayne: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer my question: is that a record of which he approves and does he support his Government's guillotine because it is an attempt to emulate that record?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I think that the hon. Gentleman should have listened to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he said that in the last five years when Labour was in opposition, we decided that we would take a more co-operative approach on these matters. We decided we would co-operate with the then Government whenever possible and, indeed, we did so. The hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue that.
  I was asked another question, something to do with 201 by 3. I have forgotten it now, but I will remember in a minute.
  Mr. Swayne: I will deal with that point shortly, but first I return to a phrase first used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) when she referred to this as national guillotine week. I thought that although that is a very useful way of describing this week, it does not take sufficient account of the fact that last week was also national guillotine week. Indeed, there will be similar weeks to come—every week will be national guillotine week.
  In his opening speech, the Secretary of State complained that there was an occasion when the previous Conservative Government had guillotined two Bills not at the end of the parliamentary Session but at the beginning of it,
  692
  in December. Has the Secretary of State recognised that from now on all Bills will be, in effect, guillotined as a consequence of the decisions that were taken 10 days or so ago?
  That prompts me to wonder why we have so many guillotines this week. We have had a couple of weeks of fairly light whipping, and from next week we face the prospect of all Bills being programmed—that is, guillotined. It would not have been too much to expect if Members had been required to sit up late two or three nights this week, given the importance of the Bills under consideration. Is it the case that the guillotines before us are for the convenience of Members? I suspect so, but also that matters go further than that.
  If this evening's business is taken when we have only 27 minutes for each group of amendments, there will effectively be time only for the Front-Bench spokesmen to have their say. That will curtail any Back-Bench contribution, which is the purpose of programming. The hon. Member for Workington said that his party, when it was the Opposition, began to co-operate, which led to a diminution in the need for guillotines. He recommended that course to us, but co-operation—enforced co-operation will increasingly be the case under programme motions—will always be used to stifle dissent on the Back Benches.
  Anyone who sat through our debates on the Scotland Act 1998—programmed from beginning to end—will be aware that the person most disadvantaged was the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Time and again, debates were arranged by the hon. Gentleman's own Front Benchers in such a way as to exclude the contributions that he wished to make on key elements that went through without being discussed at all. That is the problem with all timetable motions. They can be used to ensure that Front Benchers have their say, and that dissent, whether from the Government or Opposition Benches, is silenced.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is not in his place. He advanced a deeply distasteful concept when he referred to these proceedings as a ritual. As a Conservative, I view rituals with caution and respect, and I must ask to what ritual he was referring. The rituals in question are freedom of speech and the right to represent those who sent us here. I am not dismissive of either concept. Both are important, but the hon. Gentleman thinks that they are not. He thinks that it is somehow denigratory to have freedom of speech and to be free to represent the views of those who sent us here.
  Last week, the hon. Gentleman voted against a guillotine. I take it from the burden of his remarks that he will do so again today on a motion affecting two Bills. Did he mean that the ritual had convinced him to vote against the guillotine? He said that he would like all Bills to be—in his grandiloquent word—programmed, and that even when they are, we do not necessarily fail to debate important areas of Bills. The Police (Northern Ireland) Bill was perhaps the most powerful demonstration against that, and I do not want to waste too much time on the triviality and deeply offensive ideas that the hon. Member for North Cornwall holds on representative democracy.
  The hon. Gentleman was supporting the Home Secretary's motion. I speak only in the context of the Freedom of Information Bill, as I do not have the

  693
  knowledge to speak on the second Bill. The Home Secretary said that there is, at the end of a parliamentary Session, an imperative to secure the Government's business. That business could be set off course by the shuttling between the other place and this one, and he therefore had to address that imperative.
  An assumption lay behind his words that has become a commonplace under the Government since 1997. They say that all Governments must get their business. That has never been a constitutional proposition in the United Kingdom. Governments propose, and, in one sense, the House of Commons disposes. Governments bring measures before the House. Those measures may have had the support of the electorate who made the Government, but no electorate have ever examined the detail of a Bill, know what is hidden in the clauses or sub-clauses or know in advance the weight of the criminal sanctions to be imposed in legislation. That is why the process of being able to examine and unpick legislation is something that all Governments seek. Our system secures authority by allowing those opposed to have their say. That is the most crucial element in asserting the rights of the people and the old Burkean concept of consent, not just allegiance.
  Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that an even more sinister thought lies hidden behind the new principle that he has identified? It is that the Government of the day can be assumed to have a right to any number of Bills, because the programming mechanism that the Government have single-handedly imposed on the House implies that the Government may determine how little time can be given to each Bill and therefore how many Bills—an unlimited number—can be forced through in a Session. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the implication of the arrangements that we face in the new Session?
  Mr. Shepherd: I do, indeed, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall was a handmaiden in that process.
  Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend makes, as always, an extremely powerful speech. Does he agree that what he is criticising the Government for doing was wisely encapsulated in the other place by Lord Archer of Sandwell, a Labour peer attacking his own side, who said:
  "I'll be judge, I'll be jury", said cunning old Fury;
  "I'll try the whole cause, and condemn you to death"?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 214.1
  Mr. Shepherd: I have the greatest respect for Lord Archer of Sandwell, with whom I served in this House for many years. When he uses such strong words to castigate a Labour Government, his patience has indeed been tried on the content of what he was being asked to accept.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case that Parliament exists to question the Executive. What would he do, however, if he were faced by an Opposition who, on many occasions, insisted on dragging out the process of legislation with a view to destroying it? Oppositions raise valid issues, but are there no circumstances in which the hon. Gentleman would have to come to terms with the use of some mechanism to ensure
  694
  that Oppositions should not be allowed to destroy Bills that the majority of the House of Commons feels are wanted by the wider public?
  Mr. Shepherd: I said that our system secures authority by allowing those opposed to have their say. The hon. Gentleman—who double and treble-counted to give us an extraordinary relationship on the number of guillotine motions used—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have sedentary interventions from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
  Mr. Shepherd: Under Mrs. Thatcher, 34 Bills were guillotined in the House. As the hon. Member for Workington said, 64 motions were required to guillotine 34 Bills. That took place over slightly more than 11 years. Let us contrast it to the conduct of the Labour Government, who in three and a half years—less than one Parliament—have already guillotined 40 Bills, requiring more than 50 motions. The hon. Gentleman's list would not even include the motion to guillotine the two Bills that we are discussing. Even if we allow for the agreement of Conservative Front-Bench Members and of the hon. Member for North Cornwall to such timetables, only 18 Bills could be deducted from the Government's total.
  This matter raises a point of principle. What makes us angry about the imposition of such guillotines is that Governments are disposing of the most essential process for giving legitimacy to the laws that they make. This procedure has become a system of management of the Commons. The hon. Member for North Cornwall applauds that as merely ritualistic, but in fact it is destructive of the House and of its standing with those who sent us here.
  I am fearful that guillotines such as this undermine the standing of Governments. Governments can talk directly to the electorate, but how do the electorate talk back to them? They can talk back only through us as the representatives that they sent to this place. If we are so marginal that a majority is mobilised to stop proper discussion of measures, we undermine our system of authority.
  I did not intend to speak for long, but the arguments adduced by the Home Secretary as to the need for the guillotine do not stand up to reasonable examination. The Government's assertion is deeply offensive when they tell those who are opposed to, or who want to examine or improve measures how they should go about their business of representing the arguments of those who sent them to this place. The guillotine should be rejected.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: We have heard an interesting combination of arguments, ranging from the principled to the detailed. Those used by Government Members all seemed to start from several propositions that would, I suspect, be accepted by very few Opposition Members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has just reminded the House, the first of those propositions is the completely new idea that has arisen—at least it is new to me, and, obviously, to my hon. Friend—that a Government have the divine right to push through any amount of legislation they choose, at a time of their choosing, in a given Session of Parliament.

  695
  I did not know that that was a principle of our constitution. I was not aware that that was the result of centuries of historical development of the relationship between Parliament and the Executive—but suddenly it has burst on to the political scene. We are told with great confidence, even by the Home Secretary, that apparently the Government of the day have a right to any amount of legislation, and also have the right so to structure the parliamentary timetable as to fit that legislation into a given amount of time. That is further reflected in the fact that during the debate, Labour Members told us repeatedly that there was to be a timetable on the consideration of other Bills due to come to us from another place this week. Given that time limit, we are told that we must truncate debate on this week's business.
  That argument poses some difficulties. The first is that the time limit is of the Government's making. They have decided, quite arbitrarily, that the Queen's Speech will be next week, so the House must prorogue before that. That time limit is only of the Government's making, because of their incompetence in managing their legislative programme for this year to date.
  Within that, there is another artificial time constraint. What is so magic about midnight? Do we all turn into pumpkins? Do we turn into something else? Do our shoes no longer fit? I do not understand why, according to the Government's timetable motion, deliberations on the Freedom of Information Bill must finish at midnight. Even more bizarrely, proceedings on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill must finish at 10 o'clock tomorrow night.
  I realise that the Government have imposed on the House a new set of Standing Orders, under which it is decreed that in the next Session of Parliament, the House will not deliberate, or—more accurately—that it will not vote, after 10 pm. But we are still in the current Session, not the next one, so I am not aware that there is a requirement to end our consideration of Bills at 10 o'clock on a given night.
  I am aware that Labour Members are delicate flowers—especially the babes. I know that they want to go home, presumably not to their constituencies, although some of them are probably there already; indeed, they may not yet have arrived back—perhaps they will not arrive back at all. I understand all that, but, like many of my hon. Friends, I continue to cling to the belief that the primary duty of Members of this House is to be in the Chamber to hold the Government to account—not against an artificial time limit, but using the amount of time reasonably required to investigate properly what they are doing.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, judging by previous debates, the Government did not need to be especially wise to anticipate that substantial debate would be needed—certainly on the Freedom of Information Bill? As they could have foreseen that some months ago, would it not have been judicious to consider a recall of Parliament in September to facilitate that proper debate for which my right hon. Friend rightly asks?
  Mr. Forth: As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I did not necessarily want to review the year to date in detail, but the Government passed up many opportunities to use the time of the House to examine legislation properly. Fridays have come and gone. Business has
  696
  finished early and prematurely. The three-month summer recess came and went. None of those opportunities were taken by the Government to allow us to examine legislation.
  My hon. Friend knows the answer to the question: the Government have so mismanaged their legislative programme this year that they have put themselves in the position of having to meet artificially imposed time deadlines. They passed up many opportunities—indeed, because of their mismanagement, many opportunities were not even available to them.
  Mr. Maclean: Surely one of the best examples of the Government's complete mismanagement of time was when they gave time to a private Member's Bill to outlaw the sale of hamburgers in the royal parks. They gave that Bill time in the Chamber and imposed a guillotine. Debate on the measure on the Floor of the House took about two days, which could better have been devoted to important measures such as the Freedom of Information Bill.
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend and I could reminisce at some length about the Government's odd priorities. One of these days, someone will no doubt write a paper on the subject—examining this Session and musing about why the Government chose to spend inordinate amounts of parliamentary time on what can only be described as relatively minor matters, while having the gall and arrogance to tell the House that this week, which is artificially deemed to be the final week of the Session, only a certain amount of time will be allocated to deal with such major measures as the Freedom of Information Bill and the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.
  Before I enter into the substance of my remarks, I shall consider briefly some of the provisions of the motion. No one has yet done so, and it would be worth spending a little time on them. My eye lit on paragraph 3, which is headed "Subsequent stages". Sub-paragraph 3(1) states:
  The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on either of the Bills.
  However, sub-paragraph 3(2) states—crucially—
  The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
  The Government are thus imposing on us in the further stages of consideration—if measures go from this to another place and, perhaps, return—an arbitrary limit of one hour. So things are worse than we thought. Not only are we being limited to the magic hour of midnight tonight for the consideration of the Freedom of Information Bill, and to 10 o'clock tomorrow for the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill—on which, incidentally, we still do not know the groupings, the selection or anything else, which leaves us in a rather difficult position—but under paragraph 3(2), the Government tell us that there will be a limit of one hour on subsequent discussion.
  I regret to say many Members regard the Reasons Committee as a trivial, automatic mechanism contained in the motion, but it is nothing of the kind. The Reasons Committee is an important element of our deliberations and it requires, as the motion reminds us, a
  Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

  697
  So far as I can see—subject to correction by any Member, or, indeed, any Minister—the motion states:
  The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion.
  So the House will not even be given an opportunity to debate the Government's mandate for the appointment, nomination or quorum of the Reasons Committee. That is another matter that is being swept aside. We are supposed to assume that the Government—omniscient and omnipotent as they now regard themselves—can impose the Reasons Committee on the House without giving us an opportunity for debate, although there will be an opportunity to vote.
  Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether one of the reasons why the Government are behaving in a draconian and anti-democratic way may be related to the fact that there was such a substantial rebellion on the Government Benches when the Freedom of Information Bill was first introduced, when about 37 Labour Members were unwilling to support the Minister?
  Mr. Forth: Tempted though I am, I do not want to intrude unnecessarily into the Government's grief, but it is true that they may be structuring such rigid timetables because they do not want to provide too much time for Labour Members to express their dissent. That is at least a possibility; I put it no stronger than that.
  To finish the point about the Reasons Committee, paragraph 6(2) of the motion states:
  Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
  That is yet another way in which, almost surreptitiously, the Government are assuming that all the normal mechanisms that have become available to the House over centuries, which we have developed to discharge our duties and responsibilities properly, are being swept aside with the casual arrogance that has become the hallmark of the Government.
  The Government are not content with their gigantic majority in the House, nor with destroying the independent element of another place and replacing it with what have become known, rather disrespectfully, as Tony's cronies. Never mind all that; hidden in paragraph 6(2), we find that in the discharge of its duties, the deliberations of the Reasons Committee—an important, if small part of our proceedings—will be timetabled to 30 minutes.
  The motion contains several smaller, but equally draconian, restrictions on the time that will be available for the House to discharge its duties properly. I shall now begin to consider the structure of the timetable for the Bills themselves. As has been said many times, there are about 120 Lords amendments to the Freedom of Information Bill. The way things are heading, by my calculation, the House will probably have only about three and a half hours in which to consider all the 120 amendments. That would be bad enough, even if it were not for the content of some of the groupings that the Government have made.
  I understand that at this stage in proceedings, rather unusually, it is Ministers who determine the grouping of amendments, not the Chairman of Ways and Means, as is
  698
  usual. That in itself makes the procedure somewhat unusual, because we normally look to the impartiality of the Chair to give us some protection, through the even-handed selection of amendments and their grouping. However, as if the Government did not have enough advantages, as if they were not taking enough powers to themselves, and as if they were not restricting Back Benchers on both sides of the House sufficiently, they can also group the amendments for their own convenience. Given that fact, and given what we know of the selection of amendments to the Freedom of Information Bill, we shall have completely inadequate time to debate some very important matters.
  The item that is lucky enough to appear early on the selection list—the subject of public interest and exemptions—may receive reasonable scrutiny and consideration. Knowing that there is rightly a great deal of interest in that matter on both sides of the House, I suspect that it will be debated at some length and considered properly, and I should not be surprised if the House were to divide as well. If that is the case, all subsequent business will be put at risk—and we should not imagine that any of it is trivial. I should have thought that some of the later items—fees for disclosure, special provisions, public interest and so on—in the Freedom of Information Bill will attract a great deal of attention, not just in the House but outside.
  Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend has helpfully explained the sort of subjects that we will be obliged to address in our truncated debates. Is he aware that our present understanding is that the Home Secretary intends to deal with the sixth and eighth categories of amendments? Does he not think it just conceivable that the right hon. Gentleman has opted to deal with categories six and eight in the fervent hope that the eloquence of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), among others, will prevent those matters from being reached? Would not that be an undemocratic disgrace of the first order?
  Mr. Forth: Much though I respect the Secretary of State, I am not anxious for us to engineer the business so that he makes some sort of dramatic appearance at a late stage to seek either to impress or to depress us—I am not sure which. I am much more interested in the implications of what my hon. Friend says. If we look at the groups of amendments to the Freedom of Information Bill as the Government have imposed them on us, we see that the first group is very important, and may rightly occupy some time in deliberation, and, no doubt, Division, but the others are by no means trivial.
  There are very important provisions on Wales and Northern Ireland and important matters bearing on the relationship between the parts of the United Kingdom and on the implications of the Bill for the very different Administrations that we now have in those different parts of the United Kingdom. I should have thought that there would, rightly, be a lot of interest in such matters among those with a knowledge of, and an interest in, the relative roles in our constitutional affairs of the Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland, as covered by that group of amendments.
  There is a group that catches my eye. As soon as I see the words "drafting and minor", I am almost certain that the amendments will cover important, controversial and

  699
  difficult matters that the Government wish to conceal. It is an old trick, but we understand it fully. I should not be surprised if we were to spend an unusual amount of time on that group, because we shall want to winkle out what the Government want to conceal by giving it that rather bland title.
  The phrase "Historical records and the Public Record Office" sounds innocuous, does it not? However, that group contains all sorts of implications that should be considered. Another group of amendments is entitled, "Advice and assistance to persons making requests for information". The Government probably think that we can rush through all those amendments and accept them on the nod, but I should have thought that that is far from the case. Although I have gone only halfway down the selection list, I need go no further, because I have not yet even begun to deal with the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.
  It is clear, to me anyway, that substantial matters have to be dealt with, but there is a pathetically short time for the House to consider them properly. As if that were not difficult enough, when I came into the debate, I still did not know how the amendments to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill would be grouped. The groupings may have been promulgated since—although I doubt it—but I do not know how many amendments the House will be able to consider tomorrow. Tomorrow's Order Paper already contains notice of a ten-minute Bill. Although the debate on such a Bill can take as little as 10 minutes, proceedings on it can take half an hour if there is opposition to it and a Division. That happened last week.
  One of my hon. Friends said that he had reason to believe that there would be a statement tomorrow on a rural White Paper. The Home Secretary was rather shy when he was asked about that earlier, but there is at least the possibility of such a statement.
  We already face the possibility that we may not commence our consideration of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill until 5 o'clock tomorrow afternoon, yet in the motion, the Government tell us that they expect deliberations on it to be completed by 10 o'clock. We might have only five hours to debate 280 amendments. It does not take a mathematical genius or a rocket scientist to divide one figure by the other and to come up with the answer that the time that the Government suggest we should have for the debate is lamentably and scandalously small and inadequate.
  It could be argued that, as is our custom, the amendments will be divided into groups, but we do not know the groupings yet. In other words, the Government are asking us to sign a blank cheque by asking us to agree to the motion and the time limits in it. We know how many amendments to the Bill have come from another place, but we know nothing of how they will be grouped or the structure of the debate that will be suggested to us. That is entirely unsatisfactory.
  We can consider the motion from the perspective of an overview of the legislative year and try to fit it into that, or we can look at it upwards from our position as humble parliamentary ants on the Opposition Back Benches—mere cogs in the great machine of parliamentary consideration. However, from every angle, the motion before us is entirely unsatisfactory. It is typical of the Government's approach to the House of Commons.
  Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Forth: I shall give way for the last time.
  Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, particularly as I think that he was going to try out other similes on us.
  Is the position not even worse than that described by my right hon. Friend? We shall have one minute to discuss each amendment tomorrow, and in that time, Ministers will have to try to explain why they said something totally different in Committee. Is it not imperative that we have time for the explanations to be given, so that we do not get into a legal quagmire later?
  Mr. Forth: I agree with my right hon. Friend. He has highlighted one of the difficulties that always exist. The theory of parliamentary scrutiny is that each measure is considered in a number of stages, and that there is a relationship between the stages. Issues considered on Second Reading, in Committee or on Report in this House, and in the different stages in another place, and all the issues that are sent from one House to the other, interrelate. That is inevitable, so we in this Chamber would want to take account of what a Minister might have said in Committee or on Report. We would also properly want to take into consideration what the Government and their representatives had said in the other place. Will we have time to do that? The answer is patently no.
  I do not dispute the fact that we may be able to consider one or two groups of amendments—but there are so many amendments in so many groups, and so little time, that the House will not be able to discharge its responsibilities properly. That is how serious the matter is. Unless I hear an argument that is much more persuasive than those that I have heard already, even from someone as eminent and distinguished as the Home Secretary, I will be unable to accept the motion. Unless my hon. Friends hear something much more persuasive, I invite them to join me in opposing it.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a privilege to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Mine will be a more modest speech.
  An argument often deployed in favour of timetabling is that it enables what truly needs discussing to be discussed. In moving the Modernisation Committee's proposals on the programming of Bills on 7 November this year, the Leader of the House referred to an encouraging experiment in the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill. No Government member of that Committee is present tonight, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was on the Committee. He will recall that, despite our discussing 270 clauses and 30 schedules, we scarcely had time under the timetable motion to discuss congestion charging or the car park levy.
  The Government say that the Opposition always have the ability to choose what they regard as significant.

  701
  Last week, in defending the guillotine on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, said that, of the 140 amendments,
  some 40 are minor and miscellaneous.—[Official Report, 21 November 2000: Vol. 357, c. 182.]
  The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) then took four-and-a-half columns, or 19 minutes, on amendments that the selection list described as minor and miscellaneous; Conservative and Unionist Members took just over a column; the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who supports the Government, took a little less than a column; and the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) took a little over a column. In all, Government Back Benchers ensured that the "minor and miscellaneous" element that the Minister had used to defend the guillotine motion took a whole hour of the five hours available for debate. I acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst might think that minor and miscellaneous amendments should receive massive attention. However, on that occasion, Government Back Benchers crowded out debate on issues that others wanted to discuss.
  The Unionist parties were particularly concerned to discuss flags and emblems. In that debate, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) took a little over two columns; the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) took two columns; and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) took a column and two thirds. I acknowledge that I spoke for half a column, but the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who also supports the Government, began his speech by saying:
  I rise reluctantly to make two points, which have not been given the prominence that they should receive in the debate.—[Official Report, 21 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 238.]
  He then went on to speak for two-and-a-half columns, which was longer than anyone else in the debate. However, I acknowledge that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann devoted three columns to the issue of police recruitment.

  Earlier this afternoon, I intervened on the Home Secretary to ask whether consideration of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill in 1981—the parallel Bill to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill—had been guillotined. He replied that it had not. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) then asked the Home Secretary about Bills that were guillotined in 1980-81 and effectively made my point for me. The 1981 Bill was framed in a manner that made it acceptable to the Opposition. I accept that the other place discussed it for 10 days—indeed, they did so knowledgeably—but the Bill did not require a guillotine.
  Some of us welcome the wildlife aspects of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill but are concerned about the setting in which those aspects have been placed. People outside are also interested in the wildlife provisions and they wrote to us saying that they were concerned that the Government might not be able to carry the Bill, and the Government have proved that they will be able to carry it only with the use of a guillotine motion.
  I am an old-fashioned fellow. I never sign early-day motions except those of a memorial nature. I treat the others as a form of constitutional graffiti. I do not hurry
  702
  to vote on ten-minute rule Bills, a legislative mode that deludes and deceives the general public. The creation of more than 300 all-party groups likewise misleads our electors as to their significance. The fact that the one that took the number up to 300 was concerned with chocolate exemplifies their potential insubstantiality.
  I suppose that guillotine motions make the hair stand up on the back of my neck, but what is most disturbing is that campaigns that used to last a year—I think of the year of the tree, the year of the child and the year of literature—have now spawned campaigns that last a week, including, I learn from right hon. and hon. Friends, national guillotine week. However, I see nothing that will stop the Government, who are taking on the characteristics of Gadarene lemmings, from inventing the year of the lottery as well.
  Parliament has existed for more than seven centuries and, in that time, we have forged a remarkable array of legislative instruments from our collective wisdom and experience. It is sad that so destructive an instrument as the serial guillotine is being deployed so ruthlessly to cut us down to size.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) for allowing me to speak before him because he has sat more assiduously than I have through the debate.
  Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I am becoming outraged by the Government's attitude, as exemplified by the guillotine motion. The Government seem to want to reduce Parliament to nothing more than an electoral college in which they have been put in power merely to bring the motions and Bills that they want rubber-stamped back to the House before they go on their way. That is this evening's approach, and the 40 Bills that have been guillotined in just three years are further evidence of it.
  We should remember that the House of Commons had a three-month break this summer. If we had used some of that time to examine the Bills that clogged up the other place, we would not find the legislative programme in such a poor condition. It is clear that the Government pushed us away on our holidays because they did not want and did not trust their Back Benchers to examine their legislative programme. The Government thought that they would be better off if the detailed amendments that they were obliged to table—such as any Government might be obliged to table to such highly complex Bills—were examined in the other place and not in the House of Commons, perhaps during an extended consideration on Report.
  No doubt the Government were also concerned about the threat of Back-Bench revolts. We know that such revolts are imminent today on aspects of the Government's programme. We wish Labour Members well in joining us to get some democratic accountability in the House for the Government's action.
  Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that Labour Back Benchers are revolting?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I would no more suggest that than I would describe my right hon. Friend, who said that we were the ants of the parliamentary system, as a drone.

  703
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House should revolt against the motion because it goes against the basis on which Parliament is elected. My constituents cannot understand why we do not have the power and the time to examine major pieces of Government legislation and why unelected Members of another place are given that time when it is denied to us.
  The truth is that the extended recess also played into the Government's hands by allowing Ministers to do their job without being properly called to account in the Chamber. They get a double gain at our expense: their legislative programme is rammed through because they have run out of time at the end of the parliamentary Session—that is their excuse today—and during the recess they can get on with the job of government without being made accountable for disasters such as the fuel crisis.
  Mr. Winnick: For reasons that I have never agreed with, we have always had long summer recesses. I have argued that we should return in September, but I have not noticed much enthusiasm for that from Conservative Members, and certainly not from those on either Front Bench. If the hon. Gentleman checks up on what happened in 1992, he will discover that we broke up—if my memory is correct—in the middle of July. We had two extra weeks and the recess was longer than it was this year.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing us on to the historical record. Labour Members have told us what a well-behaved Opposition they were, but people who were in Parliament at the time have a different memory of how business was conducted. The fact is that from 1992 onwards there was a slimmer majority and there were other means of putting pressure on the Executive. The tried and tested method of putting pressure on an Executive with a large majority is that Opposition Members may scrutinise every detail of a Bill before it is allowed to pass through this place.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman referred to how well the previous Opposition claimed to behave, but in 1992 they were so anaemic that they refused to vote against a guillotined Bill that a handful of Ulster Unionists and some Tory and Labour Members were scrutinising and that was being imposed on the people of Northern Ireland without their consent.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that example of the hopeless way in which Labour Members opposed the previous Government.
  I am concerned that the collective amnesia of Labour Members also extends to a collective amnesia among Ministers about affairs for which they are responsible. Ministers spend far too much time cocooned in their offices surrounded by civil servants who tell them what they want to hear. It is only when they come to the Chamber that they hear the blunt truth. If the Ministers who are on the Front Bench tonight were to listen for a minute, they would hear a few blunt truths.
  Just 12 days ago, I challenged the Prime Minister on the Labour party's conduct in putting the Freedom of Information Bill through another place and the way in which Labour Members there, with the support of Liberal peers, voted to give Ministers a right to deny access to
  704
  information instead of giving the people the right to freedom of information just the night before. The Prime Minister seemed to be affronted that any Conservative Member of the House could dare to challenge the Government's credentials on the issue of freedom of information, but it will go down in the annals of this place that on a Bill about freedom of information we are not allowed freedom of discussion. That is the scandal of tonight's debate. Many Conservative Members have a consistent record of promoting and defending the principle of freedom of information.
  I am even more alarmed by the Prime Minister's letter of 20 November in which he responded to detailed points that I raised to highlight the serious consequences of the Government's neutering of the Freedom of Information Bill. In the context of important information about the health hazards posed by building new incinerators, the Prime Minister said that the allegation that officials had hidden information on health and incinerator emissions was false. I was referring to an article in The Guardian on 10 November which began—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear me call another hon. Gentleman to order. There is a limit to how much time he can use to give his example. He has made his point and he needs to address his remarks to the motion.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: My point is that Ministers are so out of touch with what is going on in the real world with regard to the lack of freedom of information that they would greatly benefit from a proper debate on each group of amendments tonight so that they realise the full import of how they are neutering the Freedom of Information Bill.
  I was pointing out not only that the Prime Minister's statement was false but that the allegations were made by Labour Members, not Conservative Members.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is moving back to the subject that I asked him to move off. He should choose his words carefully and perhaps withdraw that last remark.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I would be happy to withdraw any remarks if they are against the norms of the House, but it is difficult to reconcile a factual statement by the Prime Minister with evidence from both sides of the House and statements from Labour Members that directly contradict him.
  My point goes to the heart of the Government's problem. They are selling us assurance after assurance on Bill after Bill, and we are finding it harder and harder to accept a single word of what they say. When we examine the evidence and the facts behind what they are saying, we realise that the truth is often diametrically opposed to what they have told us.
  I shall spend a few minutes on the other Bill that is to be guillotined tonight—the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, we do not even know to which sets of amendments the guillotine will apply. The set of amendments dealing with vehicular rights of way greatly affects my constituents. I know that many Opposition Members and some on the Government

  705
  side are still not content with the extent to which the Government have revised the Bill in another place, and we want a full and proper debate on that important issue.
  By guillotining the Bill today, without knowing whether we will have even a minute to discuss those amendments tomorrow and to interrogate Ministers on the basis on which they have amended their Bill in respect of vehicular rights of way, we are denied a key opportunity to put right an injustice that affects home owners across the country as a result of a quirk in the law.
  I should be grateful if, in his response tonight, the Minister could give us an assurance about how that matter will be dealt with. I see him shaking his head, which exactly proves my point—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suspect that the Minister is shaking his head because he does not want to respond to a question that I have already told the hon. Gentleman he should not be putting.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: That is most distressing, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are being asked to vote blind on the guillotine motion. As my right hon. Friend said, we are being asked to give a blank cheque to the Government so that we cannot hold them to account at all.
  Yet again, we see how hon. Members are being neutered by guillotine motions. It is now only in another place that any change in the law takes place. Here, we are not allowed even to debate and interrogate Ministers. We are told by them that we must shut up and put up.
  I hope that in the course of the main debate on the amendments, Ministers will deal more fully with the points that I have raised. The allegations against Ministers could not be more serious. Unless there is time for them to answer those allegations fully and comprehensively tonight, we will have proved once more how these guillotine motions are depriving the British people of their right to hold the Government to account.
  7.42 pm
  Tony Wright: I intended firmly to say nothing during this part of the debate, and I am sorry to have relented, but I do so only under provocation and for less than a minute.
  Although I admire the shameless energy of some Opposition Members, the naive question persists: why on earth are we spending all this time talking about our inability to discuss matters, whereas if we took a little less time, that acre of space would open up—
  Mr. Paice rose—
  Tony Wright: I will not give way—and we could discuss all the matters which, we are told, are of extreme importance?
  When in government, the party now in opposition strenuously opposed everything to do with freedom of information. Despite Sir Richard Scott's report and the report of an all-party Select Committee with a Conservative majority, which recommended that we should move from a code to an Act in this area, that was opposed by the Conservatives when in government.
  706
  When suddenly they announce their conversion to that cause, against their history, and announce their deep desire to speak about all these important issues, yet spend all their time preventing the House from discussing all the important issues, it is difficult to take them seriously.
  It is true that Bills should not be guillotined. It is true that that is a democratic outrage. It is true that 120-odd amendments should not be presented for discussion in scarcely four hours. It is an outrage this time, and it was an outrage last time it happened. It is an outrage under the present Government, and it was an outrage under the previous Government. It has been an outrage for as long as anyone here can remember.
  The real indictment of this place is that nothing has been done about that, because on such occasions hon. Members would rather spend their time getting into a great froth about the absurdity of our procedures than reforming them. We have hour upon hour of debate, or of the depressing spectacle that passes for debate, going through the ritual whose words we all know by heart, to prevent us from discussing matters that we are supposed to discuss. The solution is a better legislative timetable so that that does not happen, and procedural reform to make sure that we discuss issues properly. Because I want to get on with that now, I shall sit down.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Damian Green: I listened carefully to all the contributions to the debate from the Government side. I shall deal immediately with the point made by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). He is, of course, right. The time that we are spending discussing the guillotine motion is time that we will not be able to spend discussing the Freedom of Information Bill, unless our opposition to the guillotine is supported by enough honourable—I mean that both formally and non-formally—Members on the Government Back Benches. Given everything that the hon. Gentleman said in his short and pithy speech, I assume that he will join us in the Lobby this evening to oppose the guillotine motion.
  The other Government contributions to the debate have not made it clear whether the shambles into which the Government's legislative programme has fallen is a result of their contempt for Parliament or of their sheer incompetence. I conclude that, sadly, it is a pernicious mixture of the two. The result of that rather unsavoury cocktail of arrogance and incompetence, characteristic of the Government, is what we now face: national guillotine week, as it was rightly called by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).
  Every debate that we have this week will be guillotined. None of the important Bills that the House is to discuss this week will receive full scrutiny. The speech by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase gave me hope that there may be some residual feelings about the importance of parliamentary democracy among those on the Government Back Benches. If so, I hope that they feel a faint scintilla of shame about the proceedings this evening.
  There is a peculiar Noah's ark quality about the motion—the guillotines are being brought in two by two. I am surprised only that the Government have not given us what their business managers would no doubt regard as the ultimate package deal: four guillotines in one debate.

  707
  The Home Secretary made the extraordinary assertion that because the Freedom of Information Bill had been extensively amended at every stage as a result of the scrutiny that it had received, it might not need long debate this evening. Simple logic suggests that if parliamentary scrutiny improved the Bill to which he is putting his name, he should encourage more parliamentary scrutiny, not less. With that simple suggestion, the Home Secretary blew a hole in his basic argument.
  I was fascinated and appalled by the speech from the Liberal Democrat Benches by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who said that, on guillotine debates, we should all read speeches into the record, no one should take interventions, as they might introduce an element of debate to our proceedings, and it was all very tiresome that we had to have parliamentary debate at all—
  Mr. Tyler rose—
  Mr. Green: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I give way.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is misrepresenting what I said. May I ask him whether the Conservatives were offered by the Government an agreed programme motion, so that we could have had a genuine debate on the issues that concerned us? That was never offered to me, and may never have been offered to the Conservatives. If so, the Government stand accused of hypocrisy, because they talk about better arrangement of our business, but are not prepared to offer it to us.
  Mr. Green: I can speak only for the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, for which I am responsible. I am not aware of any such offer being made to us. I cannot speak about the Freedom of Information Bill—[Interruption]but I am assured from a sedentary position that no such offer was made. I am happy to agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall that the Government stand accused and convicted of hypocrisy. I am grateful to him for pointing that out.
  The Home Secretary sought to evade the extraordinary nature of these guillotine motions, given the two statements that we had today and the possible statements tomorrow. The point has been well made by several of my right hon. and hon. Friends that it is possible to table a guillotine motion that provides a certain time for debate, so that anything that happens earlier in the parliamentary day does not eat into time under the guillotine. Instead, the Government have chosen to introduce a more pernicious guillotine motion that merely sets an end time. Statements that come earlier in the day, which are in the control of the Government, can be used to destroy the possibility of debate on important parts of the Freedom of Information Bill and the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.
  Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that it is expected that we shall receive a statement on the rural White Paper tomorrow. I do not think that I am breaking a state secret when I say that journalists have been calling us today about it. I know that the "Today" programme has made its dispositions for tomorrow morning. The Minister may want to clear up the ambiguity. Will he confirm that we shall have a statement on the rural White Paper tomorrow? I shall give way if he wishes to confirm that. Perhaps he might like
  708
  to do so when he replies. That would tell us how many hours of debate we shall have on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill tomorrow. It is a shame—
  Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be a small item of freedom of information? It seems bizarre that Ministers are prepared to sit on the Treasury Bench during this debate on the Freedom of Information Bill and gratuitously withhold simple and basic information that is germane to the conduct of our business this evening and tomorrow.
  Mr. Green: My right hon. Friend is correct. Indeed, the situation is even worse. Information may be being withheld from the House, but it is not being withheld from anyone outside. The media know what is going on. It is only the House that is not allowed to be told what is happening.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald comprehensively destroyed the case for a guillotine motion on the Freedom of Information Bill. That being so, I shall deal with why a guillotine motion is wrong and inappropriate for the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. I shall do so by examining the various reasons why it might be necessary to curtail debate on the Bill, to ascertain whether any one of them holds water.
  Despite the hopes of Labour class warriors, especially those of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), the Opposition have been entirely constructive throughout on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. We oppose parts of it and support other parts. Its very name lets us know that it is rather uncomfortable portmanteau Bill that is designed to try to put together provisions on access to the countryside, which we oppose, with provisions to improve the rights-of-way network and wildlife protection, which we strongly support.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North may not have participated in earlier debates, but I am happy to confirm that we have always thought that part I was badly thought out and wrong. We did not vote against it, however, on Second or Third Reading in either House, because we thought that other parts of the Bill were leading in the right direction. We have sought consistently to improve the Bill throughout its consideration in both Houses, and we have had some success in that regard.
  The first reason for a guillotine motion—an irreconcilable clash of principles—does not apply. The Opposition have not adopted that approach on Second or Third Reading. Secondly, the Government could argue that a guillotine motion should be introduced because of filibustering. No one has suggested that the Opposition have filibustered at any stage. Labour Members who appear sceptical should consider what the lead Minister, the Minister for the Environment, said in Committee:
  I am grateful to all members of the Committee, not least to the Opposition. I pay tribute to those on the Opposition Front Bench, who dealt with the Bill extremely well. They never filibustered and allocated time tightly and well, concentrating on the key points.— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 23 May, c. 860.]
  Mr. Paice: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Green: I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend, who was included in that compliment.
  Mr. Paice: Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Cannock Chase

  709
  (Tony Wright) said, whatever happens during the debate on the motion, even if it were taken forthwith, will not add one moment to the debate on the Lords amendments on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill?
  Mr. Green: That is an extremely good point. The Government cannot hide behind the filibustering argument.
  The third possible reason that the Government could bring forward for employing a guillotine motion is that the Bill did not need significant alteration. That argument would not withstand the most cursory scrutiny. The House will consider 281 Government Lords amendments tomorrow. That demonstrates the state of the Bill when it left the House. In addition, Opposition Front Benchers and Back Benchers have tabled amendments. There will be about 300 amendments in all.
  If the Minister will confirm what the world knows, which is that we shall have a statement tomorrow, we shall know that the House will be allowed about one minute to discuss each amendment. That is outrageous. To help my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the amendments will, be divided into 16 groups. We shall have less than half an hour per group. Throughout, the Bill has been badly drafted and impractical. It is better now than it was but it should be better still. It will not be, however, because the House will be denied proper debate tomorrow.
  Scrutiny of the Bill has brought about improvements. The amendments that we shall consider tomorrow will make that obvious. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who will reply to the debate, talked about the important issue of the control of dogs. He said:
  On balance, I am not convinced of the need to specify the length of the leads.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 April 2000; c. 268.]
  I was therefore moderately surprised to read the Government amendment, which states that a
  short lead means a lead of fixed length and of not more than 2 metres.
  That contradicts what the Minister said in Committee. There are many more examples, and I shall save some of them for tomorrow on the off chance that I shall have time to describe them. Scrutiny of the Bill at every stage has improved it.
  The fourth possible reason that the Government could advance for a guillotine motion is that nothing significant has been introduced into the Bill since it left the House. Nothing could be further from the truth. The section on areas of outstanding natural beauty was deliberately held back from the House and introduced in another place. We were asking for that section throughout. Labour Members tabled amendments in Committee, some of which we supported. At every stage the Minister said, "Hang on. The section is coming." Only when we debated Third Reading did he reveal that the section would be introduced in another place.
  The Bill was a manifesto commitment. Labour knew for two and a half years that it wanted to introduce it. It was disgraceful to wait to introduce a key part of it until it reached another place.
  Mr. John Redwood: In national guillotine week, has my hon. Friend any idea of how
  710
  many amendments may be guillotined? There will be more than 1,000. Could it be 2,000? Will he tell us how many will be guillotined on the Freedom of Information Bill and the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill?
  Mr. Green: There will be about 500 on the two Bills to which my right hon. Friend refers. That will happen during the first two days of this week. On that basis, more than 1,000 amendments will be subject to guillotine by the end of the week.
  There will be seven pages' worth of amendments on areas of outstanding natural beauty, which will be dealt with at the end of the Bill. It is possible that seven pages of the Bill will never be debated by a democratically elected House. That is a democratic disgrace.
  None of the possible reasons for a guillotine provides the slightest justification for today's motion, which is just another example of a Government who run scared of Parliament and run away from debate. Tonight's proceedings reflect badly on the Government, but more important is the fact that they reflect badly on the House. What the Government do to their own reputation is their own business; what they do to the reputation of the House matters to all of us and to everyone in the country. If a Government show contempt for Parliament, the British people will ultimately show their contempt for that Government, which they will deserve. The Government have not bothered to make any serious argument in favour of guillotining either Bill. Tonight, we shall take another step towards the elective dictatorship against which Lord Hailsham warned us. I urge the House to throw out this wretched motion.
  8 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): At the risk of upsetting the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), for whom I have the greatest respect, I have to say that there is something of a ritual about these occasions. There is always a certain amount of synthetic indignation, and we have seen a fair old barrel-load of that tonight. I exempt the hon. Gentleman from that observation; his indignation is entirely genuine and has the merit of having lasted throughout several Governments, whereas the indignation expressed by many of his right hon. and hon. Friends is entirely post-May 1997.
  Mr. Tyler: We have always opposed guillotines.
  Mr. Mullin: Of course, the Liberal Democrats' indignation stretches back through the mists of time. The hon. Gentleman's indignation therefore appears more credible than many of his colleagues'. However, I have to disagree with him. It has always seemed to me that timetable motions are inevitable if Parliament is to be anything more than a talking shop. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, Labour Governments suffer the additional disadvantage of being permanently in a minority in the other place.
  I do not accept that effective scrutiny necessarily requires unlimited debate. It ought to be possible for any half-way decent Opposition to select the issues that they most want to highlight and ensure that they are debated. The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)

  711
  talked about having 27 minutes per group of amendments, and the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) spoke of having one minute per amendment, but when have we ever felt obliged to address every single amendment, many of which are consequential? It is also worth noting that many of the amendments flow from propositions that the Opposition invited us to take up and, being a listening Government, we have listened. The Opposition will find that they recognise quite a few of the amendments—
  Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mullin: The right hon. Gentleman will not recognise any of them, since, as far as I am aware, he has not been involved in any of the previous debates, but those hon. Members who have participated will recognise quite a few of the amendments. I shall not give way, because I have been left only 10 minutes in which to wind up—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Yes, and then the guillotine will fall.
  I have never managed to work up much indignation about timetabling. However hard they search the Official Report, Opposition Members will not find one scintilla of indignation from me on the subject of guillotines during my years in Parliament. In my early days in opposition, I recall spending the best part of 150 hours considering the Bill that became the Water Act 1989, but covering barely 10 clauses. At the end of that, the Minister in charge, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), announced a guillotine. At that point, the Opposition were all supposed to rise and say how outrageous it all was. Personally, I could have kissed him.
  Mr. Tyler: As the Minister is revealing secrets, will he reveal another and tell us why the Government have decided to close tomorrow's debate at 10 o'clock? Could it be that they anticipate a defeat at the other end of the Palace on National Air Traffic Services? If so, do they intend to bring that legislation back to the Commons tomorrow night at 10 o'clock?
  Mr. Mullin: Unfortunately, I am not a member of the secret society known as the usual channels, so it is not for me to comment on why 10 o'clock has been chosen. However, at this point, I shall deal with another matter that I have been asked about. I believe that it is the Government's intention, subject to the Speaker's permission, to make a statement on the rural White Paper tomorrow.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—a man not given to self-doubt or embarrassment—spoke of the Government undermining the foundations of democracy. It requires a certain amount of restraint to reply rationally to such a comment, but I shall do my best. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a chip off the old Hailsham block—a very distinguished one it is, too. His father did indeed write a book about an elective dictatorship; then he promptly joined the greatest elective dictatorship of the century, after which not another peep was heard from him on the subject.
  Should the day ever dawn when the right hon. and learned Gentleman finds himself back on Government Benches, I predict that he will be able to argue in favour
  712
  of guillotines with at least as much facility as he now argues against them. One of the most remarkable things I have observed during my years in Parliament is that there are certain hon. Members who are able to argue with equal facility the exact opposite of the case that they made brilliantly only a month or two previously. Most of them are lawyers, and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham is a case in point.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister clarify whether his last couple of sentences constitute a vicious assault on his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister?
  Mr. Mullin: I think that my right hon. Friend's shoulders are broad enough to withstand the assault, vicious or otherwise—and it was otherwise.
  We have wasted a lot of time this evening. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) spoke of bull-headed opposition and we have seen a fair amount of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) made the point that, if Opposition Members had really wanted time for debate on the Bill, they could have had at least two of the past three hours, but for reasons best known to themselves, they chose not to.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Mullin: No. I have only a minute or so left and, although I do not complain about that, I do not propose to give way.
  As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, timetable motions are a regrettable necessity, but the parliamentary process has to be managed. It had to be managed under Conservative Governments and it will have to be managed under Labour Governments. The parliamentary timetable means that, at this stage of the Session, a reasonable limit must be set on time for debating Bills, and that is what the motion is designed to do. Both Houses have had full opportunities to discuss these important Bills: Select Committees of both Houses studied the Freedom of Information Bill in some detail; the Standing Committee considering that Bill sat for 40 hours, and the Standing Committee considering the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill for almost 50 hours; and the House spent two full days on Report stage of each Bill. The Bills are important measures that deserve full debate and none of their main stages has been guillotined.
  Of course it is right that the House should examine the changes made in another place; the timetable motion allows ample time to do so. Both Bills are valuable measures and are popular in the country at large. The House has had long, valuable discussions on them, and there is no need for us to go over the same old ground again. The Government had a clear mandate for the measures, which must now be completed and implemented.
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  The House divided: Ayes 347, Noes 156.

  Division No.354]

  [8.10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Ainger, Nick

  Corbett, Robin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Allen, Graham

  Corston, Jean

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Crausby, David

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cummings, John

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Atkins, Charlotte

  (Copeland)

  Austin, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Banks, Tony

  Dalyell, Tam

  Barnes, Harry

  Darvill, Keith

  Barron, Kevin

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Battle, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beard, Nigel

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bennett; Andrew F

  Dawson, Hilton

  Benton, Joe

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Denham, John

  Berry, Roger

  Dismore, Andrew

  Best, Harold

  Dobbin, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Blizzard, Bob

  Doran, Frank

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dowd, Jim

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Drew, David

  Borrow, David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Efford, Clive

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Browne, Desmond

  Flint, Caroline

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Flynn, Paul

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Foulkes, George

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Cann, Jamie

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Caplin, Ivor

  Godsiff, Roger

  Casale, Roger

  Goggins, Paul

  Caton, Martin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Grogan, John

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver vale)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Healey, John

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heppell, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Hesford, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Hewitt Ms Patricia

  Connarty, Michael

  Hill, Keith

  714

  Hinchliffe, David

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Home Robertson, John

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hope, Phil

  Miller, Andrew

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mitchell, Austin

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  (B'ham Yardley)

  Hurst, Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hutton, John

  (Aberavon)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mudie, George

  Illsley, Eric

  Mullin, Chris

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jamieson, David

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jenkins, Brian

  Norris,Dan

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  O'Neill, Martin

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pearson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pendry, Tom

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kemp, Fraser

  Plaskitt, James

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pond, Chris

  Kidney, David

  Pope, Greg

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pound, Stephen

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Lammy, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Laxton, Bob

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lepper, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Leslie, Christopher

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Levitt, Tom

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rammell, Bill

  Linton, Martin

  Rapson, Syd

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lock, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Love, Andrew

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McCabe, Steve

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rooney, Terry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rowlands, Ted

  McDonnell, John

  Roy, Frank

  McFall, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ruddock, Joan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McNulty, Tony

  Salter, Martin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McWalter, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Singh, Marsha

  Maxton, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meale, Alan

  Merron, Gillian

  715

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Trickett, Jon

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Truswell, Paul

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Snape, Peter

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Soley, Clive

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Tynan, Bill

  Spellar, John

  Vaz, Keith

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stevenson, George

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Watts, David

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  White, Brian

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  (Swansea W)

  Stringer, Graham

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wills, Michael

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wilson, Brian

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Winnick, David

  (Dewsbury)

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wray, James

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Timms, Stephen

  Tipping, Paddy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Todd, Mark

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Touhig, Don

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Allan, Richard

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Amess, David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Duncan, Alan

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Evans, Nigel

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Faber, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ballard, Jackie

  Fallon, Michael

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bercow, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Boswell, Tim

  Fraser, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gale, Roger

  Brady, Graham

  Gibb, Nick

  Brake, Tom

  Gidley, Sandra

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brazier, Julian

  Green, Damian

  Breed, Colin

  Greenway, John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hammond, Philip

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hancock, Mike

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Harvey, Nick

  Burnett, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burns, Simon

  Hayes, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Butterfill, John

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  (NE Fife)

  Horam, John

  Cash, William

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Chidgey, David

  Johnson Smith

  Chope, Christopher

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Collins, Tim

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Keetch, Paul

  Cotter, Brian

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Cran, James

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  716

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Richard

  Leigh, Edward

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

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

  Lidington, David

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  Livsey, Richard

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Spring, Richard

  Loughton, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Luff, Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Streeter, Gary

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Stunell, Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Swayne, Desmond

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Syms, Robert

  Madel, Sir David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Maples, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Moore, Michael

  Townend, John

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Tredinnick, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tyler, Paul

  Norman, Archie

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Oaten, Mark

  Wardle, Charles

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Webb, Steve

  Paice, James

  Wells, Bowen

  Pickles, Eric

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Prior, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Randall, John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Willis, Phil

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wilshire, David

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ruffley, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Freedom of Information Bill and the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill:—

  Interpretation

    Lords Amendments
    1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Freedom of Information Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at midnight.
    (2) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill shall be completed on the allotted day and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 p.m. on that day.
    2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on either of the Bills to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
    (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
    (3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

    (a) a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

    (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

    (4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

    (a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

    (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

    (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
    (6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
    (7) As soon as the House has—

    (a) agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or

    (b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to,

    the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

    Subsequent stages
    3.—(l) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on either of the Bills.
    (2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
    4.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 3.
    (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
    (3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    (4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
    (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

    Reasons Committee
    5. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
    6.—(1) The Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
    (2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
    (3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2), the Chairman shall—

    (a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and

    (b) then put forthwith successively Questions on Motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

    (4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

    Miscellaneous
    7.—(1) The following paragraphs apply to—

    (a) proceedings at today's sitting on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Freedom of Information Bill,

    718

    (b) proceedings on the allotted day on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill,

    (c) proceedings on any further message from the Lords on either of the Bills, and

    (d) proceedings at today's sitting or on the allotted day on the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons (and the appointment of its Chairman) and the Report of such a Committee.

    8. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
    9. The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
    10. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
    11.—(1) If on a day on which any of the proceedings take place a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would stand over to Seven o'clock—

    (a) that Motion stands over until the conclusion of any of the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time, and

    (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any of the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion after that time is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

    (2) If a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day to such a day, the bringing to a conclusion of any of the proceedings on that day is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
    12. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any of the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

    Interpretation
    13. In this Order, "allotted day" means any day on which the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.
  Freedom of Information Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Freedom of Information Bill
    Clause 1

      GENERAL RIGHT OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION HELD BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 14, after ("sections") insert
      ("(Effect of exemptions in Part II),")
      8.24 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3, Lords amendment No. 4, amendment (a) thereto and Lords amendments Nos. 12, 13, 18 to 21, 43 to 45, 56, 58, 64, 66, 67 and 76.
      Mr. O'Brien: Let me take my first opportunity to congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on taking up your current position. I am sure that you will have the support of the House in all that you do.

      719
      As a group, the amendments alter the way in which the public interest test functions in the Bill. The duty to disclose information in the public interest is one of the most important aspects of the Bill. It is the key to creating the new culture of openness in the public sector with which the Government intend to replace the secrecy that, as everyone accepts, permeates Whitehall and too much of the public sector. We are introducing the Bill because we want to change that. The question is how to achieve the necessary balance between opening up the public sector and recognising that openness does not always have a monopoly on righteousness. It needs to be balanced against the need for personal privacy, commercial confidentiality and effective government. We do not want a similar situation to that in America, where commercial companies make 60 per cent. of applications under freedom of information legislation. Nor do we want to remove the right to ensure that government operates effectively.
      The public interest test seeks to ensure that, even where there is an exemption from the duty to disclose information, in most cases a public authority is under a duty—I stress that it is a duty—to consider the public interest in disclosing that it holds information and in the disclosure of that information. Where the public interest requires the authority to confirm or deny that it holds the information, it must do so. Where the public interest requires that the information should be disclosed, the public authority must disclose it. Hon. Members will appreciate that those duties are powerful drivers towards openness. The amendments ensure that they are in place.
      Originally, the general right of access contained in clause 1 was separated from clause 13, which gave a right of access ensuring that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the public interest in maintaining the exemption. Amendment No. 4 brings the rights of access together at the head of the Bill and expresses more clearly the effect of the exemptions in terms of public interest disclosure. The amendment also reverses the way in which the test works, so that the public interest in disclosing the information must be outweighed by the public interest in maintaining an exemption before any information can be withheld.
      Amendment No. 18 deletes clause 13, which now becomes otiose. Amendment No. 21 makes an important change. The Bill provides that a public authority that is unable to reach a decision in respect of the public interest test within 20 working days must reach that decision within a reasonable period. That requirement was contained in clause 13(6) and is maintained by amendment No. 13. If the authority is unable to reach its decision on the public interest test within 20 working days, it must notify the applicant of that within that time. Again, that was the position when the Bill left the House and it is preserved by amendment No. 21.
      However, amendment No. 21 also further strengthens the position of the applicant by providing that the authority must provide to him an estimate of the time within which such a decision will be reached. Failure to provide an estimate will be a breach of statutory duty. We have also said that we will include reference to the desirability of complying with estimates in the code of practice, so that failure to comply will also render the authority liable to a practice recommendation.
      720
      Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 56 ensure that decisions relating to the public interest will be appealed to the tribunal. The remaining amendments in the group are consequential to the principal amendments.
      I believe that the amendments are a significant move forward. They ensure that the Bill will be more easily understood and will result in more information being disclosed than would otherwise have been the case.
      Mr. John Greenway rose—
      Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is helpful on many occasions. I have noticed, as he must have done, that now that the Opposition have suddenly found an interest in freedom of information, they have removed him from his former position—he who was in many ways far more expert than others in dealing with such matters.
      Mr. Greenway: I was not so much removed as sidetracked elsewhere, to a job that I much enjoy. In view of the Under-Secretary's ministerial responsibility for the Bill, he will have followed its progress in the other place a little more closely than I have. In response to his comments on appeals, I put a simple, straightforward question to him. Am I right to believe that, in the end, it will still be up to a Minister to decide whether information should be released?
      8.30 pm
      Mr. O'Brien: No, the hon. Gentleman is not right. A process is involved, rather than the decision of an individual or a Government. He will know from the Bill's structure that an application can be made and, if there is no exemption, in most circumstances there will be an obligation to provide the relevant information. However, if the public interest test applies, a decision would have to be made as to how it should apply, and that may involve a public authority that is controlled directly by a Minister. Normally, therefore, I suspect that the decision would have to be made by a Minister.
      However, if there were an objection to that interpretation of the public interest, an application could be made to the Information Commissioner, who may take a view on the matter. If the Minister disagreed with that view, the matter could be referred to a tribunal, which may also take a view. By that stage, the matter would no doubt become of considerable public interest. If the Minister sought to maintain an exemption, he would have to consult colleagues and would no doubt have to deal with a debate in the House or questions that might arise. He would have to defend the position before the House.
      The overall decision would involve not so much the decision reached by a Minister, but a process during which a debate about the nature of the public interest would take place.
      Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way once more, because I think that his answer is yes, rather than no. I understand his argument, but he said, in effect, that a recommendation or an observation from either the commissioner or the tribunal that the information should be released would not involve the compelling argument that they could require, or would have the power to require, the Minister to release the

      721
      information. For all the trumpeting of an agreement with the Liberal Democrats, the Bill is fundamentally the same as it was when it left Committee because the commissioner and the tribunal would have no power to compel release.
      Mr. O'Brien: In most respects, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Wherever there is a public interest in knowing the information, the public will have a right to know it. The Bill contains safeguards lest any Minister seeks to determine the public interest in a way that is contrary to that interest.
      We have listened to the debate, and amended and developed the Bill so that it contains substantial safeguards against abuse by any Government, Minister or anyone else who might seek to use it in a way that is not intended. Our consideration of the Lords amendments should show that the Bill has been strengthened, not least by the change in the way in which the balance of the public interest test will be determined. It will be determined on the side of openness when there is a fine balance about where the public interest lies.
      The amendments have strengthened the Bill in many ways.
      Tony Wright rose—
      Mr. John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I shall first deal with those amendments that I have not yet discussed. [Interruption.] I am afraid that I had not noticed my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) rising to intervene. I am happy to give way.
      Tony Wright: I assumed that it was due to sheer inattention, rather than to anything worse.
      I am finding it difficult to get my mind around Lords amendment No. 4, which would insert a new section 2, and I would like my hon. Friend to explain. The arrangement that I understand was made with Liberal Democrat peers is susceptible to contrary interpretations. They tell us that they have fundamentally transformed the Bill; they say that they have managed to insert what amounts to a prejudice test into the Bill as a whole. On the other hand, I have heard Government spokesmen in the other place say that what is proposed amounts to no more than the arrangements that operate in the event of a tie break-arrangements determining how the balance will be struck, in the public interest, between disclosure and withholding in the fine cases concerned.
      Are we talking about something marginal, or about something fundamental?
      Mr. O'Brien: We are talking about something which, as my hon. Friend suggests, has been stated by the Government in another place. In the case of a fine decision about the balance of the public interest and where it lies, the way in which the decision is reached errs on the side of openness. As far as I can see, that constitutes a strengthening of the Bill, although some might seek to claim that the strengthening was greater than it is. As far
      722

      as the Government are concerned, the proposal helps, and makes the Bill more open; but some in another place may well have felt a need to overstate their case a little in order to justify what they had decided to do.
      Mr. Bercow: Further to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), will the Minister simply accept what we know to be a fact: that there are now more exemptions in the Bill than there were in either the draft Bill or the White Paper? Will he confirm that when he talks of strengthening the Bill-he has used the phrase twice in the last five minutes-he is referring to strengthening the power of the Executive, and most assuredly not to strengthening the power of the citizen?
      Mr. O'Brien: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is nonsense. What the Bill will do is strengthen the right of those who want more openness in government to secure more openness in government. The measure will change the culture not only in Whitehall, but in the public sector as a whole. It will open up that culture, and end the secrecy that the last Government accepted. Having promised a freedom of information Bill in its 1979 manifesto, the Conservative party simply dropped that, and made do with a code of practice that had no statutory effect whatever. As a result, there was a continuous culture of secrecy in Whitehall, which led to the BSE crisis and other problems. The hon. Gentleman may well laugh at those problems, but many people know that the Conservative party governed in a culture of secrecy and contempt for the public and the electorate.
      As I said, Lords amendment No. 4 makes a difference in "tie break" circumstances, but it also sends a powerful signal to the public in favour of openness. That is what this Government want to do. We promised to introduce a Bill dealing with freedom of information. We have done it. The previous Government promised to introduce one and failed singularly to do so.
      Sub-amendment (a), tabled by the Liberal Democrats and others, would provide that the public interest in disclosing information relating to accident investigations, or proceedings relating to health, safety or welfare of persons or the protection of the environment, would always outweigh the public interest in maintaining the exemption, unless to do so would result, or would be likely to result, in prejudice to any particular investigation or proceeding. The effect is to convert clause 28 into a prejudice-based exemption in relation to information collected for investigations or proceedings.
      I understand why the supporters of the amendment wish to be clear that information in that vital area will not be withheld lightly. I understand the concern. There is no real difference between our overall aim and theirs: openness, for example, in a BSE-type case. The problem in the BSE case was that information was incomplete. To some extent, Ministers at that time put themselves in a position where they were giving information selectively and massaging the type of information that was put in the public arena.
      What both the supporters of the amendment and I will agree on is that, had information been available in that case, it should have been in the public domain because the public have an interest in knowing about that. As drafted, our public interest test in the new clause after

      723
      clause 1, which Lords amendment No. 4 provides, is a strong protection against such refusal to disclose. On our provisions, I do not accept that there is any realistic risk that BSE-type information would be kept secret.
      Helen Jackson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I am conscious of the time, but I will give way once more and then make progress.
      Helen Jackson: My hon. Friend has mentioned the BSE example a couple of times. Will he explain a little more exactly why, given that the new amendments have gone through the other place, he is certain that the type of secrecy that prevented some of us getting straight answers to numerous parliamentary questions in the previous Parliament would not arise again—that we would not come up against the same barrage of defensiveness and secrecy?
      Mr. O'Brien: It is purely because, when there is an interest in the public knowing, the public will have a right to know. Where public health is seriously at risk and information is held by the Government, it is difficult to see, on any reading of the Bill, how it could be justified for a Minister to take the view that the public interest was in favour of secrecy, unless a criminal investigation were about to be undertaken, in which case the public interest would have to be weighed very carefully. In circumstances where there is a clear view that public health would be at risk—particularly in the sort of situation in which BSE arose—under the Bill, it would always be in the public interest for that information to be in the public domain. Therefore, it would be public and, under the Bill, it would not be possible for the concerns about secrecy that my hon. Friend mentioned to arise. Therefore, the measure would provide a protection.
      Helen Jackson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I shall not give way any more to my hon. Friend because I want to make progress.
      Clause 28 currently provides that there is a class exemption for information whose disclosure would seriously undermine the effectiveness of both the police and the prosecution services. The class exemption is restricted to criminal proceedings and investigations by authorities into matters that may lead to a decision being taken by that authority to institute criminal proceedings, even if no such proceedings were eventually taken. Information that is the subject of the amendment could fall within that latter category.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I will not give way at the moment.
      Any investigation is a serious matter. It makes no difference if a person is convicted of a serious offence such as manslaughter as a result of a criminal investigation—whether it be an investigation by the police, or by the Health and Safety Executive relating to a safety matter. The cause and effect are much the same. The result to the person involved is much the same. In many respects, the processes
      724
      are very similar. Therefore, we believe that it would be wrong to have a different procedure for one type of investigation as against another.
      8.45 pm
      Both the Director General of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions, on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service, have made it clear that they would have serious concerns if a public interest test were replaced by a test obliging them to disclose and provide information that might lead to frustration of the process of justice and a situation in which those who are responsible for criminal offences cannot be convicted. We are concerned that, if the amendment were accepted, it would interfere with that process.
      The Government believe that we cannot have less certainty in, or give less protection to, some proceedings simply because the prosecuting agency is one body rather than another, and that to do so would effectively be to say that one type of prosecution is more important than another. However, that is what the amendment seeks to achieve, by providing that certain information is subject to a different test because it has been collected as a result of a particular form of investigation. I have no doubt that the amendment was laudably intended. However, it would have the unintended consequence of making prosecution uncertain.
      As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), I believe that the public interest test will operate effectively to ensure that information cannot be withheld inappropriately. Clearly, the public interest in the disclosure of information on the discharge of dangerous waste into rivers and waterways or the results of traffic collisions will be high. Although it is right that public interest should be balanced against the need for a fair trial, the Government are satisfied that, in those types of circumstances, that is the correct test to apply.
      Of course, the commissioner will also have an important enforcement role, to ensure that public authorities do not seek to hide behind the exemption at clause 28 by misapplying that public interest test.
      I have some questions on the amendment for the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). First, however, I shall give way, just once, to him.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I appreciate the points that the Minister is making. However, does he accept the argument that the clause is so widely drawn that it allows application of a general harm test that could be indefinite not only in time, but in extent? One day, there might be a prosecution of someone, but when or by whom would not necessarily ever have to be disclosed. The information could remain exempt effectively for ever.
      Mr. O'Brien: No, I do not accept that. Each time an application is made, a judgment has to be made about where the public interest lies. If it eventually becomes clear that the information is not being used for the purposes of a prosecution and is unlikely to be so, at that point, the public interest clearly weighs in favour of disclosure. Therefore, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point.

      725
      My real concern is that amendment (a) takes us too far. I have some questions about how it would work. For example, how would it prevent a company that is the subject of an inquiry finding out the name of a whistleblower employee who communicated information confidentially to the inquiry? The amendment applies to all of clause 28 and would damage protection for whistleblowers. There is sometimes a public interest in not revealing the identity of a whistleblower for a time or in withholding some information provided by a whistleblower.
      On my reading of the prejudice test that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey seeks to include in the Bill, it would not only allow a company, for example, to discover information about the identity of an informer or information given in confidence to an inquiry, but might enable a potential defendant who was the subject of an inquiry into a health and safety issue to force early disclosure of information before a decision on prosecution was taken, perhaps deliberately prejudicing the outcome of a prosecution. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am a lawyer. One can imagine ways in which such information might be used by some lawyers on behalf of potential defendants to ensure early disclosure of information, although disclosure might not be in the public interest.
      How would such a provision apply in relation to the Marchioness inquiry, for example? No prosecution is likely to be pending until the end of an inquiry, which could take a considerable time. Under a prejudice test, information could be made public before the conclusion of the inquiry, either in a selective way, to suggest that some people are more culpable than others, or so as to force disclosure that might, whether deliberately or inadvertently, prejudice a fair trial and prevent the conviction of a criminal who might otherwise be convicted.
      Under a prejudice test, an inquiry would not be obliged to consider the public interest in disclosing information, as we would advocate, but would have to disclose the information unless there was a pending prosecution that would there and then be prejudiced. That would produce uncertainty and might mean that evidence might not be disclosed to the inquiry for fear that it might be prematurely disclosed under FOI. In other words, it might lead to greater secrecy where we want greater openness. A prejudice test is not in the public interest, whereas a public interest test is.
      The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) asked whether there were more exemptions in the Bill than in the White Paper. There are, because we have extended the Bill's scope to include Parliament, which will, quite properly, want some matters, particularly privilege, to remain exempt. The number of exemptions is not greater in any other respect, but there are more clauses in the Bill because of the way in which the White Paper was worded. The hon. Gentleman's view is erroneous.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: The official Opposition disagree with Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 13. We want to require that all requests for information be dealt with promptly, no later than 20 working days after they are made. The extended response times on "public interest" in clause 10(3) and (1) would be deleted.
      726
      In the earlier guillotine debate, reference was made to the squalid deal done by Liberal Democrat peers with the Labour Government. We understand that it was done behind the backs of Liberal Democrat Members in this Chamber. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is well known for his sophistry, but he will have to excel himself to explain why his colleagues in another place stitched him up. They went behind not only his back but that of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), who was described in the Financial Times as absolutely livid. I hear that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) was also described as very angry.
      Conservative Members know that the Liberal Democrats have always said one thing in one constituency where they think it will please the electorate and diametrically the opposite in the seat next door, but this is a completely new departure: we have never previously had Liberal Democrats daring to say one thing in this House and diametrically the opposite in another place.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am little concerned that the hon. Gentleman may be giving too much credit to the Liberal Democrats in saying that they have never said one thing in one place and another in another.
      Mr. Hawkins: It seems that the alliance did not last very long.
      I want to quote what my noble Friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said. He was referring to the way in which the gaff had been blown on this squalid deal in The Guardian, which had the headline:
      See the Lib-Dem approach: complaint, abject and half-baked …
      The article said that the progressive alliance which got the Bill this far is, however,
      turning into a conspiracy to gut true reform. From the Government, this has been signalled for a long time …
      Lord Mackay went on:
      I suppose that it was signalled the day that David Clark—
      the right hon. Member for South Shields—
      was sacked and the White Paper was watered down to form the Bill.
      Lord Mackay quoted The Guardian again:
      What is new and shocking is the willingness of the Liberal Democrat Peers to assist in the butchery …—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 141.]
      It is interesting that the phrase
      a conspiracy to gut true reform
      is used to describe what Liberal Democrat peers have done. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) referred to this as national guillotine week. However, given the somewhat unstatesmanlike remarks from the Deputy Prime Minister about how he was gutted on another issue, this seems to be national gutted week as well.
      I turn to the worthwhile work, to which tribute was paid on both sides when the Bill was last before the House, by the Campaign for Freedom of Information. Until the deal, the Government had been facing the prospect of being defeated in the Lords by an all-party alliance, including the Conservatives, which was ready to force through substantial improvements to the Bill. The agreement

      727
      with the Liberal Democrats, however, means that the Government are now safe from defeat. Mr. Maurice Frankel of the Campaign for Freedom of Information said:
      This means the weak Freedom of Information Bill—
      often described at earlier stages as a freedom from information Bill—
      will become law with all its serious defects intact.
      Mr. Frankel said:
      We cannot understand why anyone could believe that the limited changes represented by these amendments are the maximum that could be achieved … We find it incomprehensible that, in return for these modest concessions, the Liberal Democrats are proposing to abandon their support for essential amendments which would have given the public greater rights to safety information and denied Ministers the right to veto decisions of the independent Information Commissioner …
      This is the final collapse of any credibility that the Liberal Democrats have on the Bill.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I will deal later with some of the other issues in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. First, can he give us two statistics? How many Conservative peers were there in pursuit of freedom of information, voting in the Lobby on the first day of the week two weeks ago when the Bill was in the Lords? How many were there the day before for the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill? Why did many more Tories oppose the age of consent than ever supported freedom of information?
      Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) rightly says from a sedentary position that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is digging himself ever deeper. That is the same argument that was used with no effect whatever when it was suggested by Liberal Democrat peers that they were somehow justified in this squalid deal because they did not think that the Conservative peers would be there in sufficient numbers. However, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish dealt comprehensively with that matter. He said that in future when a deal is suggested by combined Opposition forces to defeat the Government, when dealing with the Liberal Democrats, he will know to sup with an even longer spoon.
      There is no doubt that had the Liberal Democrats not done this squalid deal, the Government would have been defeated. The numbers were there, and the sophistry from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is already beginning, as we knew it would.
      As for the substantive matters that Liberal Democrat peers have raised since the deal was done, Liberal Democrat Members in the Commons have disowned them and that deal. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has been quoted in the Financial Times as saying that his noble Friends were jumping the gun. He also said that there had been a failure of communication between Liberal Democrat Members and their peers. So Liberal Democrats really are in a terrible mess.
      Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 13 deal with the time limit within which authorities are required to make decisions on disclosure in the public interest.
      The first decision that authorities must make is whether the information requested is exempt. That decision must be made promptly, and, in any event, within 20 working days of the request. A second decision must then be made
      728
      on whether to disclose exempt information under the public interest test. There is no fixed time limit for that decision. It need merely be taken within
      such time as is reasonable in the circumstances.
      The authority must then give the applicant an estimate of what that time will be.
      9 pm
      The result is that decisions may be taken in two stages over two entirely different time frames and with no fixed end point. That could lead to substantial delays. Some authorities may use the lack of a time limit deliberately to delay giving a final reply. Others may simply take their foot off the pedal in the absence of an explicit time limit. Our suggestion that those amendments be deleted would apply the Bill's 20-day limit to the decision on public interest disclosure. There would then be a single time limit for both decisions.
      That would bring the Bill in line with freedom of information laws in other countries. No overseas equivalent Act provides extra time for decisions merely because a public interest test is involved. Nor, significantly, does the open government code of practice introduced by the Conservative Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). His code of practice is proving stronger in practice than the Government's watered down Bill, as the Campaign for Freedom of Information has repeatedly said. It is the Minister who has been guilty of sophistry on that point.
      In our code of practice, the target of 20 working days is set for all decisions. The Minister's own Department's report on the code's operation last year revealed that 92 per cent. of requests were dealt with either within that limit or within the shorter limit adopted by some Departments. Why do we need the extra, longer limit suggested by the Government? If some requests may require more than 20 days, the likely cause will be the high volume of records involved or the need to consult third parties. It will not normally be the result of a need to consider the "public interest" in disclosure.
      The lack of a fixed time limit for decision is not the only source of delay. Before an applicant can approach the commissioner, he or she will have to exhaust any internal complaints procedure that the authority involved has established. Guidance on providing such complaints procedures will have to be set out in the Secretary of State's code of practice, which will clearly add more delay.
      Before a person can even go to the Commission, he or she must be prepared to wait up to 20 working days for a decision on whether an exemption applies, suffer a further delay for a "reasonable" time while a decision is taken on whether it is in the public interest to disclose the information, and wait for a further, unspecified time for the relevant authority to consider the complaint that must be made under that authority's own complaints procedure. Requiring the first two of those three stages to be taken within the same 20 days would significantly reduce the potential for delays. That would return us to the situation that 92 per cent. of applicants already experience under the code of practice introduced by the previous Government.

      729
      Why can the Government not see that our code of practice is better for applicants? It provides quicker decisions, and there is no doubt that the Government and the Liberal Democrats have lost all credibility on these matters.
      Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright).
      Tony Wright: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wanted to say but a word, and had expected to follow the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I shall instead precede him.
      Throughout consideration of the Bill, there has been much discussion of the famous clause 28—the class exemption for investigatory bodies. The climate in which we have discussed that matter has clearly changed. Until recently, it could have been said that freedom of information was a matter for the chattering classes. Indeed, I am told that a Cabinet Minister said just that at some point. Since BSE, though, freedom of information is a matter for the eating classes and for everyone. It has come out of the cloister and into people's daily lives. People need to be assured that anything to do with safety, health or welfare will be available.
      I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks. The point of tabling an amendment to the Lords amendment—to try to find a different way of dealing with the matter—is that there should not be a class exemption at this point, although there must be a prejudice test. That is the key issue—it always has been. However, the Minister seemed to say, in effect, "Ah, but there are implications for prosecutions. All kinds of problems would arise if this was allowed". I have heard that argument many times, but I cannot understand it. When the prejudice test is given in its proposed form, it is specifically to protect prosecutions. Those are precisely the matters that will not be caught by subjecting that matter to a prejudice test.
      The Minister tells us that all public authorities must be treated in the same way. Surely the whole point of freedom of information legislation is that we can treat different matters differently. If we decide that health and safety deserve a particular priority, we can build that into the measure—we have the ability to do that.
      The Select Committee on Public Administration took evidence on these matters from Jenny Bacon, the then director general of the Health and Safety Executive in July 1998. I take it that she knows what she is talking about. We asked her whether she needed a class exemption in her sphere. She noted that the provision was a class exemption and that the Health and Safety Commission felt that
      in respect of health and safety matters a prejudice tested exemption would provide sufficient protection for these matters.
      It has always seemed to me to be as simple as that.
      Jenny Bacon believed that a prejudice test was enough in that context. She did not think that health and safety required a class exemption. Having listened to the arguments this evening, I do not think that the case for including one has been made. I hope that, even now in a
      730
      different climate, the Government will be able to give the assurance and reassurance that are needed on this matter to ensure that there is a prejudice test for health and safety.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Jenny Bacon made those comments before a public interest test had been inserted in the measure and thus that the situation to which she was responding was different from that which faces us at present?
      Tony Wright: The public interest test is the second stage test. Perhaps we will discuss later the exact nature of the operation of that test—who has the final say and so on. The point is that, at the first stage test—the exemption stage—when a freedom of information measure determines what is in or out, the question should be whether health and safety information should be excluded as a class or should be included, subject to a sensible test of prejudice that would protect those aspects that the Minister rightly says need protection. Our amendment would give the Minister the assurances he wants, while affording the protection to health and safety that we need.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I speak to amendment (a) tabled in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), other colleagues on both sides of the House and myself. I apologise to the House for the absence of my right hon. Friend, who is in bed trying to recover from bronchitis. He would have attended the debate had he been able to, and I am sure that everyone who has followed the Bill's proceedings in both Houses realises that he has been assiduous, during a long career in this place, in pursuing the issues with which the measure deals.
      Our amendment applies only to one of the Lords amendments in the group. We regard all the others also as improvements to the Bill—I think the House agrees. As we have only three hours' debate in total, this might seem to be a distraction, but on the argument about the Bill's improvement since first published, I pray in aid the summary that the Library produced after Report in the Lords the other day. It was not written by anyone with a party interest. It did not over-state or over-hype; it simply said:
      The Freedom of Information Bill has undergone significant amendments in its passage through both Houses.
      I have heard no one say that the amendments have made the Bill less good; they have all improved it.
      There have been four batches of amendments. These were tabled after Second Reading and on Report in the House and after Second Reading and on Report in the other place. I have only heard people say that all those amendments have gone in the right direction. Whatever any internal disputes about whether people have gone far enough, we are going in the right direction.
      The second part of the Library's elaboration sets out the five main changes to the Bill:
      A new wording of the public interest test which the Information Commissioner can review and enforce …
      A new Executive override … to be used when a Cabinet minister cannot accept the decision of the Commissioner.

      731
      Some relaxation of the restrictions on the release of factual and statistical information—
      we shall come to that matter later—
      The power to add new exemptions has been removed,
      which has been widely welcomed, and
      a new duty to assist as well as advise applicants,
      which has been generally welcomed.
      I hope to start in a constructive and straightforward way. In my view and in that of objective advisers, as well as the Campaign for the Freedom of Information and others, the Bill has been improved. We could discuss how much more improved it could have been and how much more improved we should like it to be. There is no secret that some hon. Members on both sides of the House would like the Bill to be improved and to go further. That is why we have tabled amendments today and why the debate became controversial in the other place; there was a view that things could have been pushed further. I completely understand that.
      I am conscious of the fact that we have only three hours left to deal with nine groups of amendments, so I shall focus on amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4—the important amendment to which the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) has just spoken, which we tabled jointly. The Minister knows that I have a particular interest in the matter and that the public understand its importance. To put it bluntly, it is not so much about BSE—that relates more to the amendment on factual information, which is part of a later group—as about evidence given to an inquiry into a railway collision, for example, where a statutory authority inquires into what happened during a train crash in which people were killed or injured and how we can learn the lessons.
      Such matters are certainly relevant to investigations by the Health and Safety Executive, the headquarters of which happen to be based in my constituency. I have met and, when she was in post, held discussions with the previous director general, to whom the hon. Member for Cannock Chase referred. We all know from constituency work that the HSE investigates the cause of construction accidents. Tragically, there are still too many such accidents. The HSE will assemble information and may then decide to prosecute the company or individual involved. Such issues matter hugely to the public, especially the first category—transport collisions and their investigations.
      This is not a Scottish Bill, although the Scots are proceeding not quite in parallel—some might say that they are ahead of us—but they are taking action about the same time. If the Lockerbie crash had occurred in England, a public authority investigation would have governed that crash and similar ones. Such matters relate to the current inquiry into the Marchioness—I am closely involved in the subject of that inquiry, which is taking place over the road—and they certainly relate to the Southall rail crash, where a public authority has been charged with a duty to investigate and collect evidence, which might result in a criminal prosecution.
      9.15 pm
      I know that the Minister has heard the argument before, but the amendment proposes that we should be able to keep information exempt or secret only if it relates to particular proceedings or a particular individual. There
      732
      must be a particular reason for the exemption. We take that view because it would otherwise be possible for the Director of Public Prosecutions—the example given by the Minister—the Serious Fraud Office or others to say, with the best intentions, that information should be kept secret because, if it were not, it might lead to actions in the courts. Therefore, they could argue that it was in the public interest to keep the information secret.
      The hon. Member for Cannock Chase made the point very well. Like the former director general of the Health and Safety Executive, we argue that there should be a particular prejudice test. Our amendment is not accidental. We chose words that are in the Bill; we did not pluck them out of the air. Clause 29 of the Bill as it left this House—we are engaged in the bizarre process of considering amendments to the Bill as it left this House and not as it was when it came back—is on law enforcement. Clause 29(1) states:
      Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 28 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely, to prejudice …
      There then follows a list of justifications, the first of which is
      the prevention or detection of crime.
      Subsection (2) then lists the purposes of relevant public authority investigations, and we have chosen some for our amendment. They include
      (e) the purpose of ascertaining the cause of an accident …
      (i) the purpose of securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work, and
      (j) the purpose of protecting persons other than persons at work against risk to health and safety arising out of or in connection with the actions of persons at work.
      As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said, we have been selective and chosen issues of public concern. They include health, safety and environmental matters and accident investigations. I always think that "accident" is an inadequate word, because incidents are not usually accidents. Once an investigation has taken place, it is normally found that they are the result of a mistake or fault.
      In the cases that we have chosen—and in those cases alone—there should have to be a specific prejudice test. Only if that test brings down the exemption would the information not go automatically into the public domain.
      Our amendment would cover issues that matter hugely to the public. For example, it would cover inquiries by the railway inspectorate, the nuclear installations inspectorate—the Sellafield debate is important and has gone for more than 20 years—and inquiries by fire authorities and the Environment Agency.
      In local government terms, our amendment would cover inquires by trading standard officers who could be investigating the inappropriate use of garages and it would cover cafes and shops that are prejudicial to public health. A whole range of issues would be covered. Perhaps the most obvious example is when the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food conducts its own inquiries and is then able to prosecute. In all those cases, the information that is collected should be made freely available to the public unless there is a particular prejudice.
      For a final time, I shall try to persuade the Minister. We have been trying, we are trying and, if we do not succeed tonight, we shall go on trying to ensure that we

      733
      win our argument. If he accepts our amendment, the public interest test will remain, so the balance of interests will be considered, but that balance of interests would weigh the particular risks of someone not giving evidence, of witnesses being intimidated or of prosecutions not being pursued rather than the generality of the issue.
      I want to give one final example of why this clause is worrying. There is a debate on whether we should get rid of the rule against double jeopardy. The Law Commission is considering the proposal and it has been debated in Westminster Hall. The double jeopardy rule precludes someone from bringing a prosecution when there has been an earlier prosecution. If that were changed, there might always be a chance of a case coming back to court and an open-ended prospect of further prosecution.
      Mr. Robin Corbett indicated dissent.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) who chairs the Home Affairs Committee may think that that is not the case. I have read the Committee's report and accept that a second prosecution would have to cross certain thresholds, but some cases might never be closed. I am referring to the generality of the problem, and that consideration would add to the risk that the clause would prevent information from being revealed because someone might say, "This might come back one day. We can't risk this being opened up."
      From personal experience before I came to this place and having talked to people such as the relatives of those who died in the Marchioness disaster and who fought for a public inquiry into it, I do not think that it is in the public interest to hold back information because of an extremely remote possibility. There should be one hurdle, not two, and it ought to be based on specific prejudice, not general harm.
      If the amendment helps to remove that prejudice, we must ensure that in addition to allowing the criminal law to work, the guilty to be prosecuted and witnesses to give evidence, we must be able to provide that we have access to information. We think that this carefully drawn amendment will do that. I have not heard the argument that it is technically flawed, nor have the Conservatives argued against it. I hope that the House will agree to support it.
      On the Conservatives' desire to reject amendments Nos. 12 and 13, to which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) referred, I understand the argument about whether there should be an absolute or a less than absolute test of the time scale within which information should be made available, but I want to give one example that I hope supports the argument for an exception to be made when further consultation is needed.
      Let us consider the families of children who may have died as a result of NHS failures in Bristol hospitals, which has concerned us all. Let us imagine that information is released from the inquiry that makes it easy to identify one particular family who are out of the country and cannot be contacted. Just as the police always try to alert families of a bereavement or if a crime has been committed, there might be a reason for the authorities to
      734
      say that it would be inappropriate to follow an absolute rule that the information must go to the public domain by a certain date because it would not be able to respect the family's confidentiality and their right to receive that information first. That would not be an absolute bar on disclosure.
      I do not pretend that there is no debate to be had on the matter but having thought about it, my colleagues in the other place and in this House believe that a little flexibility might sometimes be necessary in what otherwise would be a rule. That is why we should not accept the Conservatives' proposal to reject amendments Nos. 12 and 13. I understand that they are well intentioned, but they might not achieve the objective that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues want to achieve.
      Mr. Peter Lilley: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on these amendments, although I did not contribute to the Bill's earlier stages. As a comparative newcomer, I am struck by how typical the Bill is of all that the Government do. Its title is the exact opposite of its content. It is called the Freedom of Information Bill, but it is largely a restriction of disclosure Bill.
      In my various ministerial roles, I have always been a believer in, and a practitioner of, open government. I insisted on making available to the courts the "smoking gun" document that revealed the minutes of the meeting between Alan Clark and Matrix Churchill. I insisted on the publication of every single licence for the export of equipment from this country to Iraq in the five years leading up to the invasion of Kuwait.
      I even had a useful experience that is highly relevant to the amendments. When we were preparing the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill and I had a 40-page document that had to go to the Prime Minister for clearance before it went to Cabinet, my private secretary came and told me that although the intention had been to send the document to another part of the Department, it had accidentally been sent to the Press Association, whose telephone number was one digit different.
      I found that experience extremely helpful. It taught me, and I have frequently used it to teach others, that we have far too much secrecy and that disclosure is generally beneficial to Governments, rather than otherwise.
      I am not an opponent of disclosure, but nor am I an anorak. I have never believed that we should go to ludicrous lengths to force Governments to publish information that would inhibit sensible internal discussions. I accept that there must be some limits on disclosure. I always thought that a code of practice would suffice, and it would suffice if the Government accepted the convention that they had to adhere to codes of practice.

      Unfortunately, we have an extremely dangerous Government. They no longer abide by conventions. Above all, at the heart of this Government is the manipulation and control of information. That is what the Government are about, above all. They are a Government based on spin and the control of information. That is why they have sacked most Government information officers and replaced those independent public servants with party hacks. That is why it has been revealed that the Deputy Prime Minister called for a weekly inquest in Cabinet into

      735
      any lack of control over information. That is why the Chancellor, who did not even mention in his Budget speech substantial elements of—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The right hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the amendments.
      Mr. Lilley: I shall certainly do that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to apply a specific test to the amendments before us. We were told this morning by the Home Secretary on the "Today" programme that the Government are already behaving as though the Bill were an Act. They are complying with it as though that were already a legal obligation, so we have a simple test at hand to tell how the amendments will work in practice. We simply have to look at how the Government respond to requests for information, and compare and contrast that with what would happen under each of the amendments.
      Ideally, we would submit requests from ordinary members of the public under each of the items covered by the amendments, and see how the Government responded to them. There has not been time to do that, so all I can do is present to the House evidence based on requests that I have made for the sort of information covered by the amendments. We know that if the Government are not forthcoming to Members of Parliament, they are likely to give short shrift to any request for information from the public.
      In general, when I table questions to the Government, who are purportedly already applying the obligations in the amendments, including those in amendment No. 21 relating to the public interest test, I find that they are slow to respond, evasive and often tricky. By "tricky" I mean that they answer a different question from the one that was asked. They give information about a different issue from the one about which information was requested. They do not seem to be applying with any rigour the public interest test set out in amendment No. 21.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend has referred to the Government's pervasive characteristic of answering questions that we do not ask and not answering questions that we do ask. When he was developing that point, did my right hon. Friend hear the rather cynical utterance from a sedentary position of the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson)? He chuckled and said, "Ha, ha, we have learned some tricks."
      Mr. Lilley: I did not hear that remark. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing it out to me and to the House, and putting it on the record. It is significant that the Government are proud of the fact that they behave in a tricky way and do not apply the public interest test as set out in the Bill and in amendment No. 21.
      The simplest test that I could apply was to observe how the Government are behaving in response to the latest batch of questions that I tabled for information. The House may remember a document that was sent to every Member from the Post Office, a public body. It told us how it would fill the massive gap in its finances that has been left by the Government's decision to make pensioners and others have their pensions paid into bank accounts rather than through the Post Office.
      736
      That is an important public issue. The viability of the Post Office network depends on it, as does the convenience of millions of people and huge sums of public money. Surely we have a right to know about the issue. A good test of the Government is whether they tell us about it or try to restrict us to information that is convenient to them, that sounds good and looks good in glossy brochures.
      The Post Office quantifies the amount of money that its programme will allegedly raise. It says that without the programme it would be losing £550 million, but with it, it will break even. So £550 million is at stake. The Post Office states in the document that its plans will fill the gap. It is clear that a significant part of the money will come from the taxpayer, so I thought it reasonable to ask how much will come from the taxpayer. I thought that in any public interest test, as suggested in amendment No. 21 or in the clauses, the question would have to be answered. Instead, the Government refused. They said that under section 2 of the code of practice, it was not their practice to answer such a question, and they referred particularly to commercial confidentiality.
      What is commercially confidential about a sum that may be given by the taxpayer to the Post Office? It may mean that it is better able to compete with other commercial organisations, and that may be worrying to the others. However, on any public interest test, it is not the sort of information that should be restricted. We should know how much of the money is to come from the taxpayer. If the Minister cares to intervene to defend the Government's position and say that this is how he intends amendment No. 21 to work, I shall be grateful. Is he saying that the House should be precluded from knowing about potential and planned subsidies to sub-post offices because it might be embarrassing to shelter under the excuse of commercial confidentiality?
      Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend is raising an important point. Does he agree that what he is saying about the Government's trickiness and secrecy reinforces the point that we have made throughout—that the Government seek to restrict information that, as the Campaign for Freedom of Information has repeatedly said, would have been more freely available under the previous Conservative Government's code?
      Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and sets out the situation precisely. Under any previous code, under a strict interpretation of the present code, and under what we thought was the intention of the clause and the amendment before us, we would assume that such information would be made available.
      The Post Office document provides some numbers. That being so, it cannot be claimed that they are confidential. For example, it states:
      Over £80 million per year towards the Post Office network's fixed costs
      will come from the
      Government General Practitioner Services.
      That implies that that will somehow save the Government money elsewhere. I asked the Minister what the savings would be elsewhere, if there were any, or whether there would be a net cost to taxpayers.
      Again, the Department of Trade and Industry refused to answer the question. By no stretch of the imagination could the information be commercially confidential.

      737
      We know that the Post Office is to get £80 million. What we do not know is whether there is to be any offsetting saving in the public sector; the Government will not tell us that, on the grounds that the document containing the full business plan is commercially confidential. Again, I want the Minister to tell me whether that is how the legislation, as amended, is intended to operate. Is that how the Government intend the public interest test to be applied?
      The document goes on to say that the Post Office has submitted
      a clear and transparent formula to calculate a Social Network Payment—
      that is, the subsidy at taxpayers' expense—to support non-viable sub-post offices. I asked what the formula was. It has been submitted by one public body, the Post Office, to another, the Government, and each Member of Parliament has been informed of the existence of the formula—so what is it? The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry refused to publish it, on the grounds that the Post Office gave it to him "in confidence". Is that how the public interest test is to be applied? If it is inconvenient for the Government to reveal the cost of subsidising the Post Office following their foolish decision to remove the automatic payment of benefits through post offices, they will avoid answering questions on the grounds that the information is confidential between a nationalised industry and its sponsoring Minister.
      Mr. Roger Gale: I am interested in the thrust of my right hon. Friend's argument, and I merely offer another example that he might choose to use—one that I am sure will be of great interest to the Minister. The Home Office has made great play of the number of asylum seekers that the Government are dispersing from the south-east of England throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. Last week, I tabled a question asking how many had been dispersed from east Kent since April. The answer I have just received from the notice board is that the information requested is not available. Are the Government seriously saying that they cannot provide that sort of information—or is the truth that they will not?
      Mr. Lilley: I am pretty sure that my hon. Friend's suspicions are well founded, and that the Government do not want to answer his question, rather than that they cannot answer it, or that it would be too costly to do so. If it were too costly they would have said so, as that is one of the grounds for non-disclosure.
      Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend has made considerable play of the potential interaction between the requirement to disclose under the Bill and the manner of answering—or not answering—parliamentary questions. Is he aware that in the other place on 19 October, as is recorded in Hansard at column 1270, Lord Falconer helpfully pointed out that the terms of the Bill did not apply, and were not intended by the Government to apply, to the relationship between a Member of Parliament asking a question and a Minister answering it? Does not that prove our point conclusively—game, set and match?
      Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I do not have his encyclopaedic
      738
      knowledge of the Hansard reports of both Houses, and I had not seen that reference. It is important that the Minister present today tells us whether the Government intend to give less information to Members of Parliament than they are required in law to give to members of the public. That is a clear question, and I shall be sitting here alert, waiting for an answer—although it would appear from the words of Lord Falconer that our fears are well founded.
      I have another example drawn from my latest batch of questions—it is random chance that those are the questions I am using; they simply followed on from the publication of the document. The document refers to the performance and innovation unit's study of post offices, and says that the PIU recognised that the proposed
      programme would mean merging outlets to ensure their … viability.
      I asked how many mergers the Government estimated would be required. The answer was significantly phrased: it was not that the PIU had not produced an estimate of the likely number of mergers, but that the report of the PIU
      did not contain such an estimate
      —a typically tricky side-stepping of the question. I tabled a further question, asking whether the Government had made an estimate. They told me that I would have to wait and see, so they were trying to think of a tricky answer to that question, too.
      The Home Secretary gave us a clear test of the way in which the Bill is intended to work, and said that the Government were already behaving according to that test. However, Members of Parliament know that the Government respond to requests for information slowly and trickily, and give the minimum, rather than the maximum, amount of information. They do not seem to apply the public interest test—which, allegedly, they have written into the Bill and amended and strengthened in amendment No. 21—as we were entitled to expect.
      In practice, the Government are not even applying the rules laid down by Lord Justice Scott in his report, or those laid down by the Prime Minister in his guidance to Ministers. In practice, the Government make a fetish of restricting and controlling information, and have introduced a Bill with 25 categories of information that can be restricted and controlled. That gives us little confidence that we will have better access to information if and when the Bill becomes law than we had under the old code of practice.
      Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on the passion with which he has supported the principle of open government, both in government and in opposition.
      Mr. Patrick Hall: Are you sure?
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I share my right hon. Friend's conviction, and as a Member who has been in the House only since 1997, I will not accept lessons from Government Members on commitment to freedom of information. In the past, a few Conservative Members did not see the light in relation to freedom of information. Surely, however, we should welcome a few sinners who repent, and reserve our contempt for the bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites on the Government Benches who preach freedom of information while practising a veto on information.

      739
      In his opening speech, the Minister used language typical of a barrister to assure us that he would replace the culture of secrecy with a culture of openness. Frankly, the only open thing about the Government is their open contempt for the House, which we have seen yet again in the guillotine motion under which we are debating the amendments. The Government have not acquired a culture of openness, but have been infected with a culture of delusion since the day they came to power with such an exaggerated majority.
      I shall give an example of how that delusion reaches to the very top of the Government. We have just heard that the Bill will not even apply to questions that we put to Ministers in the House. Only 12 days ago, I was the first Member to raise in the House the sordid deal that was struck between Liberal Democrat and Labour peers in another place to remove the Bill's teeth. During Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister graciously agreed to respond to an issue of concern to my constituents, and answer my question about how open officials in the Environment Agency, the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are about the health risks of incinerators. That case study is a prime example of why the Bill will fail in its purpose, and why the public interest disclosure that we are being asked to accept does not go far enough.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I remember the hon. Gentleman's question. If he is so interested in ensuring that environmental health matters are in the public domain, I assume that he will support amendment (a) to amendment No. 4, which has cross-party support. Presumably he will accept that that would be a further improvement on what is already a positive change, and that no provision affecting that issue has worsened during the Bill's passage.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I will not accept any amendment until I have received specific reassurances from the Minister in his response to the debate. I do not think that any hon. Member should do so, as so much about the Bill is murky and unclear. I have heard exaggerated claims from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I am afraid that he, too, has been infected by the culture of delusion. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats started that culture and infected the Labour party.
      On 20 November, the Prime Minister gave me a reply that put me in something of a quandary, and which leaves an important question to be answered by the Under-Secretary. On the basis of a report in The Guardian on 10 November, I alleged that civil servants had been guilty of a cover-up on health issues connected with incinerators. In his reply, the Prime Minister stated:
      The allegation that officials have hidden information on health and incinerator emissions is false.
      Those allegations came originally from Labour Back Benchers. [Interruption.] Will the Minister clarify whether we should believe the Prime Minister, who asserted that the allegations were false, or the Labour Members quoted on page 12 of The Guardian on 20 November, who made the allegations in the first place?
      A Front Bencher, as well as the Back Benchers, joined in making the allegations. In the report in The Guardian, the Minister for the Environment commented on the
      740
      figures that the Environment Agency sought to hide, before, in circumstances that I shall describe shortly, it was forced to produce them in public. He said:
      I cannot recall seeing these figures … I shall be demanding an explanation from the environment agency.
      Was the Minister for the Environment telling the truth in his allegations that the information was withheld, or was the Prime Minister telling the truth in his recent letter to me? I hope that the Under-Secretary will reply in due course.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend has made an important point about the questions asked by Labour Back Benchers, and I am sure that we all respect the sincerity with which they asked them. Did my hon. Friend notice that, as he was developing that point and saying that Labour Members had raised the issues, the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) said from a sedentary position that just because they said it, it did not make it true? Does that not open up a worrying new division? Should we not be concerned about the fact that the hon. Member for Ealing, North has cast aspersions on the integrity of those Labour Back Benchers?
      Mr. St. Aubyn rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. It occurred to me while listening to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) that although I know that he is keen to return to the Lords amendments, he has so far not referred to them. We must return to the Lords amendments.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I shall try to do that, but we must set in context the contradiction that I have described between the Prime Minister and his Ministers.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you not think it appropriate that, after 12 generations in the House, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) could at least have learned the rules?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Guildford is not responsible for his ancestors, but I am responsible for ensuring that he keeps in order. He will return to the amendments.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for explaining that elementary point to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). We are discussing a new principle in this country, which the Opposition are fighting to have implemented. The problem with the Government's proposals is that the public interest disclosure rules do not go far enough—and I must tell the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that I am not satisfied that the amendments will do the trick. In the conflict between the Prime Minister, his Ministers and his Back Benchers, we see that when Ministers are given the opportunity to exercise their veto over the public interest requirement, they may not be properly informed by officials. They will be so cocooned in their own ministerial world that they will not be aware of what is happening.
      The public have a right to that information, but on that occasion we learned from evidence given to the Select Committee a few weeks ago that they could not obtain it,

      741
      and that it would not have been obtainable under the Bill. People could ask for the information from the Environment Agency only through the European Union's government code for environmental information. The Bill is less effective than an EU code. What does that say about the significance of the Bill, which is, we claim, neutered, and, frankly, has not been effectively changed by the Liberal Democrat amendments?
      Even worse, the amendments offer no protection against the Bill's operational failure. Civil servants simply mislead the public and fail to make them aware of their proper rights. I shall give an example from the Environment Committee, which it would be wise for Ministers to study carefully.
      Mr. Stephen Pound: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you advise us new Members whether it is entirely appropriate to make unsubstantiated attacks on civil servants without providing any supportive evidence? Is that appropriate behaviour for an hon. Member?
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) has not contravened the rules of the House, and he is responsible for his own actions. However, I say to him again that he must return to the Lords amendments before us. He is not discussing them; he is discussing the Bill. He must discuss the amendments.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. However, the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) made a serious allegation against me, saying that I was making unsubstantiated accusations against civil servants. I wish to make—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North. The hon. Member for Guildford must discuss the amendments.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I am worried about the amendments because they offer no protection against failure by civil servants, in an operational sense, to carry out the Bill's provisions.
      A witness to the Environment Committee was told by the Environment Agency that it would cost him £200 to have his request for information investigated. He was then told that the correspondence that he claimed existed between the agency and the Ministry did not exist. However, he was able to prove that it did exist, and finally the agency coughed up the information, which involved serious data about the health risks of incinerators in this country.
      I have a further key question for the Minister. How will members of the public, and Members of the House, be protected when civil servants are asked to provide information, but tell us that the information does not exist? In doing so, they may mislead us, not deliberately—although there are strong suspicions that we were deliberately misled in that case. What sanction in the Bill or the amendments will come down on civil servants who do such things?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is struggling again. The debate is not about the Bill but about the amendments, which deal specifically with exemptions. That is the point.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
      Does amendment No. 21 encompass the Environment Agency? When the agency collects such significant data, is it carrying out a state function on behalf of the Crown? Will the Minister please clarify that? If by holding that information, it is carrying out a state function on behalf of the Crown, will he confirm whether I am right to think that such information would not be subject to the public interest disclosure test, and could be withheld from the public by the exercise of a ministerial veto under amendments that we shall discuss later tonight, if we get that far?
      If key health information can be withheld from the public after the enactment of the Bill, as such information has already been withheld, what is the point of amendment No. 21—or of having a Freedom of Information Bill at all? How can the public trust the judgment of important agencies such as the Environment Agency on issues such as the safety of incinerator plants in local communities if they know, after tonight's debate and the Minister's reply, that key information may still be withheld? The Government are treating the public like children, over an issue that affects people and their families.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I give a cheer for the commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) to freedom of information, which I believe to be part of a greater change that is taking place.
      I have no difficulties with Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 13, although I note what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) had to say. The substance, however, lies in Lords amendment No. 4. The House must feel strongly that what we are doing is trying to rescue a little more from the wreckage of the distinguished White Paper presented by a former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who I see is present.
      Clause 28 deals with authorities covered by the exemption. I shall deal with the Minister's words in a moment, but, as we see from the background to the clause, the authorities concerned include the police, the Serious Fraud Office, the Crown Prosecution Service, Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue and the Department of Trade and Industry's investigations unit. As the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) pointed out, they also include the Health and Safety Executive. They include the railways, nuclear installations, mining, agriculture and other inspectorates. They include fire authorities, the drinking water inspectorate, the Environment Agency, trading standards officers, environmental health officers, the Director General of Water Services, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and—in relation to functions involving farm animal welfare and BSE—the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

      743
      The Minister deemed an exemption necessary when the Bill was on Report in the Commons. At that time, he opposed the introduction of a prejudice test. He said:
      in areas of criminal activity and individual liberty, one needs to be very wary of being too quick to assume that no prejudice would be caused. Introducing a prejudice test would lead to a search for demonstrable prejudice, with a real risk of injustices being caused or criminal activity being facilitated where such prejudice cannot immediately be pointed to.
      Furthermore, it is right that the law enforcement agencies should not be subject to the commissioner's view of what would constitute prejudice in this field. The commissioner cannot be an expert in law and order and so must defer to the views of those agencies in this regard. Thus, to introduce a prejudice test would achieve little …
      It is essential that, for information held for the purposes of investigations or criminal proceedings, we retain the protection afforded by a class exemption. It is not appropriate to subject this category of information to a prejudice test, and the Government amendments to clause 13 will in any case ensure that, where there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the information, it will be released.—[Official Report, 5 April 2000; Vol. 347, c. 1067-68.]
      Let us consider the Lords amendment that the Government have accepted. This goes to the heart of what we all find difficult. The White Paper constituted a clear enunciation of principles, and seemed to suggest—there was not, on the face of it, a purpose clause in the Bill—that the Government wanted a liberal, wide-ranging Bill that would give our citizens access to information that was readily accessible in other countries.
      The Republic of Ireland, for instance, has just produced a Freedom of Information Bill. This, as we know, is a lesser Bill, and I therefore commend what the Liberal Democrats are trying to do. I stand back, and say that the provision was supposed to be clear. I am talking about the principle of the citizens' right of access to information that they fund, and about enabling us to enter into greater engagement with the formulation of policies. I am talking about enabling citizens to look over the shoulders of those charged with health and safety responsibilities. If we had ready access to the information, we might be cheered by the extent to which public servants tried to ensure public safety. Unfortunately, the run of events seems to indicate that there has been a slackness. Such things can go on, hidden behind clauses in what is a complicated Bill now—it is not an easy Bill. It is very difficult for the citizen to understand whether it is worth embarking on such a course.
      My purpose is not to delay the Bill; it is to commend the amendment to the Government. They should realise that, in the end, they have produced more a mouse than the Freedom of Information Bill that many hon. Members on both sides of the House loudly called for.
      10 pm
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I have made most of the main points that I would wish to make, so I will reply briefly. I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I am sure that it is not his intention, but the amendment would lead to attempts to widen the application to include investigations and proceedings that were not narrowly confined to accidents, health or safety and environmental matters, thus undermining the class exemption. We do not consider it acceptable to introduce such scope.
      The clear choice, in our view, is between a prejudice test that would leave uncertainty about outcomes and an exemption such as that which we want in the Bill,
      744
      which offers certainty, but which is conditional on a strong public interest test—it will ensure that, in all circumstances where information should be disclosed, it will be so disclosed. We think that relying on the public interest test and on the public interest is the best approach.
      The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) says that he disagrees with amendments Nos. 12 and 13. It is not possible to accept the 20 working days time limit as a statutory maximum for both the decision under the Bill as to whether an exemption applies and the public interest test. The latter will often be much more complicated than the former. It may involve consultation with third parties, something that the official Opposition supported in Committee, if I remember rightly. Now they seek to change their view and insist on a 20-day maximum. Clearly, where third parties are involved—they may be, of course, in the private sector—it is right that they should properly be consulted. I am sure that if he speaks to the business community, it will be concerned by his approach.
      There are clear protections against the abuses that concerned the hon. Gentleman. The Information Commissioner can indicate if a public authority is taking an unreasonable time to deal with an application and can issue an enforcement notice, so there are clear protections.
      During the debate, a rather bizarre approach was taken by some Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). They urged that we kept the code of practice, but then complained that the Government and other public authorities did not comply with the code. However, they then attacked the Bill because, they said, there was no need to create a statutory right to know.
      Mr. Lilley: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I will not.
      The debate has revealed that the Tories are approaching the matter by objecting to the public having a statutory right to know.
      Mr. Lilley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When a Minister misrepresents a contribution to the debate and refuses to respond to questions, does a Member have any redress from the occupant of the Chair?
      Mr. Speaker: Those are matters for debate. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will find some opportunity to put the record straight.
      Mr. O'Brien: During the debate, we have heard references to a week of guillotines. All I have heard are the whines of the ancien regime, the old Bourbons worried that they hear the sound of the people's tumbrels coming as the date of the general election approaches. No wonder some of the old Tories are getting worried about the chop. It is not surprising, after we have heard what appears to be a lack of substance from the Opposition. A weak and waffly opposition is what we expect from them, and that is what we are likely to get in the next debate.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 4, after clause 1, to insert the following new clause—Effect of exemptions in Part II—
    ".—(1) Where any provision of Part II states that the duty to confirm or deny does not arise in relation to any information, the effect of the provision is that where either—

    (a) the provision confers absolute exemption, or

    (b) in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the public interest in disclosing whether the public authority holds the information,

    section 1(1)(a) does not apply.
    (2) In respect of any information which is exempt information by virtue of any provision of Part II, section 1(1)(13) does not apply if or to the extent that—

    (a) the information is exempt information by virtue of a provision conferring absolute exemption, or

    (b) in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

    (3) For the purposes of this section, the following provisions of Part II (and no others) are to be regarded as conferring absolute exemption—

    (a) section 19,

    (b) section 21,

    (c) section 30,

    (d) section 32,

    (e) section 34 so far as relating to information held by the House of Commons or the House of Lords,

    (f) in section 38—

    (i) subsection (1), and

    (ii) subsection (2) so far as relating to cases where the first condition referred to in that subsection is satisfied by virtue of subsection (3)(a)(i) or (b) of that section,

    (g) section 39, and

    (h) section 42."

    Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 18, at end insert—
    '(2A) In making any determination under subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) in respect of information which is exempt by virtue of section 28 and which has at any time been held by an authority for the purposes of ascertaining the cause of an accident or for any investigation or proceedings relating to any requirement relating to the health, safety or welfare of members of the public or of persons at work or the protection of the environment—

    (a) the public interest in disclosing whether the public authority holds the information shall be regarded as outweighing the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny; and

    (b) the public interest in disclosing the information shall be regarded as outweighing the public interest in maintaining the exemption

    unless, in either case, to do so would or would be likely to prejudice any particular investigations or proceedings of the kind referred to in that section.
    (2B) Where—

    (a) disclosing whether information referred to in subsection (2A) is held, or

    (b) disclosing information referred to in subsection (2A)

    would or would be likely to have either of the effects referred to in that subsection, nothing in that subsection shall prejudice the generality of subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b).'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]
    Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 343.

    Division No. 355]

    [10.5 pm

    AYES

    Allan, Richard

    Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

    Ballard, Jackie

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Livsey, Richard

    Brake, Tom

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Brand, Dr Peter

    McDonnell, John

    Breed, Colin

    McNamara, Kevin

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Burnett, John

    Mitchell, Austin

    Burstow, Paul

    Moore, Michael

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

    Oaten, Mark

    (NE Fife)

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Chidgey, David

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Corbett, Robin

    Shepherd, Richard

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Cotter, Brian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Stunell, Andrew

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Taylor, Simon (Truro)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Hancock, Mike

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Tyler, Paul

    Harvey, Nick

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Webb, Steve

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Jones, Ms Jenny

    Willis, Phil

    (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Sir Robert Smith and

    Keetch, Paul

    Mr. Lembit Öpik.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Browne, Desmond

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Ainger, Nick

    Burden, Richard

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Burgon, Colin

    Alexander, Douglas

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Allen, Graham

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Ashton, Joe

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cann, Jamie

    Austin, John

    Caplin, Ivor

    Banks, Tony

    Casale, Roger

    Barnes, Harry

    Caton, Martin

    Barron, Kevin

    Cawsey, Ian

    Battle, John

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Chaytor, David

    Beard, Nigel

    Clapham, Michael

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Benton, Joe

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Berry, Roger

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Best, Harold

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Betts, Clive

    Clelland, David

    Blackman, Liz

    Clwyd, Ann

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Coaker, Vernon

    Blizzard, Bob

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Coleman, Iain

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Colman, Tony

    Borrow, David

    Connarty, Michael

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Corston, Jean

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Cousins, Jim

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Crausby, David

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    747

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Cummings, John

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hurst, Alan

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Hutton, John

    Darvill, Keith

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Illsley, Eric

    Davidson, Ian

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davis, Rt Hon Terry

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    (B'ham Hodge H)

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Denham, John

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dobbin, Jim

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Doran, Frank

    Kemp, Fraser

    Dowd, Jim

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Drew, David

    Khabra, Piara S

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Kidney, David

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Kilfoyle, David

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Edwards, Huw

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Efford, Clive

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Ennis, Jeff

    Lammy, David

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Laxton, Bob

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Lepper, David

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Leslie, Christopher

    Flint, Caroline

    Levitt, Tom

    Flynn, Paul

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Linton, Martin

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Foulkes, George

    Lock, David

    Galloway, George

    Love, Andrew

    Gapes, Mike

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gardiner, Barry

    McCabe, Steve

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Gerrard, Neil

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    (Makerfield)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Godsiff, Roger

    Macdonald, Calum

    Goggins, Paul

    McFall, John

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McIsaac, Shona

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McNulty, Tony

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    MacShane, Denis

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Grocott, Bruce

    McWalter, Tony

    Grogan, John

    McWilliam, John

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hanson, David

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Healey, John

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Martlew, Eric

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Maxton, John

    Heppell, John

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hesford, Stephen

    Meale, Alan

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Merron, Gillian

    Hill, Keith

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Hinchliffe, David

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Home Robertson, John

    Miller, Andrew

    Hood, Jimmy

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hope, Phil

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Morley, Elliot

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    748

    Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    (B'ham Yardley)

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    (Aberavon)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Mudie, George

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mullin, Chris

    Snape, Peter

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Spellar, John

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Strkey, Dr Phyllis

    Norris, Dan

    Steinberg, Gerry

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Stevenson, George

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Olner, Bill

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Stringer, Graham

    Pearson, Ian

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Pendry, Tom

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Pickthall, Colin

    (Dewsbury)

    Plaskitt, James

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Pond, Chris

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Pope, Greg

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Pound, Stephen

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Timms, Stephen

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Todd, Mark

    Prescott, RI Hon John

    Touhig, Don

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Trickett, Jon

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Truswell, Paul

    Purchase, Ken

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Turner, Neil(Wigan)

    Rammell, Bill

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Rapson, Syd

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Tynan, Bill

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Vaz, Keith

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Wareing, Robert N

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Watts, David

    Rooney, Terry

    White, Brian

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Roy, Frank

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Ruane, Chris

    (Swansea W)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Wills, Michael

    Salter, Martin

    Wilson, Brian

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Winnick, David

    Sawford, Phil

    Woolas, Phil

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Worthington, Tony

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Wray, James

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wyatt, Derek

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Singh, Marsha

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mr. David Jamieson and

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Mrs. Anne McGuire.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any indication that the Government intend to make a business statement? The House will be aware that the other place has voted against the Government by a majority of seven on National Air Traffic Services. Earlier, I asked the Minister whether the

    749
    Government intended to bring that matter back to the House tomorrow at 10 pm if the Government were defeated in the other place. Notwithstanding the fact that only 32 per cent. of Tory peers turned out, compared with 77 per cent. of Liberal Democrats, the Government have been defeated. The Minister was not able to answer my question earlier. Have you had any indication that the Government intend to make a statement?
    Mr. Speaker: I think that the House will have got the gist of the message that the hon. Gentleman is trying to put across. That matter has nothing to do with me. No one has approached me about any statement.

Clause 3

  AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE 1
  Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 2, line 35, leave out ("or by a government department") and insert
  ("by a government department or by the National Assembly for Wales")
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 10, 25, 28 to 34, 36 to 38, 68, 69, 74, 77, 78 and 82.
  Mr. O'Brien: The amendments ensure that the Bill takes full account of devolved arrangements in Wales and Northern Ireland, and ensure appropriate consultation. I shall deal with any questions later.
  Mr. Hawkins: Although the Minister has moved the amendments briefly, the House should spend some time on them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and others may have some points to make. The swift dismissal on a matter as crucial as freedom of information of all the amendments tabled by the Government themselves on matters relating to the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly displays a worrying approach to the new, devolved institutions that the Government set up. We have repeatedly made clear our concern about the brief time left to us by the Government's guillotine, and it is surely incumbent on the Minister to justify the many changes that the Government want to make to their own Bill.
  The Government created the new, devolved institutions. Surely when they were producing the Freedom of Information Bill, in the curious manner in which they have approached it throughout, they should have got all the parts relating to Wales and Northern Ireland right first time around rather than having to table a raft of consequential amendments now. We shall wait to hear the important points that my right hon. and hon. Friends will make, and, as the Minister spoke so briefly, I reserve my right to intervene on him when he responds to them. He has not given the House the courtesy of an opening statement in moving important amendments, and we must have an opportunity to intervene on him later.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) is correct.
  750
  I want to dwell for a few moments on Lords amendments Nos. 5, 10, 29, 31, 68 and 74, on which several important questions arise. For example, amendment No. 5 proposes to amend clause 3 subsection (2)(b) to bracket together
  a Minister of the Crown in his capacity as Minister
  and "a government department" and the National Assembly for Wales. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that immediately raises some important points which heighten our disappointment that the Minister felt it unnecessary to speak to the House on such an important group—dealing as they do with vital relationships between the National Assembly for Wales, in particular, and Departments. I hope that there will be no attempt to skip lightly over these matters, as they are of considerable importance.
  Is the Minister satisfied that the amendment, in bringing together a Department and the National Assembly, is correct in its assumption that the powers exercisable by a Department on the one hand and the National Assembly on the other—two extremely different political entities—have validity? Can we be content with that provision simply on the basis on which it is offered?
  When we consider amendment No. 10 to clause 6, matters become more difficult. It states:
  Before making an order under subsection (3), the Secretary of State shall … if the order relates to the National Assembly for Wales or a Welsh public authority, consult the National Assembly for Wales.
  For some time, I have been worried about the extent to which that word "consult" has slipped into statute or into Bills, because I am not sure whether any of us has a clear idea of what it means in practice, or to what it commits the Government or—in this case—the Secretary of State.
  Let us suppose that the Secretary of State goes through that process of consultation—as yet undefined. What do we suppose will happen if the Secretary of State consults the National Assembly and there is disagreement during that process? Whose word will be final? We can take a pretty good guess. I would hazard a guess that it would be the Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no".] If that were so—and I am only guessing—where does that leave the National Assembly? Is it a mere consultee? Are the views of the Assembly simply to be brushed aside by the Secretary of State of the day? Can the Minister offer us any reassurance that the Assembly will be taken seriously?
  Mr. John Redwood rose—
  Mr. Forth: I give way to my right hon. Friend, who has considerable experience in these matters—on both sides.
  Mr. Redwood: The original draft of the Bill states that
  "government department" includes the National Assembly for Wales.
  Has my right hon. Friend noticed that? However, we are being invited to insert that idea in several places before it is mentioned in the original text, and to include provisions on consultations.
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have been rapped over the knuckles by the National Assembly for presuming that the Secretary of State can act on behalf of the Assembly without asking it? As a result, the Government are introducing a consultation process in a lukewarm way to try to cover up their deep embarrassment.

  751
  It also looks as though the drafting was extremely sloppy, which is why this idea that a Department is the same as the National Assembly for these purposes has to be inserted in various parts of the Bill. Once again, the Government have placed incompetent legislation before the House.
  Mr. Forth: I share my right hon. Friend's view, but when the Minister winds up the debate he will have an opportunity to answer those points. He declined to do so at the beginning, when he might have saved himself and us a lot of time if he had taken the trouble to explain these matters to us. However, I hope he will cover the points made by my right hon. Friend in due course.
  Mr. John Gummer: I am rather concerned about what would happen if the provision were not included. Was the intention not to consult the National Assembly? Is the provision being included to make sure that such consultation takes place? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is odd that the whole Bill should have been published as though the National Assembly did not exist? At the last moment, we have to draw up all these provisions in case someone complains. Should not the House demand that, in future, the Government get Bills right in the first place?
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Forth: Of course that would be ideal. My right hon. Friend is right; we are beginning to see the possibility of the Government being devoured by their own children. I can certainly believe what both my right hon. Friends have suggested.
  We will hear from the Minister shortly, when he will exercise that freedom of information concept with which we are all so absorbed. He will share with us exactly what is the background of the matter and tell us whether or not there has been a row behind the scenes between the Government and the National Assembly for Wales because the Government ignored the Assembly when drafting the Bill and have been forced to include a specific undertaking.
  Mr. Hawkins rose—
  Mr. Forth: I shall first give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow); he has been waiting for some time, but I then want to make progress, as I am in danger of getting bogged down. I want to say a lot of other things, so my hon. Friend will not delay me, will he?
  Mr. Bercow: I would not dream of delaying my right hon. Friend for longer than necessary, but does he not agree that his anxiety about tokens and fig leaves is further reinforced by the fact that the Labour party has in the past distinguished between consultative referendums on the one hand and binding referendums on the other?
  Mr. Forth: That is true, but I fear that if I were to explore that matter too fully I might incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it is bit early in my speech to do that—no doubt it will happen later.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we in the National Assembly for
  752
  Wales would find it very off-putting to be described simply as a Government Department? The National Assembly for Wales is a Government in its own right, not a Department. The proposed wording seems as though it has been added on at a late stage. The Government need to do more than move the motion formally; they need to explain how the Bill has developed at this late stage into a model that hardly gives us confidence that the Assembly's views will be taken on board.
  Mr. Forth: I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman because I can see, now that he points it out to me, that the proposal looks like an afterthought. If we and the people of Wales were to think that their Assembly was little more an afterthought in the eyes of the Labour Government, I should not like to be in the shoes of either the Minister or, more particularly, the Secretary of State for Wales when he next visits Wales, because he would have a lot of explaining to do. I hope that the Minister will give us an initial explanation, and then we shall see what happens.
  Mr. Hawkins rose—
  Mr. Forth: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but then I want to make progress.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he not agree that this is but the latest example of the Government's embarrassment over matters connected with Wales? He will recall that the Prime Minister suffered the enormous embarrassment of the person whom he sought to impose as First Minister being thrown out.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. That intervention is too wide of the mark.
  Mr. Forth: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I certainly will not be tempted by my hon. Friend on this occasion. I want to move on swiftly to consider proposed paragraph (b) in Lords amendment No. 10, because that gets us into even deeper water.
  Mr. Lilley: The National Assembly for Wales is clearly not a Department. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) suggested that it was a Department in its own right, but surely it is not really a Department.
  Mr. Forth: A Government.
  Mr. Lilley: Surely it is not really a Government in its own right either; it is an Assembly. Is it suggested therefore that information held by Members of that Assembly should be covered by the Bill? If so, is there not a dangerous analogy, in that, subsequently, information held by Members of Parliament would be covered by it? Why is my right hon. Friend so worried about Wales and the Welsh Assembly, and why does he expect to receive any answer from the Minister, when he has not answered the far more important question asked by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about whether the House will have less entitlement to information than members of the public? That is the supreme aspect of parliamentary privilege

  753
  raised by the Bill, but the Minister failed to respond because of his tawdry political attempts to misrepresent people.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He raises another question—as to whether anywhere in the Bill or the amendments there is a commitment that the Government should consult the House of Commons. On this occasion, is the National Assembly for Wales being placed above the House of Commons in terms of the obligation to consult? I was hoping to leave this subject but, while I am on it, I have a final thought. Will the consultation process with the National Assembly for Wales include the possibility of a vote by the Assembly on whether it is satisfied with the Secretary of State, or will the consultation process take another form?
  That leads me directly to proposed paragraph (b) in amendment No. 10. It states that
  if the order relates to the Northern Ireland Assembly,
  the consultation will take place with
  the Presiding Officer of the Assembly.
  A different principle is being introduced here. Under proposed paragraph (a), the National Assembly for Wales will be consulted in a way that is still mysterious to us, but paragraph (b) is much more specific. The commitment is to consult the Presiding Officer only.
  I do not know whether we are supposed to assume that the Presiding Officer will make arrangements to consult Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The only obligation in the amendment is to consult the Presiding Officer, which will give that individual an enormous degree of influence and the power to speak on behalf of the Assembly.
  Mr. Gummer: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend agrees, but I still think it difficult to understand how one consults the National Assembly for Wales. Clearly, it has been decided that it is impossible to consult the Northern Ireland Assembly and that one has to discuss the matter with the Presiding Officer only, but what is the mechanism for consulting the National Assembly for Wales? Will there be a meeting which its Members all attend, or does one harangue them? What does the Bill suggest one can do to consult the National Assembly for Wales? I can understand how one can consult the Presiding Officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but not how one can consult the National Assembly for Wales.
  Mr. Forth: As my right hon. Friend points out, although paragraph (b) of the amendment specifically refers to the Presiding Officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly—it is helpful in that regard—in a sense, it undermines the consultation concept because it is directed solely at one individual. Although paragraph (a) refers to a wider group of people—namely, the National Assembly for Wales—as my right hon. Friend points out, it leaves us completely in the dark as to how one adequately and satisfactorily consults under the terms of the amendment. The Minister has much explaining to do before we move on.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The right hon. Gentleman is following an interesting line of argument.
  754
  I have considered the issue in detail and I thought that the different provisions might result from the fact that the Presiding Officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly has a seat in the other place: but I then realised that the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales has a seat in the other place, too. Could the aim therefore be to consult one parliamentarian at the expense of the other, while ignoring the Northern Ireland Assembly by saying that the Presiding Officer there would do the job adequately?
  Mr. Forth: As far as I can see, it is all very tidy: jobs for the cronies. All these people are multi-tasking and shuttling between Assemblies, Parliaments and the House of peers. How they can do justice to their posts is beyond me. The hon. Gentleman is right, and we will want to hear more from the Minister about that.
  Mr. David Wilshire: My right hon. Friend is agonising over why only the Presiding Officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly will be consulted. However, might not the answer be that the only way to obtain a single coherent opinion from the Northern Ireland Assembly is to ask one person? In that way, one would obtain a coherent view.
  My right hon. Friend also might like to consider why the Government chose to consult only the Presiding Officer in Northern Ireland. If Ministers consulted Sinn Fein-IRA and refused to agree with them, they might get shot.
  Mr. Forth: I hope that would not be the case, and I doubt whether that point was at the forefront of Ministers' minds when they considered the wording of the Bill. However, the issue shows the extent to which they have got themselves into difficulty.
  Moving swiftly on to the next amendment in this group which has caught my eye—amendment No. 29—we see that the plot definitely thickens. The amendment explicitly refers to communications taking place, first, between Ministers of the Crown. We understand that concept because two of them are sitting here, eager to answer our questions. It refers also to communications between Northern Ireland Ministers, including Northern Ireland junior Ministers, which may or may not be a satisfactory definition—that remains to be seen. It then refers to communications
  between Assembly Secretaries, including the Assembly First Secretary.
  The amendment introduces a rather odd matrix of different persons. I assume that the term "Ministers of the Crown" subsumes Secretaries of State, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries, but the Minister might want to confirm that. A different nomenclature is used to refer to Northern Ireland Ministers, including junior Ministers, which could be confusing. The amendment then refers to Assembly Secretaries. More explanation is required, because it is not clear how all-embracing those descriptions are, or whether they are meant to be, to use the current jargon, inclusive.
  I move on to amendment No. 31, which, intriguingly, mentions for the first time the proceedings of the executive committee of the National Assembly for Wales.
  Mr. Wigley: What is that?
  Mr. Forth: The right hon. Gentleman may ask what it is, but amendment No. 31 says,
  at end insert ("and proceedings of the executive committee of the National Assembly for Wales").
  Mr. Wigley: I have never heard it called that.
  Mr. Forth: The right hon. Gentleman implies that there is no such thing. If that is true and if he can catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may want to make his own contribution. The amendment, which we are being asked to agree to, clearly refers to the proceedings of the executive committee of the National Assembly for Wales, and that may be not only confusing but downright inaccurate and dangerous. How does it relate to the references to different Ministers, Presiding Officers and the Assembly for Wales as a whole? The amendment introduces a new entity into the Bill, and I should like to know more about how the Minister thinks that it will operate, if indeed such an executive committee exists.
  Amendment No. 68 gives rise to possible confusion. If I read it out, that will be sufficient to demonstrate the extent to which it is unclear to me, and perhaps then the Minister will elaborate and explain. It says:
  leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  ("(1) For the purposes of this Act each government department is to be treated as a person separate from any other government department.
  That strikes me as stating the extremely obvious, and we must ask why the Minister believes it necessary to insert it in the Bill.
  Unhelpfully, the amendment continues:
  Subsection (1) does not enable—
  (a) a government department which is not a Northern Ireland department to claim for the purposes of section 39(1)(b) that the disclosure of any information by it—
  that, presumably, is the Government Department, and not a Northern Ireland department—
  would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by any other government department (not being a Northern Ireland department).
  I am not sure where that is leading us. It is unhelpful that, at this stage in our proceedings, we are being asked to introduce wording that is possibly confusing. That merits explanation from the Minister, and I regret that he did not give us an explanation at the beginning of the debate, because that might have saved everybody a lot of time.
  Mr. Gummer: Surely my right hon. Friend can see what a disaster it would be if the new paragraph were not included in the Bill. If it were possible for
  a government department which is not a Northern Ireland department to claim for the purposes of section 39(1)(b) that the disclosure of any information by it would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by any other government department (not being a Northern Ireland department),
  that would obviously be a serious disaster. I entirely understand why the Government felt, even at this very late stage, that that provision needs to be included. However, I should like to understand from the Government, as I am sure would my right hon. Friend, quite what sort of disaster that would be.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Forth: I think that that was a helpful intervention. The Minister will no doubt be able to assure me whether that is the case when he replies to my simple question and to the rather more sophisticated question characteristically asked by my right hon. Friend.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's giving way. He makes a serious point, which relates to the concept of confidences and, for example, the requirement by the Saville inquiry that the minutes of a Cabinet meeting be produced; or that a former Prime Minister should give evidence; or the announcement on the radio this morning in Northern Ireland that a junior Minister had dictated to the Army Board that two guardsmen should be retained. That is surely exempt information. Perhaps the Minister will give us guidance on that when he winds up.
  Mr. Forth: That is a useful point, although I shall not explore it at this stage. It touches on the conceptual similarity or difference between a leak and freedom of information—a matter that no doubt interests all hon. Members. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), however, I do not think that we should dwell on it now.
  From this short analysis of amendment No. 68, we can already see that we are all at a loss to understand why it is included, and at even more of a loss to understand what it means and how it will strengthen the Bill.
  Mr. Redwood rose—
  Mr. Forth: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will help me.
  Mr. Redwood: Like my right hon. Friend, I think I welcome the amendment, but the Minister should be drawn into the debate, because the amendment is couched in extremely abstruse language. As I understand it, there is a good principle involved, as well as a damaging principle.
  The good principle is that we all know that Government Departments disagree with one another, and sometimes the disagreements are of great interest to the press, the public and the Opposition. We would like the opportunity to find out more about those disagreements. The problem for the Government is that they are meant to believe in collective responsibility. The advantage of the amendment is that it will enable us and the public to learn a little more about the disagreements. The disadvantage for the Government is that it makes collective responsibility more difficult.
  Mr. Forth: I should like to believe that, but I do not have quite the same faith as my right hon. Friend that the provision will reveal anything of the kind. We have seen right from the beginning of the sorry saga of the so-called Freedom of Information Bill that it is nothing of the kind. It will reveal very little, or only what the Government want to reveal, which undermines its entire purpose. For that reason, I have severe doubts as to whether the process that my right hon. Friend described will take place.

  757
  I conclude my brief remarks, as I said I would, with a quick look at amendment No. 74. Although it helpfully describes itself as
  Meaning of "Welsh public authority",
  which one would have thought should make it helpful, it goes on, rather disappointingly, to list
  any public authority which is listed in Part II, III, IV or VI of Schedule 1 and whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Wales, other than an excluded authority.
  Surely that complicates matters unnecessarily. When I see the word "mainly" written into a Bill and potentially a statute, that worries me considerably. What does "mainly" mean in the present context? Who will define "mainly"? What is
  mainly in or as regards Wales?

  I find that phrase distinctly unhelpful and potentially confusing. One can foresee any number of disputes arising over it.
  One would almost have thought that the provision was designed to help the lawyers. As there are two lawyers sitting on the Treasury Bench right now, I am not totally surprised at that, but I should have thought that the Government might not be so blatant in recommending to us, presumably, that we accept such amendments. I can see Members of another place, stuffed as it is with eminent lawyers, being rather keen on this form of words. I cannot imagine the citizenry and taxpayer being so keen. Much more explanation is needed.
  The same issue arises in subsection (2), which reads:
  "excluded authority" means a public authority which is designated by the Secretary of State by order as an excluded authority for the purposes of that paragraph.
  That is almost the opposite of what I have been saying. We are supposed to trust implicitly in "mainly" as guiding us in the right direction. I doubt that it does. Yet we have something that is all too explicit. The provision states in a rather brutal way that the excluded authority is whatever the Secretary of State says it is. Is there to be any flexibility? Will there be any appeal? Will the Secretary of State act by fiat? Will the declaration that the Secretary of State is giving an order be the definition?
  Mr. Bercow: Somewhat uncharacteristically, my right hon. Friend has understated his case. He referred to the presence of two lawyers on the Treasury Bench, one of whom services the Lord Chancellor's Department. Is my right hon. Friend aware that within the Home Office team of six Ministers, no fewer than four—that is two thirds—are lawyers? Is that not a reason to cry?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not understand what that intervention has to do with the amendment.
  Mr. Bercow: The fiat.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful. Mr. Eric Forth.
  Mr. Forth: As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying the matter. My concern was the nature of the role of the Secretary of State in terms of amendment No. 74(2), the explanation of "mainly", and how the
  758
  Minister believes that that word will bear upon the interpretation of this important provision when it comes to reality, if it ever does.
  I wanted to illustrate only one brief point, which by now must be self-evident. Ministers should have learned by now that if they did the House the courtesy of giving us a brief and elegant explanation of why they think that each amendment should or should not be supported by the House, we could probably obviate much debate. I have not had time thoroughly to analyse these matters, because the time for our consideration has been brutally truncated, which in turn means that none of us has had an opportunity properly to examine them. However, having skimmed over them, it is clear to me that many questions arise.
  I hope that the Minister will do us the courtesy, when this short debate comes to an end, and my right hon. and hon. Friends have had the chance to engage in their much more penetrating analysis of the matter, of providing us with many more explanations. I hope that we can then move on.
  Mr. Gummer: I had hoped not to intervene in the debate, but I feel bound to do so because of the shortness of the Minister's statement. I hope to confine my remarks as much as possible.
  The first question that the House should ask about the amendments is how we came to be in the position of considering a Bill that is so poorly drafted that neither the proper rights of the National Assembly for Wales nor those of Northern Ireland were included in it. I should have thought that the Minister would have felt it necessary to start the debate by saying how sorry he was that, for doubtless extremely good reasons, those rights had not been included in the Bill initially.
  I cannot remember having proposed a National Assembly for Wales, nor one for Northern Ireland. However, the Government did. They brought forward the proposals and created the constitutional position in which they find themselves. They must have known that such rights mattered to the Assemblies. Now that we have the Assemblies, I believe that we should respect them, their responsibilities and their authorities. I cannot understand how the Government got themselves into such a position. I had hoped that I would not have to raise the issue. I had thought that the Government would explain it as a necessary beginning to a debate that will now have to be extended, as we ask the questions that could well have been answered at the outset.
  Mr. Wilshire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he said that he was surprised that the Government did not start by saying sorry? If he was, will he tell the House why he was surprised, because it is a bit of a mystery, given that no one here can remember the Government ever saying sorry for anything?
  Mr. Gummer: I always believe the best of people before I find the worst. I remain surprised that the Government have not said sorry.
  I hope that the House will not mind if I return to the lead amendment, No. 5, which suggests that we leave out the words "a government department" and insert
  by a government department or by the National Assembly for Wales.

  759
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has explained how the two things were regarded in the same light and how the National Assembly for Wales was originally perceived as being a Government Department, which must have been the case. However, I wish to raise a second problem, which is that it does not strike me as entirely helpful to speak of the National Assembly for Wales as though it can be treated as a Government Department.
  With a Government Department, one at least knows to whom one must refer if one wishes to consult—or do anything. One naturally goes to the head of the Department, either the ministerial head or the bureaucratic head. However, the problem with the National Assembly for Wales is that it specifically excludes approaching the person whom one might have approached in a Department, and whom one does approach in Northern Ireland; instead, one approaches a thing called the National Assembly for Wales. I can understand that as an institution, but I do not understand it as a corporate consultative person, which it seems to me one has to create if the amendment is to be carried through.
  Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend makes powerful points. He will agree that the proposed amendment offers a slight improvement on the obviously wrong text. We are faced with a Government in blunderland—an incompetent Government presenting more than 1,000 amendments this week. However, has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Government do not propose to excise the phrase
  "government department" includes … the National Assembly for Wales
  which appears in part VIII, page 41, lines 2 and 9. The Government blunder continues: they will end up with a hybrid piece of legislation, which, in one place, treats the National Assembly for Wales as a Government Department and, in another, does not.
  Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend raises a matter of considerable importance, not least because it begins to open up better than any Freedom of Information Bill could the inner workings of the Government's mind. The Government did not intend that the National Assembly for Wales should play a part; they had not thought about that, but had instead thought about treating everybody in the same way as they intend to treat Government Departments. They have got themselves in their current position only as an afterthought and, as my right hon. Friend says, the afterthought has not been completed. The Government have not trawled through the Bill successfully. Perhaps they should have typed into their Microsoft software the phrase "National Assembly for Wales" and so ensured that every example came up and they did not miss any; but they did not, and someone clearly turned over two pages at once.
  That means that we must look carefully at the amendments before us. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are extremely similar and the same problems arise in connection with both. It is important to look again at amendment No. 8, which states:
  Before making an order under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall—
  (a) if the order adds to Part II, III, IV or VI of Schedule 1 a reference to—
  (i) a body whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Wales.
  760
  I have read that on several occasions and find it extremely opaque. No doubt, from time to time, the Royal Horticultural Society makes decisions "as regards Wales". However, what does that phrase mean? In what other piece of legislation is "as regards" used as a term of art? It is difficult to believe that many people will be able to handle that phrase, except with reference to the courts. I hesitate to tread on hallowed ground, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst raised the matter of lawyers. I am one of the few members of my generation at Cambridge who did not read law, so I may be prejudiced in believing that we have too many lawyers who always seem to be protected by the way in which we legislate. If ever there was an opportunity for lawyers, the phrase "as regards Wales" provides it, as it opens up every possible argument about almost every element of government that can be characterised "as regards Wales".
  11 pm
  It is unacceptable for part of the Bill to refer to
  functions exercisable … as regards Wales.
  That phrase is not grammatical and means nothing, so I do not know why it has been proposed. If, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you can imagine an example of a function that is not exercisable only or mainly in something, but as regards it, you are a better man than I am. I cannot imagine any circumstance that is covered, not by "only" or "mainly", but by "as regards", unless that means everything. I am sure that the Minister did not choose that phrase of his own volition. He has been dumped in it, as he has by much more that he will have to explain this evening.
  Proposed paragraph (a)(ii) states:
  the holder of an office whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Wales.
  What office in the United Kingdom could do that? Perhaps a member of the Government or one of my colleagues from Wales can give me an example of a function that is exercisable not only or mainly in Wales, but only as regards Wales. Is there such an office and, if so, should it be covered by the Bill? Unless we know that, I do not see how we can accept the amendment.
  I am afraid that that applies to almost every amendment in the group. I shall look quickly at amendment No. 10, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred. It, too, contains a series of parallels in paragraphs (a),(b) and (c). Paragraph (a) refers to
  the National Assembly for Wales or a Welsh public authority.
  The suggestion is that the Secretary of State should consult the National Assembly for Wales. Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is a distinguished investigator of the rules, he failed to raise an important matter. Why will the Secretary of State consult only the National Assembly for Wales when he wishes to deal with an order that relates to a Welsh public authority? Would it not be reasonable for the changes to include the public authority itself, even if consultation with it is only peripheral? Is it reasonable to exclude that public authority from consultation?
  The necessity to include a new provision in the Bill to enable the Secretary of State to consult the National Assembly for Wales means that, without it, he cannot or

  761
  may choose not to do that. In that case, the House must ask a simple question: would the Secretary of State ignore the Welsh public authority because the Bill did not state that he must consult it? Can the Welsh public authority go to blazes as far as the Secretary of State is concerned for want of a word or two? Perhaps with a word or two, the Secretary of State could get it right. Why does not the Welsh public authority have at least some say in the circumstances that we are discussing?
  It is impossible to understand why amendment No. 10(b) would provide for consulting the Presiding Officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly but not the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales. I assumed that the National Assembly for Wales did not have a Presiding Officer; I thought that the Government knew something that I did not. However, I checked and discovered that there is a Presiding Officer in both Assemblies. Indeed, their functions are parallel in almost every way. What do the Government know about the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales that makes him an unsuitable consultee?
  Mr. Wigley: Shame!
  Mr. Gummer: Well, the alternative is that the Government know something about the Presiding Officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly that makes him a suitable consultee. There is something to be discovered. It would be the ultimate irony—
  Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gummer: First, I want to talk about the ultimate irony. It would be ironic if, in discussing Lords amendments to the Freedom of Information Bill, we discovered something about the National Assembly for Wales and its parity with the Northern Ireland Assembly that we would not otherwise have known. The Under-Secretary must explain why one Presiding Officer is suitable for consultation when the other is not. We need to know; without an explanation, the amendments should not be accepted.
  Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend casts the National Assembly for Wales in the role of hapless victim on the basis that its Presiding Officer will not be consulted, whereas the equivalent public servant in the Northern Ireland Assembly will be consulted under amendment No. 10. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the alternative view of the matter is that the Northern Ireland Assembly has reason to be aggrieved because only its Presiding Officer will be consulted, whereas the terms of the amendment give the impression that a bigger entity—the National Assembly for Wales—will be consulted if the Government get their way? Either way, someone has good reason to be aggrieved.
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to say that the amendment can be interpreted in both ways. Why is that the case? That is the fundamental question. Why has division been introduced into an otherwise innocuous matter? On one hand, the Government have failed to consider Northern Ireland or Wales and have had to make up for that hastily. On the other hand, they have included
  762
  changes to some aspects but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, failed to incorporate others.
  Now we discover that the Government's changes have created a difference that is difficult to understand and leads many of us to be suspicious of their purposes and reasons. They may be due to incompetence—perish the thought. Perhaps the Government have simply got it wrong. Perhaps, accidentally, nobody read the provision straight or thought about the parallel, but I cannot believe that the Government, who put great emphasis on joined-up government, could possibly have made so elementary a mistake. Therefore, there must be something behind the provision, but what we do not know. We must ask, very clearly, what it is.
  I do not like to criticise my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in any way, but he passed over the matter with too much alacrity. Amendment No. 10 says that
  if the order relates to a Northern Ireland department or a Northern Ireland public authority, consult the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland.
  Well, that is an interesting situation indeed. If an order relates to a Welsh public authority, the Secretary of State will consult the National Assembly for Wales, but how he will do that is not explained. Will he stand before all its Members and declaim? Will he listen to them or take any notice of what they say? None of that is made clear.
  We all know that the word "consult" is used most widely, but when the Secretary of State is dealing with a Northern Ireland Department it appears that he will consult not the Northern Ireland Assembly, but the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. That would be perfectly reasonable, but I understand that, after a great deal of difficulty and arm twisting, which was unsuccessful, there is a First Secretary in Wales—a person of that kind, though not the person that the Labour party wanted. Why will he not be consulted? Must he sit among all the other Assembly Members and wait for the Secretary of State to consult the lot of them? Why will he be excluded from the consultation? Why will he not be offered the pride of place given to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland?
  If the provision has been included by choice, not by accident, the First Secretary in Wales has a reason to complain. Why is he not considered to be the representative of the Welsh nation, whereas the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are considered to be the representatives of Ulster? That is an extremely difficult issue to follow and I should be happy to leave the case there but for the difficult situation and issues raised by other amendments. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to turn to amendment No. 74, not because there is little to say about the other measures, but because they can easily be included in these remarks.
  Amendment No. 74 explains what a Welsh public authority is. I remember a phrase of GK Chesterton that complained about the sentence, "Alone withouten any company," as translated by an American to, "Alone without any company." Chesterton said, "If there can be any person who does not understand that withouten means without—he must be alone withouten any company at all." Can there be anybody who does not understand what a Welsh public authority is, save those who have read the Bill's explanation?

  763
  Of all the things that have worried me in my life, the definition of a Welsh public authority is not high on the list. I come of a Welsh-speaking father. I am very fond of the Principality and yield to no one in my love of its history, but that definition has not kept me awake on any night in the past 61 years. That is the reality, because one understands the definition: a Welsh public authority is a public authority in Wales.
  Mr. Lilley: Or as regards Wales.
  Mr. Gummer: That is the point. A Welsh public authority must be in Wales or may be part of Wales. Now we have this definition, which is important because the definition of Welsh public authority is as understood under clause 80.
  11.15 pm
  I hope that the House has read that clause carefully, because it is very important. It states:
  In this Act "Welsh public authority" means—
  (a) any public authority which is listed in Part II, III, IV or VI of Schedule I
  —happily, there are none in part V—
  and whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or
  —I have to say it again—

  as regards Wales, other than an excluded authority.
  Well, that does make us happy. The amendment includes any authority that has anything whatever to do with Wales, in any circumstances to which one could possibly get a lawyer to agree, except authorities that are excluded.
  I thought, "If the provision includes everything, I had better find out what it excludes." Now, this is a freedom of information Bill: it is a Bill stating how the Government will open their doors so that we can all understand what is happening—so that nothing will be hidden from public view. And what is stated in subsection (2) of the new clause provided by Lords amendment No. 74?
  In paragraph (a) of subsection (1) "excluded authority" means a public authority which is designated by the Secretary of State by order as an excluded authority for the purposes of that paragraph.
  You can forget your "as regards". Any authority that the Government do not want to be included becomes an excluded authority, although it may have functions
  exercisable only or mainly or as regards Wales.
  How can it be excluded? It can be excluded by fiat. This is a good mediaeval operation: promise everyone everything, but exclude anything that matters. That is what the amendment means.
  Of course this Government—and particularly this Minister—are not like that at all. I know that the Minister would not want to do any of this. So why has he given himself the powers to do it? He is opening the door to future Ministers without his probity, his legal training, his charm, and his ability to explain.
  I have tried to get inside the Minister's prejudices. Has he not thought what a Conservative Government might do with this framework? Has he thought what—perish the thought—a Liberal Government might do with it?
  764
  The Liberals would find it very hard, of course, because they include and exclude at the same time; but that is how they would respond.
  Has the Minister not thought about what he is doing? First he produces a definition so wide as to be meaningless; then he produces powers enabling him to exclude everyone whom he happens not to want to be included. This is a freedom of information Bill. How does the Minister justify leaving out the provision in the first place, returning it partially, and now producing it in a form that is utterly intolerable?
  People may wonder why we are still discussing this at 11.18 pm. We are still discussing it because it is not a meaningless issue, but a fundamental issue. It concerns freedom of information for the public, and the definition of those from whom the information may properly be demanded. It seems to me that the Government have failed to produce an answer that is credible, acceptable, or indeed decent.
  I have not finished, because there is more to the amendment. As I have said, proposed subsection (2) states:
  In paragraph (a) of subsection (1) "excluded authority" means
  a public authority excluded by the Secretary of State. Proposed subsection (3), however, states:
  Before making an order under subsection (2)
  —that is, before excluding anyone—
  the Secretary of State shall consult the National Assembly for Wales.
  Thanks a lot. He goes to the National Assembly for Wales and says, "Hello, National Assembly for Wales. I have arrived. I wish to exclude the following authorities." The National Assembly says, "We do not think that that is a good idea." Then he goes home and says, "I have consulted the National Assembly for Wales and I have decided that it is wrong, so I am excluding those authorities." Nothing in the amendment means that anyone can do anything about that, even if it is an authority
  "whose functions are exercisable … as regards Wales".
  I am terribly sorry, but I still have great difficulty with the grammar of that. I know that I am one of the last remaining people who were educated in the classics, but I do not know how to parse that sentence. It is extremely difficult. I wonder whether the Minister will be kind enough to explain what Hillard and Botting would have explained about "as regards". It seems an issue that should not be missed. [Interruption.] It is no good the Minister asking the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, who Hillard and Botting are. That is the problem. If a few more people had read Hillard and Botting, we would not have "as regards" at all.
  The House deserves at least a parsable sentence and "as regards" is not parsable—it is not even quocumque. There is no Latin or Greek equivalent. Why? Because it does not mean anything. One of the great things about the classical language is that one has to mean something to be able to say something. There could not have been a Labour party in either Greece or Rome because there was a connection between statement and meaning, which is, of course, extremely embarrassing.

  765
  I do not think that one can finish there. We need to turn to amendment No. 77, which so far has not been discussed. It says—it is very interesting:
  'executive committee', in relation to the National Assembly for Wales, has the same meaning as in the Government of Wales Act 1998.
  I do not wish to quote the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) because he spoke from a seated position, but he gave me to understand that the precise nature of the "executive committee" as defined in the Government of Wales Act 1998, or not as defined, was somewhat difficult to express—he did not believe that it existed. If it does not exist, it is difficult to consult it. If it does exist under another name, we should have the other name.
  I am sure that executive committee, with a small E and small C, cannot be something that one consults. Either it is an Executive Committee, with a capital E and capital C, or it is an equivalent, which I understand is called Cabinet, but are Ministers afraid of consulting the Cabinet of the National Assembly For Wales? Are they frightened of that child that they have borne? Do they not want it to grow up and become the proper representative of the Welsh people? Do they want to keep it down, with a small E executive and a small C committee? Is not that what this is about—the humiliation of the people of Wales, not in a big sense, but in the small sense of using the language to make people small? That is what it is about. Amendment No. 77 is one of those amendments. No. 78 is just as bad.
  Amendment No. 78 is a genuine miracle. It says:
  'Northern Ireland public authority' means any public authority, other than the Northern Ireland Assembly or a Northern Ireland department, whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Northern Ireland and relate only or mainly to transferred matters.
  Members will notice that, in that phrase, there is a difference. Why did it not mention transferred matters in the Welsh bit? Why does it have to mention transferred matters in this bit? What is so special about the north of Ireland? I am one of those odd persons who is a Catholic Unionist, so I have a pretty sinuous mind when it comes to considering Northern Ireland. However, I cannot understand what that means. What does it mean? What difference is made by the addition of
  or mainly to transferred matters?
  Let us imagine for a moment a public authority whose functions are not exercisable only in Northern Ireland or mainly in Northern Ireland, but only "as regards" Northern Ireland. So, we have an immediate picture of the type of public authority of which we speak. However, we would have to say that the authority is not really covered by the provision because its functions as regards Northern Ireland are not related mainly to transferred matters. I think that we immediately see which authorities the Government seek to exclude.
  I must ask the Minister to attend on this. Why does the second half of the provision not say, "relate only or mainly or as regards transferred matters"? What have transferred matters done to have "as regards" excluded from them in the second part of the phrase? It is nonsense, and it is unacceptable nonsense.
  766
  Lords amendment No. 82 is another very revealing amendment. It states:
  at end insert
  (""Welsh public authority" has the meaning given by section (Meaning of "Welsh public authority").")
  What does that add to our understanding? It is in double inverted commas for some reason. I do not know what it means. I have criticised the Government for their grammar, but, now, I have to criticise them for their punctuation. There are two sets of brackets and four sets of inverted commas, none of which add anything to our understanding of the actual phrase. Do we know anything more after the amendment than we did to start with?
  I think that we should oppose these appalling amendments very simply because, first, if they are necessary, they should have been in the Bill initially, and the fact that they were not showed that the Minister cared nothing at all about either Wales or Northern Ireland. Secondly, if they are important, why are they incomprehensible? Thirdly, they contain within them such internal inconsistencies that no sane person would have allowed them to reach the House in such terms. Fourthly, it is inconceivable that they will not provide meat—and very good meat, too; of the sirloin-steak type—for large numbers of lawyers.
  Fifthly, they are—if not otiose—not only incomprehensible, but probably bad. I cannot say that they are certainly bad because they are incomprehensible—which, of course, is the problem with the Government. They have presented us with a list of amendments that we are supposed to pass because we cannot understand any of them. However, those that we have begun to understand are clearly dangerous. The exclusion clause is utterly unacceptable.
  I do wish that the Minister had explained all this to us at the beginning. However, I now know why he did not—because he could not explain it. He has not a clue, and rightly not. What a boring collection of things for him to spend time thinking about. He left it to his civil servants and they have let him down. We look to him for an explanation because, whether he likes it or not, the buck stops there.
  11.30 pm
  Mr. Wigley: I hesitate to follow the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) who, as a Catholic Unionist—with a Welsh-speaking father, I believe—spoke about Northern Ireland. I am likely to be out of my depth. We also heard from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is a former Secretary of State for Wales, not to mention the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) who on a clear day could see Wales from his former Worcestershire constituency.
  Important questions have been raised. We support freedom of information as a principle, but we want an Act that works effectively for the National Assembly for Wales—one that is understandable, operable and clear, not only to the Assembly and its Ministers but to the people of Wales.
  Frankly, it is difficult to understand where we stand. On page 3, the Bill says:
  "government department" includes the National Assembly for Wales.

  767
  On page 19, it says the same again, but on page 41 it says:
  "government department" … does not include … the National Assembly for Wales.
  Mr. Redwood: Perhaps, from his experience in the National Assembly, the right hon. Gentleman can help me. Was the Assembly consulted about the amendments? Did it say that it was an insult to be called a "government department" when it is something different? Have the Government given any ground to it?
  Mr. Wigley: The right hon. Gentleman goes to the heart of the question of who is to be consulted when one consults the National Assembly for Wales. The Government never consulted me, certainly. I do not know whether they consulted the Presiding Officer. I do not suppose that they consulted the First Minister—we are allowed to use that term, it seems, because on page 19 the Bill refers to "Ministerial communications" and Lords amendments Nos. 31 and 32 would extend that to include Wales. "Ministerial" will now include the Ministers of the National Assembly for Wales, so they are not Secretaries but Ministers.
  I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that henceforward, when reference is made to "Ministers" in Wales, it will be in order to include all the Secretaries, by virtue of what we are now enacting. Mr. Speaker said last week that that was out of order, but we seem to be changing it now.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that one of the reasons why the First Minister has on occasions been excluded in the amendments is that he is a strong believer in freedom of information, and has said that he wants to publish the Cabinet minutes in the National Assembly?
  Mr. Wigley: The Cabinet minutes—not "executive committee" minutes; I do not know where that legalese came from—are indeed being published. The hon. Gentleman may have mistaken the reason why we are being a little circumspect about what the First Minister is allowed to do. If the First Minister was ill, the Deputy First Minister, who is a Liberal Democrat, would take over. The Government are probably exercising a certain amount of care.
  The points raised by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal and others underline the basic problem with the devolution model that has been enacted in these islands. We have four tiers of devolved government—one in Scotland, one in Northern Ireland, one in London and one in Wales—and they are all different. When one tries to reconcile these, one gets into all sorts of problems, as we are finding with the wording and the verbiage in the Bill.
  The logic of the situation, if we are to have devolved government—as I passionately hope we will, otherwise I will be out of a job—is that it must be coherent. The challenge to the Government, after an election, if not before, or to an alternative Government, is to get some form of devolved government that has a coherence running through it. That does not exist at the moment, which means that when cases come before the courts, bearing in mind the fact that Wales has the same legal structure as England, there will be considerable difficulty in interpreting parts of the legislation.
  The executive committee exists as far as legislation is concerned, but in Wales we deal with a Cabinet. The National Assembly is a body corporate. Therefore,
  768
  reference to the body as a whole does not spell out who is meant but implies that if communication or consultation is with the First Minister or the Presiding Officer it may be with the body as a whole.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fiasco of the census form in Wales for next year, and that in the consultation concerning that form, the National Assembly for Wales was listed as a Government Department? Does he believe that following that fiasco, the Government have had second thoughts as to whether the National Assembly for Wales could be described as a Government Department, and that that is the reason for these amendments?
  Mr. Wigley: Patently, the National Assembly for Wales is not a Government Department. It is a body that includes a Government of Wales, with restricted powers, within the terms of the Government of Wales Act 1998. If some pieces of legislation refer to it as a Government Department and other pieces do not, we have nothing short of a pig's ear. The Government need to have a consistent approach to the National Assembly for Wales, not least with regard to the nomenclature used. I suggest that such consistency of treatment should also apply to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and any other devolved bodies.
  Mr. Bercow: For the avoidance of doubt, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government did not suddenly see the light and decide to stop describing the National Assembly for Wales as a Government Department? Rather, it is my understanding—which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will confirm is also his—that it was specifically at the request of the First Secretary that the Government conceded, and agreed that they would no longer subsume the National Assembly for Wales within the definition of a Government Department.
  Mr. Wigley: The First Secretary would most certainly have reflected the feeling in the Assembly, and fair play to him. He would have spoken in a way that reflected the aspirations of all of us—to be a body in our own right. If we exist, we exist in our own right. If we are simply a Government Department, that hardly justifies our existence at all. If we exist, let us be able to do things—or let us not exist at all. The same is true about how the First Secretary, or the First Minister, is described. If we believe in devolution, we must allow people to do things for themselves.
  The Minister has not tried to justify any of the amendments before us. When so many aspects of these issues have not been properly thought through—aspects that in the original Bill were contradictory at best, if not totally opaque and impossible to comprehend—the Minister owes the House, at the very least, a duty to explain what the Government are doing and why they got into such a tangle in the first place. Ultimately, I hope that there will be legislation to provide freedom of information and the maximum possible transparency for the National Assembly for Wales and for other bodies, whether they cover Wales, parts of Wales or Wales only by implication.

  769
  We want open government, and to that extent I support what the Government are doing with the legislation—but my goodness, let us do it in a better way than we have done in the Bill.
  Mr. Hawkins: I want to reinforce several excellent points made in the debate, and to say that, as I suspected when I spoke for only one minute to set out the weaknesses in the amendments and express my regret that the Minister had not sought to put them forward other than in an almost formal way, we feel that they contain so many flaws that we propose to divide the House.
  Mr. David Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has spoken twice in this debate, without the leave of the House. Several of my hon. Friends have waited some time to contribute to the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is up to the Chair to decide who shall be called. I believe that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) sought to catch my eye.
  Mr. Livsey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not take too much time.
  The key to this debate is the definition of a public authority, as outlined in amendment No. 74. The debate has been revealing, particularly in the skilful near-filibuster of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), whose Welsh ancestors should be proud of the non-conformist zeal with which he pursued his exposé of the amendments. Amendment No. 74 reveals that the Secretary of State has too much power, in that he is able to exclude various public authorities in relation to Wales. If the First Minister is not to be consulted, there will be a major problem, and the drafting of the amendments has produced a mess.
  Amendment No. 10 also raises problems over consultation with the National Assembly and with the Presiding Officer in Northern Ireland. Wales also has a Presiding Officer. I agree with the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that the Bill is not right for the devolution settlement in Wales, which is less effective than those for Northern Ireland and, especially, for Scotland. The fact that the Government have treated the National Assembly as a Department tends to expose the way in which they treated Wales in the Government of Wales Act 1998. Many amendments were tabled when that Bill went through the House, but the National Assembly was refused the right to make primary legislation. If that had been allowed, we should have had far less trouble in tonight's debate.
  Mr. LembitÖpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that all the issues raised will have to be resolved? The problem is that they will be resolved by precedent, and probably as a result of friction arising from the testing of the arrangements. It would be much better if the Government would clarify the issues raised so that we might understand the process of consultation, and how far the National Assembly can be confident that consultation will be taken seriously.
  Mr. Livsey: I thank my hon. Friend for his objective comments. We do need answers from the Government.
  770
  Lords amendment No. 74 displays the power of the Secretary of State over the National Assembly, in its references to excluded authorities. Subsection (1)(a) of the proposed new clause within it refers to functions

  exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Wales.
  Will the Minister explain whether that would apply to a body such as the Environment Agency, which has dual powers in England and Wales?
  11.45 pm
  When we consider the word "mainly", we might recall the song about the rain in Spain falling "mainly in the plain". The provision is broadly drawn and it is extremely difficult to work out what it means.
  The measure is especially disappointing given that, when freedom of information legislation was being drawn up in Scotland, its architect was the Deputy First Minister of the Scottish Parliament, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). That was because the Scottish Parliament has primary powers. Indeed, as a result of that legislation, there will be more disclosure of information powers in Scotland than in Wales or England. Legislation for Wales falls short in that regard.
  Mr. David Heath: My hon. Friend refers to the differences between arrangements for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland. Is not one illustration of that difference the fact that the draft of the Scottish legislation is so superior in both form and content to the legislation for England and Wales, which we are considering?
  Mr. Livsey: My hon. Friend's question underlines the fact that the Deputy First Minister is a skilled Scottish lawyer and has, with the legal authorities in Scotland, drafted freedom of information legislation for Scotland that is far superior to that for England and Wales. It is difficult to divine how many of the amendments, and many aspects of the Bill, will apply to freedom of information in Wales. That certainly points to the need for reform of the legislation for Wales.
  We are considering a maze of amendments with different meanings. Wales needs a settlement identical to that for Scotland, and we need a new freedom of information Bill to clarify the points that I, and other Members, have been making.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: When I opened this debate on what I thought was a relatively uncontroversial set of amendments, I little realised how many questions I should be faced with. During my closing speech on the previous group of amendments, I referred to a week of Tory waffle. When I saw the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) rise to speak, I knew what I was in for. No one admires more than I do the right hon. Gentleman's ability to think up detailed questions on minutiae while remaining in order and taking up time. He appears before us like a verbal magician to delay matters.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: No, I shall not give way.

  771
  I sigh when I hear the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst say that he intends to make brief comments, for I know that brief they will not be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] As we found out, they were not brief; he spoke for 29 minutes.
  Mr. Redwood rose—
  Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) spoke for more than 37 minutes. It was like a wonderful parliamentary version of the BBC Radio 4 programme "Just a Minute", except that the right hon. Gentleman was required to speak in order for as long as he could, without repetition, deviation or hesitation. I award him the points. I also award him Hillard and Botting points.
  The Opposition's use of time is a matter for them. I do not criticise them; they choose to focus on minutiae rather than substance—that is a matter for them. Let Hansard record my suspicion—it is merely a suspicion—that the Conservative Opposition are making use of pedantry to make a point about the guillotine.
  Mr. Redwood rose—
  Mr. O'Brien: I want to make a few closing points. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst asked me what "consult" means—a penetrating question. "Consult" means just that. The Secretary of State will listen carefully to the views of the Assembly and the others that are put to him. The right hon. Gentleman then asked whether I was satisfied that the effect of the powers of a Department and the National Assembly for Wales was valid. Well yes, I am.
  The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal made a vexed speech about Wales. As he did nothing to create an Assembly for Wales—no doubt he also opposed the devolution that the Government proposed—and as there are no Tory Members in Wales, forgive me if I find his concerns heartening; perhaps they represent the Tory party's Damascus-like conversion to Wales. The Government care about Wales. That is why we are responding to the concerns of the people of Wales, specifically by consulting them and ensuring that their views are taken into consideration.
  Opposition Members, specifically those on the Tory Benches, have ignored Wales all too often, but the Government have responded to the concerns of Wales. We have consulted, where appropriate. We have ensured that the devolved Assemblies and the other organisations that need to be consulted are properly consulted, because the Government care about them; others do not.
  Mr. Redwood: The Minister has just shown his contempt for the House by his failure to answer a series of detailed and important questions on this disgracefully badly drafted Bill.
  Mr. Öpik rose—
  Mr. Redwood: The Minister is trying to redeem the Bill even at this late hour with some cobbled-together amendments that are not worthy of the Government.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Give way.
  Mr. Redwood: I have no intention of giving way unless an hon. Member wishes to intervene. I am making
  772
  a speech; the Minister has finished. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik).
  Mr. Öpik: We need to understand explicitly what the consultation process will involve and what assurance the Welsh Assembly will have that the consultation process will be taken seriously and that their views will be listened to. Is it not a matter of concern that those points are not clear?
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point—one of many that the Minister could not be bothered to deal with. The original draft of the Bill was an insult to the National Assembly for Wales, which was treated as a Department.
  Mr. David Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman way?
  Mr. Redwood: I shall give way in a moment, when I have made some progress. There is very little time because of the ridiculous guillotine on this important devolution and freedom of information legislation.
  The Assembly was insulted. Although the Minister will not clarify this, we believe from the debate that the First Secretary—who is of the Minister's own political party, we thought—had to object strongly to the insult and the Bill's inaccurate drafting. So the Minister has belatedly, at this late hour, moved the amendments which will strike out most of those provisions that state that the National Assembly is a Department and should be treated as such, instead inserting the phrase
  by a government department or by the National Assembly for Wales.
  The Minister has not answered the question that I had to ask in an intervention: why have the Government not proposed striking out those words in clause 81 on page 41? That clause contains the overall definitions, but the Government are still keeping that reference to the Assembly being a Department. My understanding is that even if these Lords amendments are approved, the Bill will be nonsense because of that reference.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong; he should read Lords amendment No. 9.
  Mr. Redwood: It is a great pity that the Minister was not a little more vocal at the beginning. I think that he will still find that the Bill is extremely badly drafted because it does not make clear the difference between the National Assembly for Wales and a Department. He has not explained the point that many Opposition Members have made—it is almost impossible to consult an elected Assembly.
  Mr. Gummer: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Minister was prepared to answer that question, but none of the other detailed questions that we have asked? Is that not an abuse of the House? The purpose of asking such questions is to get serious answers, but the Minister has not given a single serious answer.
  Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend is right, and the Minister has just mislead the House again. [Interruption.] I shall explain my allegation. Lords amendment No. 9 refers to:
  Page 3, leave out line 12.
  It does not refer to page 41.
  I am much more interested in the bigger debating point that has come out tonight. How does the Minister propose that he and his colleagues should consult the National Assembly for Wales? Will he consult every Member in turn, will he consult just the ruling coalition, or will he consult just the Presiding Officer even though the Bill makes it explicit that the Presiding Officer is to be consulted in Northern Ireland, but not in Wales?
  The Minister is clearly all at sea over an extremely scruffily amended Bill. Even now he is reading cobbled-together notes from officials, who know the Bill better than he does. It is pathetic that he is responsible for the Bill but does not know what is in his own amendments. He then tries to mislead the House by saying that he is amending something that amendment No. 9 does not amend.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to deal with his concern that I have misled the House. I certainly had no intention of doing so. Page 41 excludes the National Assembly for Wales from the definition. If he looks at the Bill, he will see that that is the position. The public who read Hansard will be able to judge the seriousness with which some Conservative Members have made their points.
  Mr. Redwood: That intervention shows just how important this examination is. In contrast to what he said originally, the Minister has now said that amendment No. 9 does not make the change that I am seeking. Amendment No. 9 clearly does not do that. The Minister remains in a sedentary position, so he confirms that I am right and that the amendment has nothing to do with it.
  I ask the Minister to read page 41, because he has not read that very well, either. Page 41 says clearly that the definition of "government department" includes—we go down to line 9 and paragraph (c)—
  the National Assembly for Wales.
  Is the Minister going to strike out that provision or not? Why has he not tabled an amendment to try to make sense of his cobbled-together and useless Bill? This is a week of more than 1,000 amendments—national guillotine week—and what a mess he is making of the first Bill this week to come before us under a guillotine.
  We still await a response on how the Minister intends to go ahead and consult a complete National Assembly. Why is the United Kingdom Parliament not treated in the same way? Why is the Northern Ireland body treated differently from the Welsh body? It looks as though strong and special representations were made by the First Secretary, who realised what an insult to Wales the whole procedure was. The Government have made a half-hearted and bodged attempt to deal with the matter.
  Mr. David Taylor rose—
  Mr. Redwood: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, although it is a bit rich his asking to intervene because he has not been here for this important debate.
  Mr. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman describes the drafting and content of the Bill as an insult to the Welsh Assembly and to the people of Wales. Does he agree that what is more of an insult to the Welsh Assembly and the people of Wales is the way in which Conservative Members have dealt with Lords amendments this evening? They have done that in such a way that the 12 o'clock closure means that seven groups of amendments have received no debate. That has occurred because of the way in which the Conservative party has approached this debate.
  Mr. Redwood: If the guillotine had not been imposed, we would have had three more hours to discuss the Bill's substance. If Ministers had come to the Dispatch Box and tried to explain the amendments and win the House over at the beginning of the debate, we might have saved a lot of time.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as Liberal Democrat and Welsh nationalist Members, have asked serious, detailed and important questions as is befitting of proceedings at this stage of a Bill. If the Minister had had the wit, the gumption, the wisdom and the information to have provided explanations at the beginning of the debate, some of those questions might not have been necessary.
  Mr. Lilley: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, on this Bill on the freedom of information, the Minister has not only not replied to most of the questions put to him but has not, as is customary, promised to do so in writing subsequently? Will my right hon. Friend seek to elicit such a response from the Minister in the dying moments of this truncated debate?
  Mr. Redwood: It has not even been a question of a mute Minister, which, as my right hon. Friend implies, is normal in this Parliament. The Minister does not know his own Bill and then seeks to give wrong information to the House when he is put on the spot.
  Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to page 41 and accusing me of not knowing the Bill. Perhaps he should read the Bill. It uses the words "but does not include"—
  It being Twelve midnight, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
  Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 368, Noes 115.

  Division No. 356]

  [12 midnight

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Ainger, Nick

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Allan, Richard

  Ashton, Joe

  Allen, Graham

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  775

  Austin, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Dalyell, Tam

  Banks, Tony

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Barnes, Harry

  Darvill, Keith

  Barron, Kevin

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Battle, John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davidson, Ian

  Beard, Nigel

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Bennett, Andrew F

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Benton, Joe

  Dawson, Hilton

  Berry, Roger

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Best, Harold

  Dismore, Andrew

  Betts, Clive

  Dobbin, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Doran, Frank

  Borrow, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Drew, David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brake, Tom

  Edwards, Huw

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Efford, Clive

  Breed, Colin

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Browne, Desmond

  Flint, Caroline

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Flynn, Paul

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Burnett, John

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Burstow, Paul

  Foulkes, George

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Galloway, George

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Gerrard, Neil

  (NE Fife)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Cann, Jamie

  Godsiff, Roger

  Casale, Roger

  Goggins, Paul

  Caton, Martin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chidgey, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clapham, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clelland, David

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clwyd, Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  Coaker, Vernon

  Healey, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Coleman, Iain

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Colman, Tony

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heppell, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Corston, Jean

  Hill, Keith

  Cotter, Brian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Crausby, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hope, Phil

  Cummings, John

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  (Copeland)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  776

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Miller, Andrew

  Hurst, Alan

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hutton, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Illsley, Eric

  Moore, Michael

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Jamieson, David

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jenkins, Brian

  (Aberavon)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Mudie, George

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Oaten, Mark

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Olner, Bill

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Keetch, Paul

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Kemp, Fraser

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pearson, Ian

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pendry, Tom

  Kidney, David

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pickthall, Colin

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Plaskitt, James

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Pond, Chris

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pope, Greg

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pound, Stephen

  Laxton, Bob

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lepper, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Levitt, Tom

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Purchase, Ken

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Linton, Martin

  Rammell, Bill

  Livsey, Richard

  Rapson, Syd

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lock, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooney, Terry

  McCabe, Steve

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Roy, Frank

  (Makerfield)

  Ruane, Chris

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ruddock, Joan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McDonnell, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McFall, John

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Salter, Martin

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sanders, Adrian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McNulty, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  MacShane, Denis

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McWalter, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Singh, Marsha

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Maxton, John

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  777

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

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

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Snape, Peter

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Soley, Clive

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Tyler, Paul

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tynan, Bill

  Stevenson, George

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Watts, David

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Webb, Steve

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  White, Brian

  Stringer, Graham

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  (Dewsbury)

  (Swansea W)

  Taylor, Ms Dair (Stockton S)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Willis, Phil

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winnick, David

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Wray, James

  Timms, Stephen

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Todd, Mark

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trickett, Jon

  Mr. Don Touhig and

  Truswell, Paul

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Greenway, John

  Amess, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Hammond, Philip

  Baldry, Tony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Hayes, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Boswell, Tim

  Horam, John

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Brady, Graham

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Leigh, Edward

  Burns, Simon

  Lewis Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Butterfill, John

  Lidington, David

  Cash, William

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Luff, Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  (Rushcliffe)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Collins, Tim

  Madel, Sir David

  Gran, James

  Malins, Humfrey

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Maples, John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Duncan, Alan

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Evans, Nigel

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fallon, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Paice, James

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Pickles, Eric

  Fraser, Christopher

  Prior, David

  Gale, Roger

  Randall, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Robathan, Andrew

  Green, Damian

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  778

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Townend, John

  Ruffley, David

  Tredinnick, David

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Trend, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Wells, Bowen

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whittingdale, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Spring, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilshire, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Streeter, Gary

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Yeo, Tim

  Syms, Robert

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
  Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the remaining Lords amendments:—
  The House divided: Ayes 364, Noes 116.

  Division No. 357]

  [12.13 am

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Ainger, Nick

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Browne, Desmond

  Allan, Richard

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Allen, Graham

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Burden, Richard

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Burgon, Colin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Burnett, John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Burstow, Paul

  Ashton, Joe

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Austin, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Banks, Tony

  (NE Fife)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Battle, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Bayley, Hugh

  Casale, Roger

  Beard, Nigel

  Caton, Martin

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cawsey, Ian

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Chaytor, David

  Benton, Joe

  Chidgey, David

  Berry, Roger

  Clapham, Michael

  Best, Harold

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Blackman, Liz

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Borrow, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Clelland, David

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Clwyd, Ann

  Brake, Tom

  Coaker, Vernon

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Breed, Colin

  Coleman, Iain

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Colman, Tony

  Connarty, Michael

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Corbett, Robin

  779

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corston, Jean

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cotter, Brian

  Home Robertson, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Hood, Jimmy

  Crausby, David

  Hope, Phil

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsely N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Howells, Dr Kim

  (Copeland)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hughes, Ms Beverly (Stretford)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hurst, Alan

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hutton, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jamieson, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dismore, Andrew

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Dobbin, Jim

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Helen, (Warrington N)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Martyn, (Clwyd S)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Edwards, Huw

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Efford, Clive

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Feam, Ronnie

  Keetch, Paul

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Flint, Caroline

  Khabra, Piara S

  Flynn, Paul

  Kidney, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Foulkes, George

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Galloway, George

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Gapes, Mike

  Laxton, Bob

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Lepper, David

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lewis, Ivan, (Bury S)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lewis, Terry, (Worsley)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Linton, Martin

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Livsey, Richard

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Goggins, Paul

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Lock, David

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Love, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McCabe, Steve

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Grocott, Bruce

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Grogan, John

  (Makerfield)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McDonnell, John

  Hanson, David

  Mcfall, John

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McGurie, Mrs Anne

  Harris, Dr Evan

  McIssac, Shona

  Harvey, Nick

  McNamara, Kevin

  Healey, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  MacShane, Denis

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McWilliam, John

  Heppell, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  780

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Meale, Alan

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

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

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Snape, Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  Mitchell, Austin

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moore, Michael

  Steinburg, Gerry

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stevenson, George

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  (Aberavon)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mudie, George

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mullin, Chris

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stringer, Graham

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stunell, Andrew

  Norris, Dan

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Oaten, Mark

  (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Öpik, Lembit

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Thomas, Simon, (Ceredigion)

  Pearson, Ian

  Timms, Stephen

  Pendry, Tom

  Tipping, Paddy

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Todd, Mark

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Plaskitt, James

  Trickett, Jon

  Pollard, Kerry

  Truswell, Paul

  Pond, Chris

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverhton SE)

  Pope, Greg

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Tyler, Paul

  Purchase, Ken

  Tynar, Bill

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rammell, Bill

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Rapson, Syd

  Wareing, Robert N

  Raynsford, Nick

  Watts, David

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Webb, Steve

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  White, Brian

  Rooney, Terry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Roy, Frank

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Ruane, Chris

  (Swansea W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Willis Phil

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Winnick, David

  Salter, Martin

  Woolas, Phil

  Sanders, Adrian

  Worthington, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wray, James

  Sawford, Phil

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sheerman, Barry

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Singh, Marsha

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  781

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Luff, Peter

  Amess, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Baldry, Tony

  Madel, Sir David

  Bercow, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Maples, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Boswell, Tim

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Brady, Graham

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Brazier, Julian

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Page, Richard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Paice, James

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Pickles, Eric

  Burns, Simon

  Prior, David

  Butterfill, John

  Randall, John

  Cash, William

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Robathan, Andrew

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Chope, Christopher

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  (Rushcliffe)

  Ruffley, David

  Collins, Tim

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Cran, James

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Duncan, Alan

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Soames, Nicholas

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Spelmam, Mrs Caroline

  Evans, Nigel

  Spring, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Fallon, Michael

  Steen, Antony

  Flight, Howard

  Streeter, Gary

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Swayne, Desmond

  Fraser, Christopher

  Syms, Robert

  Gale, Roger

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gibb, Nick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Green, Damian

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Greenway, John

  Townend, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Tredinnick, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  Hammond, Philip

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hancock, Mike

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hawkins, Nick

  Wells, Bowen

  Hayes, John

  Whitney,Sir Raymond

  Heald, Oliver

  Whittingdale, John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Horam, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Willetts, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Lidington, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendments agreed to.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are about to consider a motion on the business of the House, which may not be taken tonight if it is opposed. It would provide that the House could sit and wait for messages from the Lords, as we did last
  782
  Thursday. Given that Mr. Speaker made it clear from the Chair that he supported a more modernised procedure, can you do anything to ensure that when the House is sitting—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I must inform the hon. Gentleman that that motion is not debatable.
  Mr. Hughes: I accept that; I said that it stated that on the Order Paper.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I believe that I have already given the hon. Gentleman an explanation.
  Mr. Hughes: Last Thursday, before we returned late at night, there was a period when the House was sitting but we were doing nothing. Tonight, we have discussed two groups of amendments in three hours while seven groups, containing 119 amendments, have not been considered. Can we please use our time to better effect?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I must inform the hon. Gentleman that the points that he is raising are matters for debate. The House has proceeded in a way that is fully in order, as the House agreed earlier today.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation)

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    INCOME TAX
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Shipping Transport) (Hong Kong) Order 2000 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 2nd November.
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxation on Income) (Norway) Order 2000 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 2nd November.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Question agreed to.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made,
    That, at the sittings on Thursday 30th November and Friday 1st December—

    (i) the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords shall have been received, and

    (ii) if the House has completed its consideration of any Messages received from the Lords and the Lords have adjourned their sitting, the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Hon. Members: Object.

    Madam Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Committees.
    Ordered,

    COMMITTEES
      ACCOMMODATION AND WORKS
      That Mr. Colin Burgon be discharged from the Accommodation and Works Committee and Mr. Tony Banks be added to the Committee.
      HEALTH
      That Siobhain McDonagh be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    Devon Fire and Rescue Service
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    12.29 am
    Mrs. Angela Browning rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Would Members please leave the Chamber quickly and quietly?
    Mrs. Browning: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I introduce to the House a debate that is of great concern to many of us in the county of Devon. The headquarters of the Devon fire and rescue service is at Clyst St. George in my constituency of Tiverton and Honiton.
    Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is impossible to hear my hon. Friend, even though I am sitting close to her. Can she begin again so that we can hear what she is saying?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the hon. Lady. I have asked Members to leave quickly and quietly, and most have left the Chamber.
    Mrs. Browning: On behalf of the Devon fire and rescue service, whose headquarters are at Clyst St. George in the Tiverton and Honiton constituency, I shall raise with the Minister concerns that have been felt for some time. We are in such a position that the Government must consider a problem that faces the county of Devon: the future of the fire and rescue service.
    As long ago as 9 May, I tabled a written question to the Home Office in respect of the representations received from the emergency services on the cost to them of the changes to radio channels. On 10 May, I received a reply from the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke):
    The spectrum currently used by the police and fire services for radio communications has serious limitations and is the key reason why we arranged for the provision of new spectrum … We are achieving this by the introduction of the new Public Safety Radio Communications Service. We are doing so in accordance with an internationally agreed harmonized plan for use of Public Safety radio spectrum.
    Both the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities have concluded that the Public Safety Radio Communications Project (PSRCP) meets technical requirements and offers value for money at a national level.
    I have also received various representations from the Fire Service about future radio communications and control room requirements, including views on costs and on their participation in the PSRC Service.—[Official Report, 10 May 2000;Vol.349,c.404-05W.]
    It was known earlier this year that the change to the radio frequency required by the replacement scheme affected all emergency services nationally, but I want to draw particular attention to the impact on the Devon fire and rescue service.
    There is a national Home Office requirement to vacate existing radio frequencies used by the emergency services by 2005 at the latest. As a result, Devon fire and rescue service, along with all other fire authorities in England and Wales, will be required to replace its wide area radio scheme. The police service has a single framework

    785
    agreement to purchase the Airwave service, formerly PSRCS, which is supplied by Quadrant—a consortium led by BT. That framework agreement was negotiated by the Police Information Technology Organisation and was the subject of a referral by the European Commission to the European Court of Justice. I am afraid that my speech contains a lot of acronyms, so I shall spell them out.
    Devon fire and rescue service currently shares radio transmission sites with Devon and Cornwall constabulary. Similar arrangements exist with a number of other fire authorities. Devon county council, and therefore the police, will move to a replacement radio scheme in December 2002. It is likely that many shared facilities will no longer be available to the fire service after that date. Devon county council police authority has given formal notice that current partners in shared radio facilities must make their own arrangements for future wide-area radio provision after that date.
    I emphasise to the Minister that the service in Devon must not only have procured the new system but put it in place—not by 2005, but by the end of 2002. That means that it is required to replace its scheme much earlier than many other services in the country. It is currently under notice from the police that that is the time scale under which they are working, and we have every reason to believe that the police project is on time. Indeed, the police annual report confirms that it is.
    Other pressures for change in the radio scheme include the increasing need for data to be sent to front-line fire appliances to meet health and safety requirements with regard to the provision of operation and tactical information. Those are not available under the current radio arrangements. If any existing shared sites remain available for fire service use, for a sole user the costs would be prohibitive. There is also concern that the communications industry will not be able to meet the demands of all emergency services' replacement needs in the time frame available. There is great anxiety in the Devon fire and rescue service about the possibility of procurement in such a short time.
    In a "Dear Chief Fire Officer" letter dated February 1999, the Home Office set out the fire service strategy for radio replacement. The strategy did not propose or establish a single framework procurement option that PITO adopted, but the Home Office recommended local rather than national procurement, provision by the Home Office of procurement guidance, the adoption of an output as opposed to a technical specification, and collaboration between brigades. It also suggested that PSRCS (Airwave) should be considered as an option. According to current guidance, the strategy is still valid.
    Since the publication of that advice, the Minister has commissioned two studies—one to look at options for the provision of fire control rooms, and the other to provide guidance on radio replacement options. Devon in particular would have been pleased if the second study could have been produced much earlier, given the short time frame within which it is now obliged to work. There are significant lead times for both tender and implementation, not least—as the Minister will know—because of public-sector regulations relating to tenders and contracts.
    786
    While I accept that two alternative strategies for radio replacement have been adopted by the police and the fire service, there are still a number of inequitable anomalies supported by central Government. The Minister of State, Home Office, has found that PSRCS represents an important part of the Government's commitment to ensuring that the police have access to modern communications facilities. I particularly want this Minister to focus on that tonight.
    Over three years, the police will receive an extra £1.24 billion of central Government funding so that they can introduce the new system that they will use. Annual charges for PSRCP will be reduced by £50 million, obtained from the capital modernisation fund. The financial pressures on police forces will be taken into account in the overall level of resources to be provided for the police service in future years as part of the 2000 spending review. Today's announcement on local government expenditure clearly identified the on-going revenue costs of the scheme in figures relating to the police.
    I make no complaint about the money that the Government have allocated-—one might almost say "ring-fenced" for the police. However, what is extraordinary is that one emergency service has been treated in that way, yet the Government do not seem to have recognised the important role that another emergency service, the fire and rescue service, plays, particularly in a county such as Devon, or the short time available.
    Mr. Steen: Let us forget all the abbreviations and technical details, which I realise my hon. Friend knows much more about than me. Is she saying two things? Will the whole of Devon be covered in even more aerials? All the high-technical aerials and the mobile phone aerials are going up like mushrooms. Now we will have a double lot of aerials: the fire station and police station aerials. At the same time, is it right that the smaller fire stations will probably have to go, which will put villages in rural areas at far greater risk?
    Mrs. Browning: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is correct to say that there will necessarily be more masts throughout the county, but his point about where the money will come from is important. Clearly, there are huge pressures on the fire service budget and on its capital expenditure in providing for that new service in such a short time. The fire service clearly requires modern communication facilities to play its part in community safety, but by contrast with the funding support to the police, it has been allocated no additional funding.
    Approximately 18 months ago, the Home Office provided individual brigades with indicative costings with regard to capital and revenue. Costs supplied by the Home Office for Devon were as follows: minimum capital costs of £1.3 million, to a maximum of £4.4 million; minimum revenue costs of £0.31 million, to a maximum of £1.02 million. More recent costings by Devon fire and rescue service anticipate capital costs of about £1.3 million and revenue costs of about £0.46 million.
    If the Devon costings of £1.3 million and £0.46 million are considered a benchmark for other fire authorities, fire service radio replacement nationally is likely to cost about £75 million in capital costs and £27 million in on-going revenue costs—hence my pointing out that, in today's

    787
    announcement, we noticed that on-going revenue costs were allocated to the police because of their change, but there was apparently nothing for the fire service. That comes against a background of many fire authorities spending significant amounts in excess of standard spending assessment to maintain current provision of services.
    The widening gap between SSA provision and what authorities are spending to maintain current service is well documented, the most recent case being outlined in the report of the Home Office's service expenditure forecasting group (fire) on 2001–02 to 2003–04. Devon will spend approximately 17.9 per cent. above SSA in 2001–02, with a projected pensions deficit of 14.3 per cent.
    It is a critical period. As the Minister will be aware, the peaks and troughs in retirement of personnel show that the move could not have come at a worse time. Retirements are due to peak at the same time as the fire service is having to make the new provisions.
    The increases in SSA and the basic credit approvals recently announced are welcome, but the SSA increase of 5 per cent. for 2001-02 and 4 per cent. for the following two years will not provide for the closing of the gap between the SSA and actual budget spending. Again, the basic credit approvals increases need to be viewed against the poor property profile of many fire authorities, including Devon; the increasing need to seek capital solutions in other areas of budget need—for example, information technology; and an authority's ability to make additional revenue implications of capital spend.
    I hope that the Minister appreciates that this is not a case of Devon fire and rescue saying that they want more money simply because they need a new system. Even without that challenge, the service is struggling to maintain its current revenue and capital commitments. So although the announcements on SSA and basic credit approvals are welcome, they will not provide funding for radio replacement options.
    In his reply, the Minister of State said that various representations had been made from the fire services. He also implied that best-value reviews and guidance in the joint control study report and the future radio replacement report would provide a way forward for the fire service. However, as Devon fire and rescue has told me, the control room study report does not address the issue of radio replacement. Although joint or shared control rooms may offer longer-term savings, they do not offer solutions to short-term funding requirements for radio replacement.
    Practical implementation of a move to joint or shared control room facilities will take some years. However, radio replacement is required now. Although best-value reviews into control rooms and communications are encouraging authorities to seek collaborative solutions to radio replacement and to analyse joint or shared control room operations, they will not provide funding.
    In May, the Minister of State said that the second Home Office report would provide guidance on radio replacement to help fire services. However, although some of that information is now available, it does not solve the immediate problem. On 19 July 2000, at a central fire brigades advisory council, it was made clear that pressures on fire authorities for radio replacement were not compatible with the time scales for reviewing
    788
    joint control rooms. That acknowledgement was recently reinforced with the Fire Brigades Union's publication of its opposition to the joint control study report.
    We accept that communications are a vital aspect of providing a modern fire service that is able to contribute to community safety, and that Devon fire and rescue service, with other authorities, will have to replace its radio scheme by December 2002. Devon and Cornwall police, who provide the service with a radio facility, have given notice that the facility will have to be replaced by that date. Although options of joint or shared controls and the results of best-value reviews may produce savings in the long term, they do not help to meet the challenge initially facing Devon fire and rescue.
    There is an inequity in recognising the implementation costs and continuing revenue implications for police, while making no additional funding provision for the fire service. Communications are a vital element of both services. The discrepancy is even more incongruous given the windfall that the Government have received from the sale of the frequency spectrum. The auction has raised a huge sum far exceeding what the Chancellor could ever have imagined he would receive.
    The Government have encouraged fire authorities to seek collaboration and joint procurement options. I hope that the Minister is aware that the Devon fire authority has been very willing to seek such options. Indeed, it is working with Avon, Somerset and Dorset counties on reducing procurement costs and taking advantage of economies of scale.
    I am, however, very concerned that, even as recently as the beginning of this month, on 9 November, in a letter to the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw)—the letter is now in the public domain, and I have given notice to the hon. Gentleman that I would be mentioning it—the Minister himself seemed to demonstrate that he was not aware of the time constraints facing the Devon fire and rescue service. Quite clearly, he seemed to be under the impression—I hope that he will reassure us today that he has taken this point on board—that there were five years in which to address the issue.
    The Minister is pointing at the time. I am very willing to let him reply now, because I hope that he will be able to give us some reassurance that the Home Office will sympathetically consider the predicament of the Devon fire and rescue service.
    12.50 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on securing this debate. I would have hoped to have had a longer opportunity to deal in more detail with the concerns that she expressed, but she took up 20 minutes of this 30-minute debate—although I fully understand the importance that she and her constituents attach to the quality of the fire service in Devon, as well as the issues relating to radio replacement.
    We have good reason to be proud of our fire service. Its high level of performance in response to emergency calls has been confirmed year after year by the Audit Commission. On the latest figures published by the commission, the fire service nationally in 1998–99 met attendance standards in responding to fire calls on

    789
    96 per cent. of occasions. In Devon, even that excellent performance was bettered, with attendance standards being met on 97.1 per cent. of occasions.
    I will take no lessons from the hon. Lady on the subject of funding support for the fire service. The real-terms increases provided by this Government, both revenue and capital, are significantly better than those provided in the last years of the Conservative Administration in which she served. She may complain about fire service funding now, but she supported the starving of the fire service.
    Mr. John Burnett: The fire service in London is a separate precepting authority, as are the police. Does the Minister agree that it would be a good idea for crucial services such as the Devon fire and rescue service to have the same arrangement, so that it can plan for changes in communications and such in the long term?
    Mr. O'Brien: That is an interesting issue. The Government are currently holding consultations on local government funding, and no doubt the Devon service could make submissions.
    Under the central-local partnership arrangements we work closely with fire service interests to assess future funding pressures and we have taken those into account in both spending reviews. The outcome of spending review 2000 is that fire authorities in England will get an overall increase in the fire service element of standard spending assessment of £189.2 million over the next three years, including £69.1 million—that is 5 per cent. more—for 2001–02, followed by an increase of 4 per cent. in each of the two subsequent years.
    We announced earlier today that, for 2001–02, the fire standard spending assessment for Devon will provisionally be increased by 4.4 per cent., following the 4.5 per cent. that was received this year. As part of spending review 2000, we are also significantly boosting our support for fire service capital. Planned credit approvals for the service in England and Wales will be increased by 67 per cent. from their present level of £35.7 million, to £59.7 million in 2001–02. The provision will be sustained at that level in 2002–03 and increased by a further £2 million to £61.7 million in 2003–04. I have announced that a significant proportion—10 million of the provision for 2001-02—will be issued as a supplementary credit approval specifically for the promotion of equality and diversity in the service.
    Spending review 2000 represents overall, I believe, a very satisfactory outcome for the fire service. It will help to deliver the outcomes that really matter, reducing the number of fires and fire deaths in the home through a greater emphasis on fire safety and prevention. At the same time, it rightly sets challenging efficiency targets. The spending totals are based on an assumption that a 2 per cent. improvement in efficiency will be achieved each year. The best value process that the Government have introduced from 1 April will play a key role in helping fire authorities to identify and achieve those efficiencies.
    I am well aware of the concerns that Devon fire and rescue service has about funding issues. In July I met a delegation representing those fire authorities, including
    790
    Devon, which serve large rural areas. I took careful note of the problems they identified, particularly in relation to the current arrangements for distributing funding.
    The cause of the problem is the standard spending assessment formula that we inherited, and it needs to change. The Home Office has been involved in a fundamental review of local government finance, in particular the perverse funding incentives, which we inherited in relation to the fire funding formula. The incentives have caused a lot of problems not only in Devon but in many other parts of the country. For example, funding is reduced if the number of fire calls are reduced. Such decisions need to be changed and we are committed to doing that.
    On radio communications, we understand and acknowledge the need for fire authorities to replace their wide-area radio schemes in the period up to 2005. Indeed, we took account of this in the previous spending review.
    The hon. Lady referred to the arrangements for the police. The police service has a national strategy in place and a public safety radio communication service known as Airwave is in the process of being introduced. We are convinced that the police will draw considerable benefit from that cohesive approach, which is supported by appropriate funding arrangements.
    Mrs. Browning: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. O'Brien: I have some points that I wish to make. I am sure that the hon. Lady would wish me to do that, and then if we have time left, I will happily give way to her. It is important that I make these points so that those in the fire and rescue service know the Government's position.
    Devon and Cornwall constabulary will receive an allocation of Airwave grant of £4,755,000 in capital for 2001–02 and £2,470,000 in revenue. The spectrum, which is used by the fire service, will be withdrawn from its current use at the end of 2005, although some fire services, including Devon, may wish to make changes earlier than that date.
    There are no plans to auction the use of those frequencies. They will be retained by the Home Office for other purposes. The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1998 provided a mechanism for promoting the efficient use of radio frequencies by introducing licence fees reflecting the commercial value of the spectrum. The charge for the fire service would increase from £197,000 to £746,000 a year. The new charging regime is being phased in over a five-year period from April 1999. The method of apportionment between brigades was agreed with fire service representatives. The increase in costs was one of the funding pressures identified and taken into account in the comprehensive spending review.
    The challenge for the fire service is to secure benefits that are similar to those of the police in their method of procurement. The hon. Lady referred to the urgency of the matter. That is why we have asked, this year, for all fire authorities in England and Wales to undertake best value reviews of their future communications and control

    791
    arrangements. Given the statutory responsibilities of local fire authorities, both for the efficiency of their brigades and for securing best value, it would be quite wrong to set aside the local consideration. However, a sensible outcome will, I believe, depend on local decisions being made and local government being willing to work with central Government to secure systems that will meet certain key criteria. In particular, radio bearer systems procured by fire authorities must meet the service's national operational requirements for voice communications and status and data message transfer. They must support effective interworking between neighbouring brigades. They must, as Airwave would, provide an effective and continuing interface with communications systems of other emergency services.
    These are national requirements; so is the need to secure value for money. There will have to be competition, but it would be nonsense if each fire authority mounted its own competition for a replacement radio bearer system. The waste in administrative effort, the loss of economies of scale and the unreasonable requirement on suppliers to interface with a large number of different systems would be unacceptable.
    792
    If fire authorities want to control the process, I want them to be able to demonstrate a real commitment to collaborative procurement in order to deliver an outcome that makes sense both locally in Devon and nationally across the country.
    Mrs. Browning: The Minister said that fire authorities may, if they wish, change their radio communication systems earlier than 2005. Will he take on board that for Devon, that is not an optional extra? The fire service has been required by the police, whose facilities it shares at present, to end its contract with them by the end of 2002.
    Mr. O'Brien: I had hoped to reply at greater length about the issues relating to the radio communication system, but we are obviously very pressed for time. I will soon be meeting Local Government Association representatives and others. We are ready and willing to—
    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 accordingly at One o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Regulatory Reform Bill
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proposals the Government plan to bring forward under the Regulatory Reform Bill. [140560]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Government have a number of proposals under preparation that could be implemented under the Regulatory Reform Bill. These are aimed at:simplifying the complicated fire safety rules;
  replacing the rules surrounding weights and measures with one new piece of legislation;
  allowing school governors to provide out-of-school child care for their own pupils and other children—this is something many schools have asked for;
  removing the remaining constraints on the number of partners that professions such as GPs, chartered surveyors and investment trust managers may have;
  removing from businesses the costs of having to adhere to two different sets of regulations surrounding unfair contract terms;
  removing the outdated regulations surrounding trading stamps to make it easier for business;
  making it easier for directory publishers to gain repeat business by simplifying the process for renewing directory entries;
  promoting innovation in the building and construction industry by not penalising those who do things in a different way from what is laid down in guidance;
  allowing longer for local authorities and others to transfer housing stock;
  simplifying, speeding up and making fairer the procedures for renewing business leases;
  placing local authority business tenants on the same footing with lease renewals as other business tenants;
  easing the administrative and other burdens on charities;
  making it easier to correct errors on birth and death certificates;
  simplifying the arrangements for undertaking building work at voluntary-aided schools;
  removing the requirement for some charities associated with the NHS to submit two sets of accounts;
  ending the renewal of manufacturers' and wholesale dealers' licences for human and veterinary medicines and introducing continuous licensing;
  putting cautions, reprimands and final warnings on the same footing as other criminal records, giving offenders a 'clean sheet' after a certain period;
  changing the rules about access to victim material in sexual offence cases to protect the victim and remove restrictions from lawyers;
  letting pubs open later on New Year's Eve from next year onwards;
  allowing restaurants to open later without a requirement to provide live entertainment;
  allowing a greater variety of gaming machines to be installed in bingo clubs;
  allowing customers to use banknotes and smartcards when playing with gaming machines.
  370W
  According to the procedure laid down in the Regulatory Reform Bill, all these proposals would be subject to thorough public consultation followed by rigorous scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament.

  The Regulatory Reform Bill was published as Command Paper 4713 on 18 April 2000. It will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  We are also placing in the Library today a code of practice on written consultation and guidance on implementation periods for new legislation likely to impact on business. These measures also form part of the Government's strategy for minimising regulatory burdens on business.

  E-Government
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what has been the outcome to date of the commitment given in the first annual report of the e-Minister and the e-Envoy that meetings of the Cabinet will be held on e-Government every six months. [139707]

  Mr. Stringer
  The first six-monthly Cabinet meeting is expected to take place early in 2001, following the publication of the next six-monthly report on electronic service delivery and the initial evaluation of Departments' e-business strategies.

  Written Consultation
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she intends to launch the Code of Practice on Written Consultation; and if she will make a statement. [140563]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government have today published a Code of Practice on Written Consultation, and I have placed a copy in the Library. It will apply to consultation documents issued after 1 January 2001.

  The Code meets a recommendation of the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It also responds to views expressed by the Public Administration Select Committee of the House, by the Better Regulation Task Force, and by many organisations and members of the public in response to a consultation draft issued earlier this year.

  The code will generally be binding on Departments, though it is not a legal document. Any departures from it will have to be justified, on the face of the consultation document, by the Minister authorising it.

  The code reflects the importance of:
  involving the widest range of people and organisations in developing policy, legislation and public services;
  keeping to a minimum the burden on people consulted—so the code encourages joining up of consultation, and requires that documents have a two-page summary;
  giving enough time to respond to consultation documents: 12 weeks will be the standard minimum period;
  making full use of information technology in gathering views, though not so as to exclude people without access: so there will be a central internet-based register of consultations which will appear shortly at: www.UKOnline.gov.uk; and
  giving feedback: saying what views were expressed, and why they were accepted or rejected.
  371W
  I am also placing in the Library, and on my Department's website, a summary of responses to the consultation earlier this year on a draft of the Code.

  I believe the Code, together with the Guidance being published today by the Small Business Service on implementation periods, a copy of which is also being placed in the Library, is a real advance for responsive, open administration, and for constructive working between business and Government.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Best Value
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what effect the introduction of Best Value has had on the quantity of public tenders for local authority services; and if he will make a statement. [139424]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Information on local authority contracts is not held centrally. Best Value has introduced a competitive requirement into all local government services and contrasts with Compulsory Competitive Tendering which applied to a limited range of services only.

  Best Value has encouraged changes in the way in which services are procured. Authorities are increasingly looking to develop strategic partnerships with the private sector and others to deliver efficient high-quality services, and a number of such agreements have been announced recently. We would expect this trend to intensify, accompanied by some retrenchment in the number of contracts of the type which were characteristic of CCT.

  We have also asked Sir Ian Byatt to head a Task Force to consider the state of commissioning and procurement in local government, and he will report by the end of May next year on the practical steps that might be taken to help authorities develop the market for services and achieve best value from their procurement.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement in respect of the implementation of Best Value. [139712]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Audit Commission reviewed local authorities' first year experience of Best Value Performance Plans and published their report on 20 October. The Commission reported promising beginnings. Authorities set targets which indicate a steady improvement in many frontline services, with the worst performing authorities aiming to improve more quickly. The Government agree with the Commission's recommendations for local authorities, and in particular the advice that they should take a more strategic approach in formulating their programmes of Best Value Reviews.

  Local Authority Chief Executives
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many chief 372W
  executives of local authorities have (a) resigned, (b) been dismissed, (c) been suspended and (d) taken early retirement in the last two years. [139842]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  This information is not held centrally.

  Airport Security
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the recent breach of airport security at Birmingham International Airport; and if he will make a statement; [139802]

  (2) if it is the policy of the Government to prosecute persons (a) illegally obtaining an airside pass and (b) for breaching airport security by deception; [139804]

  (3) what measures he plans to take to strengthen supervision of airside pass issuing authorities; [139803]

  (4) how many times an airside pass has been issued incorrectly in the last 10 years; and what procedures exist to ensure that airside passes are not issued incorrectly. [139805]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 23 November 2000]: My Department has been conducting an investigation into the allegations made by the News of the World on 19 November. This investigation indicates that the security of the restricted zones of the airports named by the paper was not breached. Once all the circumstances have been fully assessed, we will consider what further action is required.

  My Department regulates the aviation industry in respect of compliance with the UK National Aviation Security Programme and a stepped approach to enforcement is taken. This stepped approach ranges from advice and assistance, through formal notification of deficiencies, to legally binding Enforcement Notices and ultimately prosecution. Targeted rectification action is pursued throughout.

  The measures taken by airports to control access to their restricted zones, including that the pass regime is being managed properly, are included in regular compliance monitoring.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 21 November 2000,Official Report, column 118W, if he will use the dividend from Railtrack to increase the Government's equity stake in the company; and if he will make a statement. [140522]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22 November 2000,Official Report, column 304.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the shareholding in Railtrack held by the Government; what proportion of the total shareholding this represents; and if he is represented at the Annual Meeting of Railtrack. [139989]
  373W
  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State holds 1,031,243 shares which represents 0.2 per cent. of Railtrack's share capital. The Secretary of State is not represented at the Railtrack Annual Meeting.

  Torbay SSA
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish a breakdown by service of Torbay's standard spending assessment for 2000–01. [140402]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Torbay standard spending assessment for 2000–01

  Service sub-block

  £million

  Primary Education

  20.310

  Secondary Education

  23.425

  Post-16 Education

  4.223

  Under-5 Education

  2.951

  Other Education

  1.498

  Total Education

  52.406

  Children's PSS

  4.923

  Elderly Residential PSS

  10.967

  Elderly Domiciliary PSS

  6.945

  Other PSS

  3.500

  Total Personal Social Services

  26.336

  Fire

  3.268

  Highway Maintenance

  5.349

  EPCS—County Level

  4.689

  EPCS—District Level

  13.344

  Rent allowance payments

  1.643

  Housing benefit administration

  0.279

  National Parks

  0.000

  Flood Defence

  0.606

  Coast Protection

  0.071

  Total EPCS

  20.633

  Capital Financing

  2.828

  Total SSA

  110.821

  Local Government Finance
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the provisional local government finance settlement for 2001–02. [140620]

  Ms Armstrong
  I will today be making a statement to the House announcing our proposals for the funding of local government revenue expenditure in 2001–02. Full details of our proposals are at the same time being made available to the local authority associations, local authorities and others with an interest.

  SSAs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each(a) shire county, (b) London borough, (c) Metropolitan district, and (d) unitary council, the (i) standard spending assessment and (ii) actual net
  374W
  expenditure, identifying the deviation as a percentage of (A) social services and (B) education for each year for which data are available since 1994–95. [138567]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Rental Accommodation
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies have been undertaken by his Department on the operation of the Rent Acts and the accessibility of private rental accommodation in London; and if he will make a statement. [139983]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department has not undertaken a study of the operation of the Rent Acts and the accessibility of private rental accommodation in London. We are well aware of the scarcity of decent affordable rented accommodation in London and will make a statement on housing policy and announce the outcome of our consultation exercise on the Housing Green Paper in the near future.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effects of the implementation of Home for a World City produced by the Mayor of London on the supply of low-cost rental accommodation by(a) registered social landlords, (b) local authorities and (c) private landlords. [139986]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department has made no such assessment. Officials are currently considering the report and its recommendations.

  Soil Protection
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) of 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 551W, if he will make a statement on progress in developing his Department's soil protection strategy. [138509]

  Mr. Meacher
  As I stated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton), we intend to publish for consultation a draft soil strategy soon.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his most recent estimate of the annual value of the business rate foregone by the non-rating of agricultural premises. [140381]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Since agricultural premises and land have been exempt from rates since 1929 and are not valued for rating purposes, I have no reliable basis on which to make such an estimate.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what compulsory purchase orders he plans to issue in respect of land adjacent to Wembley Stadium so as to provide for a future Olympic bid based on Wembley. [139852]
  375
  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State's compulsory purchase powers under section 228 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 would not be appropriate for this purpose.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Mayor of London about the planning and transport issues associated with a future Olympic bid based(a) at Wembley Stadium and (b) other venues in London. [139827]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State has had no discussions with the Mayor of London about the planning and transport issues associated with a future Olympic bid based at Wembley Stadium or at other venues in London.

  Picketts Lock
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with(a) the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and (b) the Mayor of London about the planning, transport and infrastructure issues associated with the feasability studies into the suitability of Picketts Lock, Enfield, to host the World Athletics Championships in 2005. [139855]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State has had no discussions with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport or the Mayor of London.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his estimate is of the change in number of units of social housing for rent in each of the next five years in(a) Greater London and (b) England. [140113]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Department does not produce forecasts of the number of social housing units.

  Stations (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what responsibilities are placed on rail operators to ensure disabled access to stations; and if he will make a statement. [140108]

  Mr. Hill
  Access to railway stations for disabled people is covered by Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Since October 1999, service providers have been required to take reasonable steps to change practices, policies or procedures which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service. From 2004, service providers will have to take reasonable steps to remove, alter or provide reasonable means of avoiding physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service.

  In addition, the Rail Regulator is currently revising his Code of Practice, "Meeting the needs of Disabled Passengers", which is aimed at helping protect the interests of disabled users of railway passenger services and station services.

  Railtrack are committed to ensuring that all stations are fully accessible to disabled people within 20 years to enable them to meet their DDA obligations. I understand
  376W
  they are currently developing and prioritising a detailed implementation programme in consultation with train operators, local disability organisations and local authorities.

  Tilbury Town Station
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Health and Safety Executive last visited Tilbury Town station; and when they next plan to visit it. [140107]

  Mr. Hill
  The Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate (RI) last visited and inspected Tilbury Town station on 28 August 1997.

  There are no specific proposals to visit Tilbury Town station in the near future as it does not form part of the priority inspection programme. However, action would be taken, as necessary, if significant concerns arise.

  Rail Travel Vouchers
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what obligations are placed on rail operators to provide for the purchase of(a) tickets and (b) permits to travel by passengers at each station; and if he will make a statement. [140106]

  Mr. Hill
  All train operating companies (TOCs) are party to the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, overseen by the Rail Regulator, which includes obligations covering the range of products that must be offered for sale and the hours during which ticket offices must be open.

  There is no requirement to provide a permit to travel machine at any given station. However, where a TOC operates a penalty fares scheme, the Rail Regulator requires the TOC to provide adequate ticket facilities at all stations included within the scheme.

  Substandard Housing
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many substandard houses there were in England in each year between 1980 and 2000. [140541]

  Mr. Mullin
  The term substandard housing is a non-technical term which is open to a number of different interpretations. Therefore there is no national data source that collects data using the substandard definition.

  In England, the Fitness Standard (as amended by section 604 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989) operates, which deems whether a dwelling is fit for human habitation. The most rigorous national data source on whether dwellings in England meet the Fitness Standard is the English House Condition Survey (EHCS). The survey is currently carried out every five years; the most recent survey was carried out in 1996 and the next is scheduled for 2001. The survey shows that in 1996 around 1,522,000 dwellings (including occupied and unoccupied) were unfit, representing 7.5 per cent. of the stock. This compares to 1,498,000 dwellings (7.6 per cent.) of the stock in 1991. It is not appropriate to make simple comparisons with earlier surveys because of changes to the Fitness Standard through section 604.

  Fur Products
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors underlie his policy on the import of fur products sourced from farms and traps in other countries. [140203]

  Mr. Mullin
  Under the EC Leghold Trap Regulation (EC 3254/91), the European Community allows the import of certain furs only from those countries that have taken steps to end the use of leghold traps, or those that have reached bilateral agreements with it on trapping. Countries exporting furs to the Community also have to comply with any requirements under the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

  Ports
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's ports policy. [140763]

  Mr. Hill
  A ports policy paper, "Modern Ports", has been published today and a copy has been placed in the Libraries of the House. It is the first comprehensive statement of policy for many years on a wide range of issues relating to the UK ports industry. Ports are vital to our economy and international trade. They have an important role in integrated transport policy. The Government seek to build on the many sound and well-established working relationships they already have with the industry. The paper identifies a number of specific initiatives we hope to pursue. A lot of Departments make regulatory demands on the industry and we will ensure that different regulators co-ordinate their overall demands. We will promote agreed national standards and good practice for port management and port operations alike. We will also promote training and the recognition of skills for those who work in the ports industry at all levels. The paper sets out a balanced policy on development which aims to makes the best use of existing and former operational land, secures high environmental standards, but supports sustainable projects for which there is a clear need.

  Some of the matters covered by the paper are devolved. I am pleased to say that "Modern Ports" represents a UK policy, agreed with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Appointments
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister what account he takes in making ministerial appointments of membership by the persons concerned of organisations whose purposes are contrary to the policies of the relevant Department. [136253]

  The Prime Minister
  Section 9 of the Ministerial Code provides guidance to Ministers on handling their private interests, including membership or association with non-public organisations.

  Joint Military Action (EU)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will indicate in respect of the planning of joint military action 378W
  by member states, what person, other than the Prime Minister, or his representative sitting in the European Council, will be responsible for committing military forces of the United Kingdom to armed action. [139058]

  The Prime Minister
  The European Council at Helsinki decided that all member states would be entitled to participate fully, and on an equal footing, in all decisions and deliberations of the Council and Council bodies on EU-led crisis management operations. The Council also decided that commitment of national assets by member states to such operations will be a sovereign decision. In the United Kingdom, the Government will continue to be answerable to Parliament for the deployment of British troops.

  Common EU Foreign and Defence Policy
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from(a) the NATO Secretary-General and (b) the Chief of Defence Staff in respect of the formation of (i) a common EU foreign policy, (ii) a common EU defence policy and (iii) a common EU armed force. [140134]

  The Prime Minister
  It is established practice under section II, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, not to disclose such information.

  Secretary General of NATO (Discussions)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date since 1 January he has had discussions with the Secretary-General of NATO. [140133]

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

  Harefield Hospital
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister how many communications he has received this year about the proposed future of Harefield Hospital, Middlesex. [139822]

  The Prime Minister
  Approximately 550 items of correspondence and two petitions about Harefield Hospital have been received by my Office since 1 January this year.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  London Institute of Sport Network Centre
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 17 April 2000,Official Report, column 322W, if he will make a statement about the selection of a venue for the London Institute of Sport Network Centre. [134287]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 25 October 2000]: No final decision has yet been taken on the venue for the site. Discussions on this are continuing with the relevant parties.

  Downhill Skiing
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support he is giving to British downhill skiers in preparation for the next Winter Olympics. [138662]

  Kate Hoey
  The Sports Councils are committed to supporting winter sport athletes who are genuine medal prospects for the Winter Olympics. UK Sport's support for British downhill skiers in preparation for Salt Lake City 2002 is currently provided within its exchequer grant to the British Ski and Snowboarding Federation (BSSF). In the year August 1999 to July 2000, the BSSF received a grant of £186,000 of which £90,000 was apportioned to support the alpine downhill programme. UK Sport has also put Lottery funding aside which will enable it to respond quickly to the sudden emergence of a medal prospect in a summer or winter Olympic sport. This would be in the form of an enhanced package of Lottery support to individual athletes. Therefore, if a British downhill skier emerges and has realistic prospects of doing well in Salt Lake City, UK Sport would be able to respond at short notice to that opportunity.

  Sportscotland provides funds for downhill skiers through its Talented Athlete Lottery programme. Over £112,000 was committed from this programme in 1999–2000 while a further £80,837 has been awarded to date in this financial year. In addition, Sport England has committed a World Class Adviser to the BSSF to support them in developing a World Class Potential Plan for Skiing and Snowboarding. The Potential programme is designed to assist governing bodies with the development of talented young performers with the potential to win medals in major international competitions.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much funding was given from the National Lottery for downhill skiing in each year since its creation. [138661]

  Kate Hoey
  National Lottery support for sport is provided through UK Sport and the four home country Sports Councils. Sportscotland and Sport England have made the following awards to British Skiers through their Talented Athlete and World Class Lottery programmes:

  Year

  £

  1995–96

  180,700

  1996–97

  423,545

  1997–98

  283,008

  1998–99

  87,617

  1999–2000

  112,034

  British Tourism Authority
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many invitations to sports tourism events have been received from the British Tourism Authority by the Minister for Sport; how many she has accepted; and how many events she has attended. [139437]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: I attended the joint Ministerial launch of the British Tourism Authority's sports tourism strategy on 11 January
  380W
  2000 along with my colleague the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting. I have received no other written invitations to a sports tourism event.

  Cabinet War Rooms
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what request he has received for compensation for the damage caused to the Cabinet War Rooms and their contents. [140137]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have received no such request. I am advised that any conservation work, required to restore the limited damage to fabric and objects at the Cabinet War Rooms, will be at no cost to public finances.

  Subtitling
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) of 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 330W, when he will announce conclusions concerning his review of the statutory requirements for the provision of subtitling, signing and audio description services on digital terrestrial television; and if he will make a statement. [140383]

  Janet Anderson
  We are still considering the responses to the consultation paper issued as part of the review, and expect to announce our conclusions later this year.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what conditions he has asked Sport England to attach to a new Lottery agreement with Wembley National Stadium Ltd.; [139885]

  (2)if a new Lottery agreement between Sport England and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. will include provision for future major sporting events such as a Commonwealth or Olympic Games to be based in London. [139851]

  Kate Hoey
  The content of any revised or new lottery funding agreement between Sport England, the Football Association (FA) and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. (WNSL) is a matter for the parties and not the Government. However, in considering the terms of the application made by the FA and WNSL to vary the Wembley Lottery Funding Agreement, including the removal of the requirement to stage athletics, Sport England consulted interested parties including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. In replying, we have made clear our view that the new Wembley Stadium should be available on a cost-only basis for those Olympic events whose staging does not involve major infrastructure work to the stadium.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Wind Power
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much subsidy has been paid to the wind power generating industry for electricity generated in each year since the introduction of the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation. [139924]
  381
  Mrs. Liddell
  Payments from the Fossil Fuel Levy made to generators of electricity from renewable sources under contracts awarded under the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) represent the above-market cost of the electricity generated.

  Payments made to the wind power generating industry for each year since the introduction of the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) are as follows:

  Year

  £million

  1990–91

  0.1

  1991–92

  0.4

  1992–93

  5.7

  1993–94

  24.4

  1994–95

  34.1

  1995–96

  28.5

  1996–97

  35.9

  1997–98

  36.8

  1998–99

  35.1

  1999–2000

  7.3

  The amounts represent payments under NFFO arrangements for England and Wales and exclude payments under comparable arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  The reason for the lower figure for 1999–2000 is that contracts under the 1990 and 1991 NFFO orders (NFFO1 and 2) terminated on 31 December 1998.

  Road Fuel
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 21 November 2000,Official Report, column 105W, what evidence there is concerning the relationship between fuel prices at the pumps and the recent fall in wholesale gasoline prices. [140357]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Fuel prices at the pumps are influenced, among other things, by wholesale gasoline prices. The relationship between the two depends on short and long-term competitive market forces in both the wholesale and retail markets.

  Support Aid Restrictions
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had recently with Ministers in other EU member states on the operation of support aid restrictions where companies are bidding for projects in less-developed countries. [140096]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had no recent discussions on these matters with Ministers in other EU member states.

  Working Time Regulations
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many decisions by tribunals there have been in respect of breaches of the working time regulations(a) on holiday entitlements and (b) on maximum working hours. [140253]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  (a) To date there have been 416 decisions at Employment Tribunals, in Great Britain, registering the Regulations as the primary grounds for
  382W
  complaint. ETS records do not distinguish between different entitlements under the Regulations, but it is believed that the majority relate to paid annual leave.

  (b) The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and local authorities enforce the provisions in the Regulations related to weekly working time limits, limits on night-working and health assessments for night-workers and these are therefore not a matter for the tribunals. The HSE have resolved 416 complaints, 13 of which required Improvement Notices. The HSE have not initiated any prosecutions to date. There are currently no central records of local authority enforcement, but at least one case brought by a local authority has led to a prosecution for breach of the provisions on health assessments for night-workers.

  United Kingdom Exports
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the value of goods from the United Kingdom exported to non-EU countries for onward export to third countries. [140010]

  Mr. Caborn
  There are no estimates for the value of goods exported from the United Kingdom to non-EU countries for onward export to third countries.

  HM Customs and Excise are the Department responsible for collecting and recording statistics on the movement of goods with other countries. Trade with non-EU countries is recorded from customs declarations submitted at exportation. UK exports are produced on the basis of the declared final country of destination. Some trade in goods recorded as exports to non-EU destinations may subsequently be shipped to other destinations—for instance, as part of further commercial transactions. Information on such movements would not be available to the UK.

  The collection and provision of statistical information is kept under regular review.

  However, there are no immediate plans to collect information on goods exported from the United Kingdom to non-EU countries and subsequently re-exported to third countries.

  Oil
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the timelag of(a) increases and (b) decreases in prices following a change in crude oil barrel prices; and if he will make a statement. [140248]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There can be a delay of some four to six weeks before the impact of change of crude price is seen at the pumps. However, the length and magnitude of such an effect is dependent on competitive pressures within the supply chain.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the relationship between oil company profits and changes in barrel prices; and if he will make a statement. [140249]
  383W
  Mrs. Liddell
  In general, oil companies which engage in the production and sale of crude oil will have greater net earnings as the price of oil rises. For each company, the impact of price changes will, however, depend on the profitability of their other businesses.

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that the reductions on fuel duty announced in the pre-Budget Statement will be passed on by oil companies to consumers; and if he will make a statement. [140250]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) on 21 November 2000,Official Report, column 105W.

  Alternative Energy Research
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much Government funding was given for research and development in(a) nuclear energy, (b) wind power and (c) wave energy in each of the last 20 years. [140475]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The funding for nuclear research and development given by the Department of Trade and Industry (and by the Department of Energy prior to amalgamation) for each of the financial years since 1980–81 to 1999–2000 and the anticipated expenditure for 2000–01 is as follows:

  £million cash outturn figures

  1980–81

  188

  1981–82

  206

  1982–83

  215

  1983–84

  204

  1984–85

  166

  1985–86

  169

  1986–87

  163

  1987–88

  148

  1988–89

  247

  1989–90

  163.8

  1990–91

  126.4

  1991–92

  93.6

  1992–93

  85.3

  1993–94

  76.9

  1994–95

  28.4

  1995–96

  21.7

  1996–97

  21.4

  1997–98

  17.6

  1998–99

  14.2

  1999–2000

  16.8

  2000–01

  16.5

  Note:

  For figures prior to 1989–90, contributions include expenditure on decommissioning and waste management operations carried out by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

  Sources:

  For years 1980–81 to 1983–84: The Government's Expenditure Plans for 1986–87 to 1988–89.

  For years 1984–85 to 1988–89: The Government's Expenditure Plans for 1990–91 to 1992–93

  The Government expenditure on research and development for (b) wind power and (c) wave power is given in the table.
  384W

  Net expenditure £ million

  Year

  Wind

  Wave1

  1999–2000

  0.9

  0.15

  1998–99

  1.0

  0.17

  1997–98

  1.2

  0.06

  1996–97

  2.5

  0.14

  1995–96

  3.4

  0.08

  1994–95

  2.7

  0.11

  1993–94

  7.3

  0.20

  1992–93

  8.69

  0.32

  1991–92

  6.67

  0.47

  1990–91

  4.53

  0.39

  1989–90

  4.84

  0.14

  1988–89

  3.91

  0.14

  1987–88

  3.79

  0.19

  1986–87

  3.82

  0.07

  1985–86

  5.42

  0.26

  1984–85

  4.61

  0.43

  1983–84

  2.32

  0.71

  1982–83

  2.26

  2.82

  1981–82

  0.86

  3.95

  1980–81

  0.68

  3.04

  1Historically data are not broken down between wave and other forms of hydro-technology since 1995.

  Ukraine (Export Credit)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to provide export credit for the completion and upgrade of the Khmelnitsky Unit 2 and Rovno Unit 4 nuclear plants in the Ukraine. [140367]

  Mr. Caborn
  The financing plan for this project envisages various sources of finance, including $348.3 million of export credits of which up to $28 million come from the UK. The Government are considering the provision of ECGD cover in support of possible UK exports to the project. A decision is likely to be announced by 7 December when the EBRD is expected to decide whether to provide finance for the project.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the UK companies that have sought export credit support for the completion and upgrade of the Khmelnitsky Unit 2 and Rovno Unit 4 nuclear plants in the Ukraine. [140365]

  Mr. Caborn
  No UK companies have approached ECGD for export credit support for this project.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the provision of UK export credit to the Ukraine. [140368]

  Mr. Caborn
  Following the withdrawal of cover in 1998 because of a deterioration in Ukraine's risk outlook, ECGD backed export credits are not generally available.

  Amateur Radio Stations
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints of interference to domestic apparatus caused by amateur radio stations there were in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [140516]

  Ms Hewitt
  The answer is as follows:

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)
  385W

  Small Firms
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to help small firms prepare for new legislation proposals. [140783]

  Mr. Byers
  The Small Business Service has today issued guidance to all departments on implementation periods for new legislation. This sets out a general requirement, with some necessary exceptions, that guidance on new legislation likely to impact on business should be issued at least 12 weeks before the new legislation comes into force. This implements a recommendation by the Better Regulation Task Force and will give businesses, particularly small firms, time to prepare for the implementation of new legislation. The new procedures take effect from 1 January 2001. Copies of the guidance have been placed in the House Libraries and on the Small Business Service's website at www.businessadviceonline.org/content/ pdf/implementationguidlines.pdf.

  I believe the guidance, together with the Code of Practice on Written Consultations being published today by the Cabinet Office, is a real advance in giving business more time to feed in views and prepare for new legislation.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Political Leadership
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's priorities are for assisting the development of political leadership in developing countries. [140112]

  Clare Short
  The selection of political leaders in developing countries belongs to the peoples of those countries. We provide support for the development of democratic institutions, including elections, parliaments, civil society and the media, in order to help develop systems which reflect the will of the people. We are playing a part in the development of democratic institutions in countries such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan and the Republics of the former Yugoslavia.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Employees (HIV)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will take steps to ensure that people who are HIV-positive do not suffer discrimination as a result of employment practices followed by his Department. [137793]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Law Officers' Departments, that is the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office, are all committed to the policy that all eligible persons shall have equal opportunity for employment and advancement on the basis of their ability and qualifications, free from discrimination of all kinds, including that attaching to HIV carriers. Each Department has taken action to promote this message as part of their programmes to promote diversity and equal opportunity. The Crown Prosecution Service also gives specific guidance in its Personnel Manual for dealing with those carrying the HIV virus.

  Mr. Mikhail Karacostas
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Solicitor-General for what reasons the trial of Mr. Mikhail Karacostas and his associates was not proceeded with. [138759]

  The Solicitor-General
  At a pre-trial hearing in May 1999, new evidence emerged which showed that some of the evidence upon which the prosecution relied was suspect. In particular, it emerged for the first time that an informant had had a closer association with one of Mr. Karocostas's fellow defendants than had been previously realised. Further, it soon became apparent that this informant, together with a journalist, may have incited this defendant to take part in the alleged crimes with a view to entrapping him. In the light of these revelations, prosecuting Counsel advised the Crown Prosecution Service that it would be difficult for the prosecution to succeed as the credibility of the prosecution case had been severely damaged. The Crown Prosecution Service accepted this advice and the prosecution was discontinued.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Solicitor-General how long Mr. Mikhail Karacostas and his associates were held in detention in(a) Germany and (b) the United Kingdom before trial and consequent upon the United Kingdom's extradition request; and if he will make a statement. [138754]

  The Solicitor-General
  Mikhail Karacostas and his associates, Christos Ieronymides, Pierre Daskas and Fotios Platanides, were held by the German authorities from 22 March 1998 until they were surrendered to the United Kingdom authorities on 28 August 1998. They were then remanded in custody awaiting trial. They were released on 27 May 1999 at the end of the trial.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the factors which led the United Kingdom to request the German authorities to extradite Mr. Mikhail Karacostas and his associates to the United Kingdom. [138758]

  The Solicitor-General
  Mr. Karacostas and associates (Christos leronymides, Fotios Platanides and Pierre Daskas) were accused of being involved in serious criminal activities in the UK. If the Crown Prosecution Service is satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of conviction (acting in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors), and the accused is in a foreign state, extradition proceedings will be commenced in accordance with that foreign state. In the case of Germany, Mr. Karacostas's extradition was sought under the provisions of the European Convention on Extradition.

  At the time the request was submitted to the German authorities, the Crown Prosecution Service was satisfied that there was a realistic prospect of conviction against Mr. Karacostas and his associates, and accordingly a request for extradition was submitted through the appropriate channels in accordance with the Convention.

  Voluntary Bill of Indictment
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Solicitor-General (1) what criteria govern applications by the Metropolitan police for applications to the High Court for a voluntary bill of indictment; who authorises such applications; and if he will make a statement; [140117]
  387W
  (2) what requirement there is for the former accused in a case to be advised of an application being made to the High Court for a voluntary bill of indictment prior to its determination by the High Court; and if he will make a statement: [140099]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the applications for a voluntary bill of indictment made to the High Court following the acquittal of Detective Inspector John Redgrave on 17 May 1999; [140100]

  (4) what criteria govern applications by the Crown Prosecution Service to the High Court for a voluntary bill of indictment; who authorises such applications; and if he will make a statement. [140116]

  The Solicitor-General
  In the vast majority of cases, bills of indictment charging indictable offences are preferred following committal for trial, notice of transfers or where the person charged has been sent for trial under the new provisions in relation to indictable only offences. Exceptionally, bills are preferred by the direction of the Court of Criminal Appeal or by the practice directions or with the consent of a judge of the High Court. The latter are frequently referred to as voluntary bills.

  The procedure for obtaining a voluntary bill is set out in rules 7 to 11 of the Indictments (Procedure) Rules 1971. The Rules are exacting, in that the prosecuting authority applying for a voluntary bill must not only supply to the judge or the High Court the evidence which is to be relied on, but also the reasons why the application is being made.

  The Rules have been subject to various practice directions, the latest of which took effect on 2 August 1999. These directions state that the preferment of a voluntary bill is an exceptional procedure. Consent should only be granted where good reason to depart from the normal procedures is clearly shown and only where the interests of justice, rather than consideration of administrative convenience, require it.

  Until 1999, there was no express requirement for a prosecuting authority applying for consent to the preferment of a voluntary bill to give notice of the application to the prospective defendant or to give him copies of the relevant documents; nor was it expressly required that the prospective defendant have any opportunity to make a submission to the judge.

  On 29 July 1999, the Attorney-General issued guidance to prosecuting authorities to change existing practices in light of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which guarantees a fair hearing in the determination of any criminal charge). The guidance was issued with the approval of the Lord Chief Justice, and was incorporated into the new practice direction. It was agreed that the prosecution will give notice to the prospective defendant that an application for a grant of a voluntary bill will be made on a specific date. At the same time a copy of all the material that will form part of the application will be served on the prospective defendant. The notice will invite the prospective defendant to send any written submissions or an application for oral submissions to the prosecution within nine working days of notice being given by the prosecution. The prosecution may apply to the judge ex parte to dispense with the notice procedure where there are sufficient grounds for doing so.
  388W
  Applications by the Crown Prosecution Service for voluntary bills are governed by the 1971 Rules, the practice directions and the guidance issued by the Attorney-General. The previous practice directions given in 1991 stated that, in exceptional circumstances, the Judge may invite written submissions on behalf of any defendant affected if, in his judgment, the interests of justice so require.

  Applications for voluntary bills by the CPS can only be signed by a senior Crown Prosecutor.

  There are many reasons why a prosecuting authority might want to apply for a voluntary bill, such as when justices have refused to commit and it is believed they were wrong in law or where a defendant disrupts committal proceedings to the extent that they cannot be continued. Whatever the reasons, there must always be good reason to depart from the normal procedures and the interests of justice must require it.

  On 17 May 1999, a Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, sitting at Bow Street Magistrates court, declined to commit Detective Inspector Redgrave for trial of aiding and abetting an offence contrary to section 4 of the Official Secrets Act 1989 and of conspiring with two others to pervert the course of public justice. The Magistrate was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to justify committal to the Crown court. Her judgment was carefully considered and, on the advice of leading Counsel, and having received further evidence, the Crown Prosecution Service applied for a voluntary bill in respect of the conspiracy charge only. It was believed that the evidence was sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and it was in the public interest to pursue the prosecution. The application was made mindful of the case of Brookes v. DPP (1994), which states that a preferment of a voluntary bill, where a charge has been dismissed at committal proceedings, requires that the decision of the magistrates should be treated with the greatest respect. The application made under the old procedure, which did not require notice to be given to Detective Inspector Redgrave, was refused on 8 June 1999.

  BMA Guidelines
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Solicitor-General what action he plans to take on the British Medical Association's guidelines for the withholding and withdrawal of treatment. [134464]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  Ministers have not met representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss their guidelines on withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging medical treatment nor are there plans to do so. The aims of the document are to identify the range of clinical, ethical and legal factors which need to be considered in making decisions on withdrawing and withholding medical treatment and on potential procedures, including consulting the healthcare team and seeking a second opinion where appropriate.

  We have no plans to take any action on these guidelines nor urge the British Medical Association to amend them. A revised second edition was published in October 2000.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Overtime
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was paid in overtime to members of the(a) RUC and (b) RUCR in each month of 2000 to the latest date for which figures are available. [138439]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table shows the amount of overtime paid to Royal Ulster Constabulary and Royal Ulster Constabulary Full-Time Reserve Officers during this year to date. It refers to overtime actually worked from December 1999 to September 2000.

  £000

  Month

  RUC

  RUC FTR

  January

  3,624

  1,468

  February

  2,762

  955

  March

  2,152

  541

  April

  2,509

  751

  May

  1,922

  518

  June

  2,819

  942

  July

  2,482

  745

  August

  6,740

  2,308

  September

  3,300

  975

  October

  2,626

  742

  Civil Servants (Relocation)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [137188]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Due to insufficient demand, the Northern Ireland Office does not hold contracts with relocation companies.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 5 June 2000,Official Report, column 2W, on Special Advisers, if he will list the destination and the total cost, including travel, accommodation and subsistence allowance, on each occasion when departmental or non-departmental Special Advisers travelled abroad in an official capacity. [135251]

  Mr. Mandelson
  During the period 31 March 1999 to the end of March 2000, a Special Adviser in this Department travelled on official business on one occasion to New York, Washington and Boston over a period of two days and two nights. This took place prior to my appointment on 11 October 1999. The total cost of the trip including travel, accommodation and subsistence amounted to £3,251.22. The cost of this visit was accounted for in expenditure on Ministers' travel overseas published by the Prime Minister on 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 969W, which for 1999–2000 was 00A3;4.6 million compared to £7.9 million for the last year of the previous Administration.

  Unemployment Rates
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the unemployment rates were for(a) Roman Catholics and (b) Protestants in each of the last 20 years. [140471]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Terrorist Incidents
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 30 October 2000,Official Report, columns 231–33W, how many persons from (a) Republican terrorist organisations and (b) Loyalist terrorist organisations have been charged as a consequence of RUC investigations into the (i) shootings, (ii) assaults and (iii) deaths listed. [136421]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table shows the number of persons charged in relation to terrorist and serious public order offences during the period 1 January to 27 October 2000.

  Security Situation Statistics persons charged for period 1 January 2000 to 27 October 2000

  Number of Loyalists charged

  Number of Republicans charged

  Murder

  7

  1

  Attempted murder

  9

  1

  Firearms

  29

  19

  Explosives

  3

  8

  Armed robbery

  8

  8

  Other

  131

  47

  Note:

  The central database cannot link persons charged to specific incidents.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chagos Islanders
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total cost to date of support for the Chagos islanders in Mauritius since their transfer from their homes. [139979]

  Mr. Battle
  HMG has made available £4.65 million for the benefit of the Chagos islanders in Mauritius via the Government of Mauritius, £650,000 in 1973 and £4 million in 1982. In addition, various small welfare payments in kind, eg books, sports clothes, sewing machines, have been given regularly.

  We have no information about the support given by the Government of Mauritius.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total cost to date of defending legal action brought by the Chagos islanders will be; and what the total costs awarded against the Crown by the High Court are. [139970]

  Mr. Battle
  The total costs incurred to date by the Government in the recent judicial review proceedings amount to £143,800 plus VAT. The extent of the applicant's costs is so far unknown since these have yet to be assessed.

  Departmental Employees (HIV)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to ensure that people who are HIV-positive do not suffer discrimination as a result of employment practices followed by his Department. [137782]

  Mr. Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's equal opportunities policy states that no staff should have to face unfair discrimination on the ground of disability. Any members of staff who are HIV positive will be managed on a case-by-case basis according to their particular needs, taking the views of the FCO's medical and welfare advisers into account.

  Gender Diversity Officer
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the appointment by his Department of a Gender Diversity Officer. [139490]

  Mr. Hain
  The Department is delighted that Melanie Allison, former National Campaign Manager at Opportunity Now, has joined the Department on secondment from the Ministry of Defence as the Department's Gender Diversity Adviser. Using her expertise the Department is determined to ensure that all of its staff, male and female, are able to fulfil their potential and maximise their contribution to advancing British interests overseas. Ms Allison's appointment is one of many steps taken by the Department aimed at ensuring that it represents the best of modern Britain's diverse society.

  US Presidential Candidates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the candidates for the US presidency since 7 November. [139493]

  Mr. Battle
  None.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the arms trade between Britain and Indonesia. [139402]

  Mr. Battle
  The expiry of the EU arms embargo last January has not opened the way to unrestricted arms sales to Indonesia. We continue to judge all cases against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. We will for example refuse any applications for defence equipment where we judge there to be a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression. For this reason we have refused a number of applications for Indonesia and we have consistently refused to license small arms and small arms ammunition for the security forces. We also refuse arms where there is a risk they may be diverted to undesirable end-users such as extremists in Maluku.

  Burma
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's efforts to improve human rights in Burma. [139426]
  392W
  Mr. Battle
  We are deeply concerned about, and take every opportunity to condemn, the Burmese regime's violations of human rights. In April this year we successfully persuaded EU partners to strengthen the EU Common Position on Burma by publishing the list of regime members subject to an EU travel ban, imposing a freeze on their funds held in the EU, and banning the supply of equipment that might be used for internal repression or terrorism. This constitutes the most important intensification of EU pressure on Burma since the Common Position's adoption in 1996 (it already contained a full arms embargo, bans on defence links, and non-humanitarian aid, and visa restrictions). Along with a wider range of countries than ever before, we are co-sponsoring this year's General Assembly resolution, which strongly condemns a whole catalogue of violations. We have also been active in the International Labour Organisation, which last week agreed to activate exceptional measures against the regime because of their failure to stop forced labour. We will continue to keep the pressure up on the regime until they change their policies.

  EU (Political Parties)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the references in official documents of the European Union relating to future conditions for official registration of political parties and their representation in, or candidatures for the European Parliament, including eligibility for funds or assistance in kind; and when proposals will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the United Kingdom. [139946]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Progress Report on the IGC (CONFER 4790/00 published on 3 November 2000) contains a proposed amendment to Article 191 of the EC Treaty for a legal base to allow the establishment of a statute to regulate European political parties, which were first recognised by the Maastricht Treaty.

  We support the principle of a statute to ensure the transparency of the funding of European political parties, and we hope that a suitable enabling clause can be agreed at the IGC. The IGC Progress Report is available in the Library. A draft statute would be deposited in Parliament for scrutiny in the normal way.

  Iraq
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for UK sanctions against Iraq of recent French commercial dealings with the Iraqi regime. [140144]

  Mr. Hain
  Sanctions against Iraq, imposed by the UN in response to its illegal invasion and occupation of Kuwait in 1990. will remain in place until Iraq fulfils its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions. Under the UN "oil for food" programme, $16 billion will be available this year for food, medicine and infrastructure contracts. European (including French and UK) companies are participating in this legal trade, which benefits the Iraqi people.
  393W

  Brigadier Saunders
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress made to bring those responsible for the death of Brigadier Saunders in Greece to justice. [139993]

  Mr. Battle
  A team of Metropolitan police officers is working closely with the Hellenic national police in Athens on the investigation into the murder of Brigadier Saunders. The Metropolitan police team are sharing UK technology and best practice with the Greek police, as well as their expertise in combating terrorism.

  We remain committed to bringing the perpetrators of this crime to justice.

  British Council (German Offices)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with officers of the British Council concerning plans to close its provincial offices in Germany. [140007]

  Mr. Hain
  All the proposals contained in the British Council's new strategy were fully discussed with FCO officials and endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The proposals for Germany were agreed on the basis that Germany would continue to have the largest grant-in-aid budget in Europe, that core programmes would be retained and that funds released through reducing infrastructure costs would be channelled into new programmes, for example to develop IT services to provide widespread access, especially for young professional people.

  Reinforced Co-operation
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the issue of reinforced co-operation in its application to defence. [138591]

  Mr. Vaz
  The proposals for European defence contained in the reports to the Helsinki and Feira European Councils on strengthening the common European security and defence policy envisage that the Council should be able to decide to launch an operation by consensus, but that no member state should be obliged to participate in that operation. It is therefore possible that a decision to launch an operation would be implemented by less than all member states. This would represent a sui generis form of enhanced co-operation.

  The Government are satisfied that such proposals can be implemented without the need for amendment to the Treaty on European Union.

  Non-proliferation Review Conference
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to implement commitments made at the Nonproliferation Review Conference; and if he will make a statement. [138880]

  Mr. Hain
  HMG are committed to translating the agreements reached at the NPT Review Conference in New York into concrete international progress. We 394W
  continue to discuss these matters with the nuclear weapons states and others. The priority must be to get negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty under way in the Conference on Disarmament; for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty to enter into force; and for the US and the Russian Federation to negotiate further deep cuts in their nuclear arsenals.

  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Governments of India and Pakistan concerning their signature of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. [139988]

  Mr. Hain
  We continue to urge India and Pakistan to sign and ratify the CTBT in both bilateral contacts with the two countries and in multilateral fora such as UNGA.

  Officials from our High Commission on Islamabad recently discussed Pakistani signature with their Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Foreign Secretary raised the question of Indian signature of the Treaty with his Indian counterpart, Jaswant Singh, on 15 November. I also discussed the issue during my recent visit to India, primarily on 20 November with Brajesh Mishra (National Security Adviser and Private Secretary to the Prime Minister).

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with the Government of Israel concerning its becoming a signatory to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. [139978]

  Mr. Hain
  Israel signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) on 25 September 1996. We continue to raise the issue of Israel's ratification of its signature in both bilateral contacts with Israel, most recently on 6 September in discussions between officials, and in multilateral fora.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what income has been received for each year since 1970 from the United States for their use of Diego Garcia as a military base. [139981]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 28 July 2000,Official Report, columns 1076–77W.

  Plan Colombia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on United Kingdom participation in Plan Colombia; and if he will make a statement. [139974]

  Mr. Battle
  We have received many representations from members of the public, Members of Parliament and others about Plan Colombia. The UK is playing a leading role through regular contact with the Colombian Government, our EU partners, the US and others, including NGO representatives, in support of the Colombian peace process.

  On 19 June we hosted an international meeting in London to help prepare the ground for a successful conference on Colombia in Madrid on 7 July. NGO

  395
  representatives participated in both meetings. NGO and civil society organisations also made a valuable contribution to subsequent meetings in Costa Rica, on 17 October, and in Bogota on 24 October. The European Commission has announced support for the peace process worth 105 million euro over the period 2000–06, with the emphasis on support for human rights and the development of alternative crop strategies.

  Departmental Briefings
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what briefing his Department has provided since 1997 to newspaper editors on matters relating to(a) police corruption, (b) terrorist activities, (c) arms trafficking and (d) Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [138790]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Press officers for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office give oral briefings to journalists every day in response to inquiries on all matters relating to foreign affairs. In addition, they provide collective oral briefings for journalists on a regular basis on issues of topical interest.

  No central record is kept of briefings for journalists.

  Eritrea
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning camps in Eritrea in which Ethiopian nationals are held. [140376]

  Mr. Hain
  According to information we have received, ICRC have regular access to around 1,500 to 1,700 Ethiopian POWs in Eritrea. In addition, they have visited around 4,000 Ethiopian civilian internees being held in two camps in Eritrea, and are trying to identify how many more Ethiopians are being detained.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which occasions(a) Mr. Peter Penfold and (b) other Foreign Office officials met Mr. Mikhail Karacostas during Mr. Penfold's period as UK High Commissioner: Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [138755]

  Mr. Hain
  We are not aware of any meetings between either Mr. Penfold or other FCO officials and Mr. Karacostas during this period.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Sir Thomas Legg was informed of the investigations into Mr. Mikhail Karacostas' involvement in West Africa when he conducted his inquiry into the Sandline affair; and if he will make a statement. [138753]

  Mr. Hain
  Mr. Karacostas was the subject of a police investigation, involving a number of individuals and countries. He was arrested in March 1998 as a consequence of this investigation. The case came to court in the UK in May 1999. These matters did not form part of Sir Thomas Legg's investigation, which reported on 24 July 1998.
  396W
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what duties Mr. Peter Penfold was assigned after leaving his post as UK High Commissioner, Sierra Leone; when he was assigned the new duties; and if he will make a statement. [138789]

  Mr. Hain
  Peter Penfold completed his posting as High Commissioner in Freetown earlier this year and will shortly begin a secondment to the Department for International Development.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates discussions on West Africa were held with the Greek Government following the overthrow of President Kabbah of Sierra Leone, indicating the discussions which related to equipping ECOMOG; and if he will make a statement. [138757]

  Mr. Hain
  Many discussions on the general issue of Sierra Leone took place in EU and UN fora. These involved the Greek Government, among others. The question of practical support for ECOMOG's efforts in Sierra Leone was one of the issues which arose.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 16 August on behalf of his constituent Mrs. Sturman. [135785]

  Ms Stuart
  I have been asked to reply.

  A reply to the right hon. Member's letter was sent on 30 October.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish his response to the committee set up to examine the costs of meat inspections in abattoirs. [135046]

  Ms Quin
  The Government have given careful consideration to the recommendations of the Maclean Report and have noted the widespread support given to them by industry interests. The Government's broad intentions in respect of the recommendations will be announced shortly in the Rural White Paper.

  Salmon Farms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the inspection regime for salmon farms. [136563]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: As at 2 November there were 17 registered salmon farms in England; 16 freshwater sites and one marine site. When operating, they all produce salmon smolts for on-growing in sea cages in Scotland. Each farm is inspected at least annually by the Fish Health Inspectorate and their discharges are, as with all other fish farms, regulated by the Environment Agency.
  397W

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representation he has received regarding compensation for farmers for time spent testing animals for TB for the purposes of protecting human health; and if he will make a statement. [137560]

  Ms Quin
  The Government are aware of the burden that regular testing of cattle herds for TB imposes on farmers. Under the 2000 Spending Review, extra money has been allocated for increased TB testing and compensation payments to farmers for the market value of cattle slaughtered as TB reactors or contacts. There are no plans to extend compensation to other losses at this stage.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of current levels of testing for TB in respect of(a) badgers and (b) bovines. [137562]

  Ms Quin
  There is no reliable test for bovine TB in live badgers. Badger carcases collected in the badger culling trial and from the survey announced on 6 November 2000,Official Report, column 48W are being tested for bovine TB at post mortem.

  Cattle herds are tested for bovine TB at one, two, three or four yearly intervals as required by EU legislation, and additionally at the discretion of Divisional Veterinary Managers of the State Veterinary Service. The Government keep TB testing levels under constant review.

  Sugar Beet
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect upon livestock feeding stuff costs of the proposed new EU sugar regime. [137591]

  Ms Quin
  As they stand, the current proposals for reform of the EU sugar regime will not have a significant effect on livestock feeding stuff costs.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on the UK sugar beet industry of European Commission proposals for the new sugar regime; and if he will make a statement; [138906]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on the UK sugar beet industry of the European Commission proposals for (a) Everything But Arms initiative and (b) the sugar regime to be introduced on 1 July 2001; and if he will make a statement. [138908]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 17 November 2000]: The proposals for reform of the EU regime, which would come into effect on 1 July 2001, will impact on the UK sugar beet industry by permanently reducing the UK quota, by removing the aid for storing sugar and the levy on industry which finances it, by removing the requirement to keep minimum stocks, and by requiring the Government to adopt measures to promote environmentally friendly fanning.

  The proposal for duty free access for goods from Least Developed Countries (the Everything but Arms initiative) could lead to significant imports of sugar from these
  398W
  countries once the EU tariff has been significantly reduced. This could precipitate further quota cuts or the opening of intervention, which could affect all member states including the UK.

  The Government are concerned that the Commission's proposals on reform do not take account of the impact which the LDC access proposal might have on the sugar regime. We are pressing for the implications to be fully considered before a decision is taken on reform.

  School Milk
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase the subsidy provided to supply milk to schools; and if he will make a statement. [137622]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on 16 November 2000,Official Report, column 1056.

  Pesticides Tax
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish his response to proposals put forward by the agriculture industry as an alternative to a pesticides tax. [137578]

  Ms Quin
  The agriculture industry has made a valuable contribution to the development of a voluntary package of measures to reduce the environmental impact of pesticides use. My right hon. Friend the Minister and I welcome this initiative and look forward to working with the industry and other stakeholders in developing constructive measures which meet our environmental objectives.

  Taxation is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who set out the current position in relation to a pesticides tax in the pre-Budget report on 8 November 2000.

  Drainage
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department spent on drainage of agricultural land in each year from 1970 to the most recent year for which figures are available. [138091]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: Grants for drainage works on undrained land were discontinued in the late 1980's. Grants for replacement or renewal of existing field underdrainage systems were available until the end of 1994. The precise information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Farm Workers
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many adults worked in the sectors of(a) farming, (b) gamekeeping, (c) fisheries, (d) horticulture, (e) forestry and (f) veterinary practice in the local government districts of (i) Cannock Chase, (ii) South Staffordshire and (iii) Stafford in the latest year for which figures are available. [138813]
  399W
  Ms Quin
  The information available is included in the table:

  Farming1

  Horticulture2

  Cannock Chase

  94

  18

  South Staffordshire

  1,495

  216

  Stafford

  2,457

  133

  1Does not include farmers on minor holdings. Farming is defined as all agricultural and horticultural holdings.

  2Does not include farmers on minor holdings. Horticultural holdings are defined using EC farm types 2011 to 2032, 2034, 311 to 340, 601 and 606.

  Notes:

  1. Information on Fisheries and Forestry is not available.

  2. Information on Gamekeeping and Veterinary Practice (Annual Employment Survey) is confidential for these areas.

  Source:

  Agricultural and Horticultural Census—June 1999.

  DUS Testing
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of(a) all the correspondence between his officials and the French authorities since 22 September in respect of the testing regime for distinctness, uniformity and stability of agricultural varieties, (b) documents describing the French DUS testing regime which he has received from (i) the French authorities and (ii) the European Commission, (c) the documents which constitute the bilateral arrangements between the United Kingdom and France for the DUS testing of Chardon LL and (d) the United Kingdom's protocol for DUS testing and the French protocol for DUS testing. [138845]

  Ms Quin
  Copies of the correspondence and documents have been placed in the Library.

  Regulatory System
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to reduce the level of regulation for farmers in the(a) dairy sector, (b) sheep sector and (c) beef sector. [139271]

  Ms Quin
  We are currently implementing recommendations made by the industry in the Red Tape Reviews on the Meat Industry, on IACS and Inspection and on Intervention, many of which will benefit the dairy, sheep and beef sectors. The dairy sector's key concern about Dairy Hygiene Regulations has also been met. (A detailed progress report is on the MAFF website—www.maff.gov.uk/aboutmafiregulat/redtape/redtape.htm.). We are now considering the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force on environmental regulations. We shall continue to seek to minimise new regulations and review existing ones where a need for change is identified.

  Subsidy Payments
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce an independent appeal service for dealing with agricultural subsidy payments. [139269]
  400W
  Ms Quin
  MAFF officials are currently preparing a consultation paper on possible options that could be introduced that would be of benefit to the industry and we expect to be in a position to consult industry on these very soon.

  Farmers' Suicides
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes have been recorded in trends in farmers' suicides in the past 12 years. [139115]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of suicides and deaths from undetermined injury between 1988–1999 (the latest period for which figures are available) is set out in the table.

  My Department has recently contributed £500,000 towards a Rural Stress Action Plan, implemented by voluntary organisations in England, to help alleviate stress among farmers and others in rural communities.

  Deaths from suicide and undetermined injury 1988–1999 men and women aged 16–74 at the time of their death

  Year of occurrence

  Farmers, horticulturists and farm managers

  Farm workers

  1988

  60

  30

  1989

  45

  27

  1990

  49

  27

  1991

  54

  23

  1992

  47

  25

  1993

  50

  28

  1994

  44

  23

  1995

  41

  16

  1996

  36

  29

  1997

  42

  17

  1998

  54

  18

  1999

  51

  19

  Note:

  Data are provisional for 1999

  Source:

  ONS

  Vaccines
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on research into vaccines to counteract(a) bovine spongiform encephalopathy and (b) bovine tuberculosis. [139284]

  Ms Quin
  MAFF is not currently funding any research into the development of vaccines to counteract bovine spongiform encephalopathy. MAFF is willing to consider any research project to develop a vaccine for TSEs providing that the usual conditions of the applicant having suitable facilities to perform the research are met. TSEs are unusual diseases in that it has not been possible to identify a clear immune response to infection. Vaccines rely on priming the immune system to enhance this response and so prevent the disease. The agent which causes TSE is difficult to inactivate and again most vaccines use an inactivated form of an agent safely to produce immunity. There would be concern in using the `live' TSE agent as this may produce either disease, or carriers for the disease, rather than immunity.

  Following the recommendations of the Krebs report, MAFF is funding research into developing vaccines for bovine tuberculosis at a cost of £1.4 million annually. The development of suitable vaccines for use in either cattle

  401W
  or badgers is an important element of the Government's strategy for tackling the disease. UK researchers involved in MAFF-funded TB vaccine projects are working in collaboration with experts internationally. Candidate vaccines which could be used in either cattle or wildlife are being developed and tested, and improved diagnostic tests are also under investigation. However, it may be some years before the scientific, practical and legal issues involved in developing a successful vaccine for bovine tuberculosis can be addressed.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people were employed in the fishing industry in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years [139682]

  Mr. Morley
  Statistics on the number of fishermen are drawn from surveys carried out by the Sea Fisheries Inspectorates in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Sea Fisheries Protection Agency in Scotland. The number of UK fishermen for the years 1997 to 1999 are set out in the table.

  Year

  Regular

  Part-time

  Total

  1997

  14,832

  3,772

  18,604

  1998

  14,394

  3,453

  17,847

  1999

  12,970

  2,991

  15,961

  Note:

  As at 31 March for England and Wales and 31 December for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Flood Defences
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review Government guidelines identifying riparian owners as possessing sole liability for the maintenance of community flood defences; and if he will make a statement. [139498]

  Mr. Morley
  I have no plans to adjust the historic responsibilities of riparian owners. These are explained in the Environment Agency leaflet "Living on the Edge—a guide to the rights and responsibilities of a riverside owner".

  Maintenance of flood defences is the responsibility of the riparian owner. However, where defences benefit the wider community, this responsibility has at times been assumed by the relevant operating authority, ie the Environment Agency, local authority or internal drainage board, depending on the nature and location of the watercourse. It is also open to riparian owners to seek to negotiate maintenance agreements with the relevant operating authority.

  Sheep
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies his Department has collated on the impact of stocking sheep on unenclosed upland areas and the related changes in the character of their soils, with reference to(a) water absorbency, (b) percolation evapotranspiration and (c) run-off including measurements of variation of run-off by streams and rivers. [139973]
  402
  Mr. Morley
  Since 1991 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has undertaken some 23 studies worth about £5 million on the impact of sheep on upland vegetation. We are currently awaiting the report of a research project to quantify and identify the causes of upland erosion. In addition, surveys have been carried out on six Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Exmoor, Lake District, North Peak, South West Peak, Dartmoor and Shropshire Hills) to quantify the level of grazing pressure (almost entirely due to sheep) on heather.

  The Government recognise that overgrazing sheep can contribute to soil erosion in upland areas and are committed to actions to reduce its impact. Conditions to control overgrazing are imposed on recipients of cattle and sheep premiums and Hill Livestock Compensatory allowances as well as new entrants to agri-environmental schemes under the England Rural Development Plan. The Government have reinforced this message in the MAFF Code of Good Agricultural Practice to Protect Soil.

  Farming
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he plans to take to implement the findings of the Better Regulation Task Force report on Environmental Regulations and Farmers; and if he will make a statement. [139315]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 November 2000]: The Government welcome this report.

  The Government will give careful consideration to each of the 21 recommendations and issue a clear and positive response early in the new year.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the outcome was of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 20 and 21 November; and if he will make a statement.[140122]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Agriculture Council on 20 and 21 November. Ross Finnie (Minister for Rural Development, Scottish Executive), Carwyn Jones (Minister for Rural Affairs, National Assembly for Wales) and Brid Rodgers MLA (Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Northern Ireland Executive) were also present.

  The Council held a lengthy discussion of the situation regarding BSE in the Union, following explanations from Commissioner Byrne of planned new Community measures and from France about the steps it had taken in response to recent concerns about the safety of beef in that country. The Council agreed that, notwithstanding the wide range of safety provisions already in place, testing for BSE should be introduced of animals over 30 months that were either at risk or entering the food chain, as an additional safety measure. I warmly welcomed this although all meat produced in the UK (except that from Beef Assurance Scheme animals which are exempt from our Over-30-Months Scheme) comes from animals slaughtered below this age.

  The Council also emphasised the importance of a Community approach to BSE, rather than reliance on national measures, a point I stressed applied no less to the

  403
  national measures being maintained by France against UK exports than to those recently introduced against French exports. The Commission will seek rapid advice from its scientific advisers on the national measures which have been recently adopted and will propose a community approach (either calling for removal of the measures or replacing them with Community regulations) by the end of this month. An additional meeting of the Council will be called on 4 December if necessary.

  Commissioner Byrne introduced the Commission's new proposals for a European Food Authority. The Council will hold an open (public) discussion of these at its next meeting.

  The Council also adopted unanimously draft proposals for the WTO negotiations on agriculture. These set out the Union's ideas for negotiation covering both reductions in agricultural protection and support and measures to address non-trade concerns such as animal welfare and the environment, as well as particular measures to help developing countries. This agreement sends a clear signal of the Community's readiness to engage positively and constructively in these important negotiations.

  The Council agreed by qualified majority proposals to reform the fruit and vegetable regimes. These include a very welcome simplification of the procedures for Community financing of producer groups' operational programmes as well as an increase in the ceiling on support for those programmes, whose aims include helping balance supply and demand, reducing costs and promoting environmentally sound practices. Along with Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, however, I voted against the final Presidency compromise on the ground of its excessive increase in support to processing of tomatoes, peaches and citrus fruit.

  The Council also agreed by qualified majority proposals concerning the control of blue tongue disease (Greece voting against) and animal nutrition (Finland voting against).

  Cetaceans
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 15 October, what progress has been made in addressing the problem of cetacean bycatch in the context of the Community's strategy for integrating environmental concerns into the Common Fisheries Policy. [138533]

  Mr. Morley
  The Community's strategy for integrating environmental concerns into the Common Fisheries Policy will be developed under the Swedish Presidency with a view to its adoption by the European Council in June.

  A joint MAFF/DETR strategy on the conservation of the harbour porpoise was launched at the meeting of parties to the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS) from 26–28 July. It is intended that this should be extended to cover all small cetaceans. Further,
  404
  ASCOBANS agreed on reductions in the bycatch limit from 2 per cent. to 1.7 per cent. of the estimated small cetacean populations.

  Flood Defences (Hereford)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will receive from the Environment Agency the report into flood defence for the City of Hereford from W. S. Atkins; and if he will make a statement. [140351]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that the Environment Agency has commissioned a feasibility report on flood defences in the City of Hereford, and that the consultants are expected to complete the report by January 2001. The Agency will then consider the findings and decide on the promotion of any necessary works. It will be for the Agency to decide on the timing of any submission to the Ministry for grant aid.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Entrepreneurship (Schools)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if his Department will introduce a course on entrepreneurship for secondary schools as a part of the national curriculum. [136541]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Curriculum provides a number of opportunities for developing enterprise and entrepreneurial skills amongst pupils. These occur in mathematics, personal, social and health education and citizenship, as well as through involvement in other school activities such as work with business and the community. Initiatives such as the Young Enterprise Scheme also encourage entrepreneurship in secondary schools.

  Citizenship education, which will be part of the national curriculum in secondary schools from September 2002, includes teaching pupils about how the economy functions, including the role of business, financial services and how taxation and public spending work together. This knowledge and understanding will provide a sound basis for the development of entrepreneurial skills.

  University Revenues
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each university and higher education institution in England the amounts for each of the last three years raised by(a) individual private tuition fees for undergraduates, (b) local authority fees and (c) HEFCE block grant for teaching. [137852]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: The latest available data are shown in the following table. Information on the source of HE course fee income was collected for the first time in 1998–99 and covers undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Local authority fee payments and individual student tuition fee contributions are included in the "Local Education

  405W
  Authority/Student Awards Agency for Scotland/ Department for Education Northern Ireland" and "Other" categories respectively but cannot be separately identified. As well as individual student tuition fee contributions, the "Other" category will include fee income from Research Councils, other government departments, overseas organisations, and UK industry and commerce. Figures for 1999–2000 will be available in March 2001.

  Earlier this year, the Spending Review included an extra £100 million for higher education in 2001–02 on top of the extra funding (£295 million) for 2001–02 allocated

  £000

  1996–971

  1997–981

  1998–991

  FT HE course fees3 received from home and EU students received from:

  Income of higher education institutions in England

  HEFCE block grant for teaching

  Fees from FT HE courses charged at home rates2

  HEFCE block grant for teaching

  Fees from FT HE courses charged at home rates2

  HEFCE block grant for teaching

  LEAs/SAAS/DENI4

  NHS/RONE/SHHD5

  Other sources

  Total

  The Open University

  110,007

  115

  115,153

  105

  122,155

  105

  0

  0

  105

  Cranfield University

  10,505

  4,775

  10,714

  4,906

  10,652

  215

  0

  5,410

  5.625

  Royal College of Art

  5,578

  1,963

  5,702

  1,977

  6,324

  87

  0

  2,038

  2,125

  The College of Guidance Studies

  335

  0

  395

  0

  401

  0

  0

  39

  39

  Institute of Advanced Nursing Education

  1,712

  72

  1,763

  91

  1,749

  25

  25

  0

  50

  Bishop Grosseteste College

  2,542

  907

  2,380

  887

  2,527

  709

  0

  79

  788

  Bretton Hall College of HE

  4,630

  3,316

  4,838

  3,210

  6,192

  1,937

  0

  418

  2.355

  Buckinghamshire Chilterns Universitym College

  12,016

  5,238

  12,918

  5,134

  14,211

  3,393

  3,354

  1,127

  7,874

  Central School of Speech and Drama

  1,647

  837

  1,773

  1,008

  2,430

  407

  0

  515

  922

  Chester College of HE

  6,635

  3,288

  6,712

  3,111

  8,038

  1,819

  4,050

  872

  6,741

  Canterbury Christ Church University College

  9,518

  9,681

  9,854

  9,546

  11,414

  2,975

  5,413

  729

  9,117

  The College of Ripon and York St. John

  6,629

  3,324

  6,837

  3,198

  7,825

  2,291

  1,625

  454

  4,370

  College of St. Mark and St. John

  5,415

  2,974

  5,755

  3,053

  6.201

  1,969

  23

  292

  2,284

  Dartington College of Arts

  1,323

  707

  1,549

  707

  1,743

  363

  0

  85

  448

  Edge Hill College of Higher Education

  8,558

  4,716

  8,894

  5,035

  11,116

  3,398

  2,317

  364

  6,079

  Falmouth College of Arts

  1,855

  1,444

  2,169

  1,630

  2,967

  863

  0

  367

  1,230

  Harper Adams University College

  4,269

  2,253

  4,724

  2,243

  6,029

  1,098

  0

  201

  1,299

  Homerton College

  3,285

  1,482

  3,424

  1,507

  3,954

  1,135

  0

  0

  1,135

  Kent Institute of Art & Design

  3,792

  2,206

  4,024

  2,187

  5,152

  1,290

  0

  371

  1,661

  King Alfred's College, Winchester

  5,831

  3,278

  6,339

  3,310

  7,274

  2,271

  0

  493

  2,764

  La Sainte Union College of HE6

  5,107

  2,034

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  0

  Liverpool Hope

  8,380

  4,636

  8,704

  4,914

  10,214

  3,792

  0

  0

  3,792

  The London Institute

  16,144

  9,727

  17,497

  9,658

  23,610

  5,013

  0

  1,949

  6,962

  Loughborough College of Art and Design6

  1,937

  1.113

  2,071

  1,161

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  0

  University of Luton

  16,440

  8,109

  16,867

  8,381

  20,559

  2.117

  3,066

  5,693

  10,876

  University College Northampton

  15,397

  7,526

  16,115

  7,550

  18,307

  5,604

  2,246

  1,081

  8,931

  Newman College

  2,436

  1,360

  2,521

  1,382

  3,277

  914

  0

  141

  1,055

  North Riding College Higher Education Corporation

  2,834

  1,740

  2,836

  1,687

  3,420

  0

  0

  1,300

  1,300

  Ravensbourne College of Design and Communication

  1,874

  1,035

  1,993

  1,115

  2,415

  435

  0

  381

  816

  University of Surrey, Roehampton

  14,178

  5,798

  14,898

  5,998

  16,491

  3,335

  0

  1,914

  5,249

  Rose Bruford College

  1,266

  686

  1,323

  890

  2,120

  368

  0

  105

  473

  Royal Academy of Music

  2,839

  820

  2,834

  1,133

  3,120

  280

  0

  808

  1,088

  Royal College of Music

  2,509

  907

  2,661

  1,009

  2,957

  0

  0

  741

  741

  Royal Northern College of Music

  2,999

  1,030

  3,139

  1,014

  3.543

  362

  0

  416

  778

  Southampton Institute

  19,864

  11,917

  21,387

  11,954

  25,138

  6,978

  0

  2,129

  9,107

  St. Martin's College

  9,820

  3,966

  9,860

  4,502

  12,024

  3,310

  7,428

  398

  11,136

  St. Mary's College

  5,482

  2,803

  5,451

  2,768

  6,739

  2,242

  0

  68

  2,310

  Trinity and All Saints College

  4,869

  2,300

  4,740

  2,402

  5,532

  1,764

  0

  453

  2,217

  Trinity College of Music

  1,761

  753

  1,825

  832

  2,162

  256

  0

  395

  651

  Westminster College

  3,257

  1,032

  3,097

  917

  2,981

  725

  0

  13

  738

  The Surrey Institute of Art and Design, University College

  4,546

  3,182

  4,934

  4,290

  6,611

  1,702

  0

  387

  2,089

  University College Worcester

  6,267

  3,016

  6,675

  3,379

  7,584

  2,493

  4,448

  366

  7,307

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  24,028.9

  7,489.8

  25,908

  7,160

  29,070

  5,707

  9,924

  1,586

  17,217

  Bath Spa University College

  5,826

  2,525

  6,365

  2,633

  7,501

  2,441

  0

  97

  2,538

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education

  11,905

  4,667

  12,942

  4,802

  14,934

  3,782

  209

  0

  3,991

  Bournemouth University

  14,877

  9,230

  15,848

  9,419

  19,156

  5,160

  4,575

  2,441

  12,176

  406W
  in the 1999 Grant Letter. This was increased to £132 million in September with some of the additional money for Excellence Challenge going to higher education.

  As a result, the Secretary of State announced earlier this month plans to increase publicly planned funding for higher education in England by nearly 10 per cent. in real terms over the next three years. Funding will increase by £412 million in 2001–02 and there are planned increases of £268 million in 2002–03 and £298 million in 2003–04. It will support modernisation and expansion of the higher education sector, and pay and equality measures negotiated by the universities themselves.
  407W

  £000

  1996–971

  1997–981

  1998–991

  Fees from FT HE

  Fees from FT HE

  FT HE course fees1 received from home and EU students received from:

  Income of higher education institutions in England

  HEFCE block grant for teaching

  courses charged at home rates2

  HEFCE block grant for teaching

  courses charged at home rates2

  HEFCE block grant for teaching

  LEAs/SAAS/DENI4

  NHS/RONE/SHHD5

  Other sources

  Total

  The University of Brighton

  24,868

  9,673

  26,269

  10,296

  29,517

  6,793

  8,426

  1,566

  16,785

  The University of Central England in Birmingham

  28,917

  10,954

  30,606

  11,158

  34,200

  7,109

  136

  2,350

  9,595

  The University of Central Lancashire

  30,316

  11,972

  32,487

  11,820

  36,737

  7,383

  7,168

  2,067

  16,618

  Cheltenham and Gloucester College of HE

  13,448

  6,315

  14,343

  6,145

  14,560

  5,221

  0

  494

  5,715

  London Guildhall University

  18,344

  7,958

  19,351

  8,333

  23,177

  4,821

  0

  3,161

  7,982

  Coventry University

  27,957

  11,807

  29,958

  12,515

  34,470

  8,237

  7,068

  2,162

  17,467

  University of Derby

  17,561

  9,265

  18,944

  9,887

  21,416

  6,692

  1,854

  1,980

  10,526

  The University of East London

  23,106

  8,217

  23,452

  7,888

  28,247

  5,643

  1,635

  2,076

  9,354

  The University of Greenwich

  30,406

  11,561

  31,478

  12,060

  34,215

  7,411

  7,443

  2,012

  16,866

  University of Hertfordshire

  27,975

  13,496

  30,130

  13,076

  35,137

  8,564

  6,993

  2,516

  18,073

  The University of Huddersfield

  23,243

  10,293

  25,111

  10,814

  28,527

  6,782

  1

  2,221

  9,004

  The University of Lincolnshire and Humberside

  22,534

  10,221

  24,160

  9,666

  27,604

  5,751

  0

  2,070

  7,821

  Kingston University

  26,465

  11,744

  28,110

  11,346

  33,700

  7,901

  5,612

  2,412

  15,925

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  32,857

  13,868

  33,912

  14,633

  36,707

  9,938

  350

  2,531

  12,819

  Liverpool John Moores University

  33,884

  14,311

  36,008

  14,381

  45,505

  9,846

  3,812

  1,983

  15,641

  The Manchester Metropolitan University

  47,904

  23,064

  50,708

  23,563

  65,970

  15.064

  331

  5,732

  21,127

  Middlesex University

  31,061

  16,120

  30,244

  16,291

  36,864

  11,043

  9,606

  7,241

  27,890

  De Montfort University

  39,391

  19,450

  41,720

  19,437

  48,415

  11,666

  5,124

  2,848

  19,638

  The University of Northumbria at Newcastle

  33,682

  13,983

  35,021

  13,979

  36,216

  9,581

  8,935

  2,314

  20,830

  The University of North London

  23,331

  9,924

  24,270

  9,804

  28,971

  6,443

  0

  3,346

  9,789

  The Nottingham Trent University

  39,837

  19,885

  42,671

  19,435

  49,282

  4,545

  0

  15,353

  19,898

  Oxford Brookes University

  18,928

  7,686

  19,981

  8,896

  22,468

  5,670

  0

  3,217

  8,887

  The University of Plymouth

  34,200

  21,281

  37,412

  20,422

  44.434

  10,656

  3,061

  2,080

  15,797

  The University of Portsmouth

  27,756

  13,535

  29,642

  14,229

  33,981

  3,494

  3,992

  7,743

  15,229

  Sheffield Hallam University

  42,517

  16,593

  43,630

  17,444

  50,707

  11,828

  2,585

  4,087

  18,500

  South Bank University

  32,674

  12,890

  34,564

  9,985

  37,305

  6,236

  7,124

  2,538

  15,898

  Staffordshire University

  26,757

  17,947

  28,423

  18,402

  32,460

  7,309

  2,855

  3,879

  14,043

  The University of Sunderland

  25,519

  12,219

  27,879

  11,819

  31,904

  7,851

  0

  921

  8,772

  The University of Teesside

  19,559

  7,832

  20,931

  7,880

  23,406

  5,077

  6,041

  1,589

  12,707

  Thames Valley University

  19,260

  6,048

  20,347

  5,848

  21,869

  3,699

  14,576

  1.955

  20,230

  University of the West of England, Bristol

  36,822

  16,085

  38,592

  16,289

  43,600

  12,220

  0

  2,305

  14,525

  University College Chichester

  6,791

  2,879

  8,163

  3,530

  9,090

  2,397

  0

  436

  2,833

  The University of Westminster

  30,201

  8,817

  33,353

  9,598

  37,534

  6,534

  0

  3,462

  9,996

  Wimbledon School of Art

  1,427

  670

  1,396

  670

  1,653

  324

  0

  78

  402

  The University of Wolverhampton

  33,103

  13,157

  34,689

  13,082

  39,329

  8,315

  6,831

  2,262

  17,408

  Aston University

  11,458

  4,886

  11,890

  5,468

  12,624

  3,402

  0

  1,845

  5,247

  The University of Bath

  13,222

  7,099

  13,377

  7,417

  16,561

  3,742

  0

  2,885

  6,627

  The University of Birmingham

  38,262

  20,570

  40,981

  20,536

  43,971

  1,848

  1,589

  17,900

  21,337

  The University of Bradford

  16,459

  8,234

  17,246

  8,430

  19,672

  4,465

  6

  2,462

  6,933

  The University of Bristol

  31,425

  16,596

  34,024

  17,211

  38,329

  9,156

  0

  4,566

  13,722

  Brunel University

  21,434

  11,948

  22,917

  12,291

  28,519

  7,517

  2,816

  3,014

  13,347

  The University of Cambridge

  39,830

  18,983

  41,965

  18,888

  42,254

  8,609

  23

  8,188

  16,820

  City University

  9,459

  3,293

  10,583

  3,178

  13,274

  2,269

  10,790

  5,737

  18,796

  University of Durham

  22,375

  11,327

  23,850

  11,937

  27,790

  6,256

  0

  4,469

  10,725

  The University of East Anglia

  14,193

  7,240

  15,032

  7,252

  15,885

  4,249

  5,340

  2,980

  12,569

  The University of Essex

  10,179

  5,185

  10,576

  5,288

  10,881

  2,774

  29

  2,852

  5,655

  The University of Exeter

  20,404

  8,952

  20,557

  10,559

  23,250

  5,614

  0

  3,692

  9,306

  The University of Hull

  18,010

  7,679

  19,156

  7,715

  19,690

  7,355

  4,457

  0

  11,812

  The University of Keele

  11,453

  8,662

  11,608

  8,838

  12,003

  3,380

  3,478

  2,065

  8,923

  The University of Kent at Canterbury

  14,363

  7,189

  15,233

  7,051

  15,593

  4,328

  40

  2,478

  6,846

  The University of Lancaster

  16,283

  8,317

  15,968

  8,351

  17,432

  5,132

  8

  2,391

  7,531

  The University of Leeds

  45,041

  21,902

  47,494

  23,471

  52,926

  11,823

  8,065

  6,803

  26,691

  The University of Leicester

  20,124

  9,658

  21,218

  9,938

  22,901

  5,550

  0

  3,216

  8,766

  The University of Liverpool

  36,894

  19,102

  39,216

  18,975

  42,731

  9,939

  3,178

  3,180

  16,297

  Birkbeck College

  11,881

  721

  12,529

  776

  13,966

  19

  5

  857

  881

  Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School6

  6,285

  1,796

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  0

  Goldsmiths College

  11,114

  5,153

  11,002

  5,431

  12,283

  3,126

  0

  1,649

  4,775

  Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine

  21,674

  10,507

  31,854

  13,515

  38,165

  4,755

  0

  6,046

  10,801

  Institute of Education

  4,187

  2,096

  4,575

  2,209

  5,621

  849

  0

  747

  1,596

  King's College London

  27,170

  11,295

  30.670

  12,199

  47,963

  2,999

  10,939

  8,993

  22,931

  London Business School

  573

  0

  654

  0

  696

  0

  0

  4,006

  4,006

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  6,045

  4,750

  6,235

  5,123

  6,686

  1,364

  0

  7,326

  8,690

  408W 409W

  £000

  1996–971

  1997–981

  1998–991

  FT HE course fees3 received from home and EU students received from:

  Income of higher education institutions in England

  HEFCE block grant for teaching

  Fees from FT HE courses charged at home rates2

  HEFCE block grant for teaching

  Fees from FT HE courses charged at home rates2

  HEFCE block grant for teaching

  LEAs/SAAS/DENI4

  NHS/RONE/SHHD5

  Other sources

  Total

  London school of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

  2,220

  853

  2,437

  850

  2,684

  0

  69

  782

  851

  Queen Marry and Westfield College

  24,037

  9,664 24,719

  24,719

  9,841

  27,333

  4,450

  579

  4,154

  9,183

  Royal Free Hospital school of Medicine6

  3,739

  1,430

  3,913

  1,383

  —6

  —6

  —6

  —6

  0

  Royal Holloway and Bedford New college

  11,061

  5,733

  11,480

  6,277

  13,408

  3,239

  234

  2,425

  5,907

  Royal postgraduate Medical School6

  1,671

  394

  —6

  —6

  —6

  —6

  —6

  —6

  0

  The Royal Veterinary College

  3,958

  1,130

  4,037

  1,164

  5,563

  351

  0

  291

  642

  St. George's Hospital Medical school

  5,560

  2,201

  6,097

  2,407

  7,745

  721

  210

  580

  1,511

  The school of Oriental and African studies

  3,278

  1,973

  3,319

  2,103

  3,383

  0

  0

  2,511

  2,511

  The school of pharmacy

  1,457

  679

  1,720

  703

  2,031

  271

  0

  232

  503

  United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St.Thomas's6

  11,941

  3,490

  12,567

  3,642

  —6

  —6

  —6

  —6

  0

  University College London

  31,830

  17,393

  32,094

  17,466

  44,287

  7,029

  3

  8,501

  15,533

  Wye collage

  1,869

  960

  2,139

  1,011

  2,304

  387

  0

  403

  790

  University of London (Institutes and activities)

  2,088

  1,900

  2,254

  1,994

  2,886

  361

  721

  1,084

  2,166

  Loughborough University

  21,711

  10,906

  23,008

  11,078

  28,051

  6,385

  0

  3,823

  10,208

  University of Manchester

  44,855

  21,605

  47,665

  23,463

  52,486

  0,931

  8,018

  7,492

  26,441

  The uiversity of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  33,813

  14,905

  35,419

  15,358

  8,378

  8,328

  38

  4,925

  13,291

  The University of Nottingham

  30,697

  14,585

  32,820

  15,164

  35,883

  ,915

  13,646

  6,127

  27,688

  The University of Oxfort

  37,005

  16,803

  38,419

  16,716

  39,118

  ,692

  0

  7,353

  16,045

  The University of Reading

  20,875

  11,218

  22,043

  11,125

  20603

  5,360

  105

  4,578

  10,043

  The University of Salford

  27,494

  14,507

  29,812

  14,024

  34,009

  ,624

  9,684

  3,207

  20,515

  The University of Sheffield

  36,072

  19,783

  37,761

  20,819

  41,459

  ,064

  11,685

  6,601

  27,350

  The University of Southampton

  33,080

  14,624

  34,394

  16,531

  36,886

  8,177

  5,372

  6,387

  19,936

  The University of Surrey

  13,821

  8,149

  14,935

  8,805

  16,425

  2,762

  6,152

  4,268

  13,182

  The University of Sussex

  17,656

  8,748

  18,680

  8,920

  19,668

  4,693

  0

  3,506

  8,199

  The University of Warwick

  22,593

  10,062

  24,158

  10,332

  24,644

  7,589

  0

  2,967

  10,556

  The University of York

  13,254

  7,233

  13,902

  7,426

  14,333

  3,756

  4,215

  3,104

  11,075

  The University ofManchester Institute of Science & Technology

  13,822

  7,127

  14,670

  7,192

  15,821

  3,200

  0

  2,788

  5,988

  Westhill College

  2,639

  1,182

  2,322

  1,015

  2,483

  729

  0

  121

  850

  Writtle College

  2,173

  1,363

  2,691

  1,493

  3,486

  813

  0

  211

  1,024

  Norwich School Art and Design

  1,234

  993

  1,387

  1,013

  1,844

  541

  0

  99

  640

  Northern School of Contemporary Dance

  502

  252

  471

  244

  607

  155

  0

  0

  155

  Cumbria College of Art and Design, Carlisle

  1,307

  333

  1,139

  1,080

  1,674

  475

  0

  241

  716

  Total

  2,344,634.9

  1,048,988.8

  2,469,245

  1,071,102

  2,788,144

  577,692

  281,765

  340,811

  1,200,268

  1Academic years.

  2 Covers UK domiciled and non-UK domiciled students on undergraduate and postgraduate courses charged home fees.

  3 Covers home and EU domiciled students on undergraduate and postgraduate courses and may not be directly comparable with the fee information for previous years.

  4Local Education Authorities, Student Awards Agency for Scotland, Department of Education Northern Ireland.

  5National Health Service, Regional Offices of the NHS Executive, Scottish Home and Health Department.

  6Indicates institutions which merged during this period and subsequently provided a consolidated Finance return.

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency

  Pre-school Closures
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pre-schools have closed since 1 May 1997; and how many places at such schools have been lost as a result.[139298]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 20 November 2000]: Information is not available in the form requested. The Department does collect information on playgroups and pre-schools, which is published in Statistical Bulletin "Children's Day Care Facilities" (as at 31 March), which is available from the Library. This shows the total number of playgroups and pre-schools, in each year from 1996–97 to 1999–2000. It shows that as a result of the partnership
  410W
  approach towards providing new nursery places, the number of places has begun to increase again over the last year for which figures are available:

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Number of playgroups and pre-schools1

  15,800

  15,700

  15,000

  14,300

  Net difference1

  —

  —100

  —700

  —700

  Number of places1

  383,700

  383,600

  347,200

  353,100

  Net difference

  —

  —100

  —36,400

  †5,900

  1 Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred

  A total of £1.750 million has been made available over the three years from 1998 to 2000 for small grants to voluntary pre-schools and playgroups facing financial
  411W
  difficulties, to give them breathing space as policy initiatives work through to individual groups. Over the first two years of the scheme, grants were made to some 1,500 pre-schools. This year's scheme is currently in progress. This year we have also made available £250,000 for projects to help pre-schools and playgroups develop, in partnership with others, as early education and care places expand.

  The expansion of free places for three-year-olds, which is significantly increased in the current school year, is taking place largely in the private and voluntary sectors and we expect to see playgroups benefiting from that expansion. There are 120,000 more free nursery places for three and four-year-olds this year than there were in 1997.

  Nursery Schools
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money nursery schools will receive from the Chancellor's pre-Budget Statement allocation to schools. [139451]

  Ms Hodge
  Maintained nursery schools in England will receive just over £2 million in total from the allocation in the Pre-Budget Statement of £167 million of additional capital grant to schools in England for 2000–01.

  In addition, maintained nursery schools are receiving £7 million in 2000–01 to develop and extend the services they offer and to upgrade buildings and equipment so that they can provide wrap around care and other family support services.

  The funding we are making available to these schools is part of our overall commitment to the early years which includes, for the first time, the provision of free early education places for three-year-olds across all sectors. All three-year-olds will be able to access a free early education place by September 2004 and total spending on nursery education will increase from £1 billion in 1996–97 to £2 billion in 2003–04.

  Following the March 2000 Budget, we made additional direct grant payments of £3,000 to each nursery school. This was increased following the Spending Review to £6,000 per school.

  New Deal
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) youth unemployed, (b) long-term unemployed, (c) lone parents and (d) disabled unemployed have (1) gained (i) subsidised and (ii) unsubsidised employment and (2) undertaken training under the New Deal scheme in (A) Bolton and (B) the North-West. [139513]

  Ms Jowell
  The following table shows the figures requested for Bolton and the North-West:

  New deal for young people

  New deal forlong-term unemployed aged 25†

  New deal for lone parents

  Bolton

  Subsidised jobs

  140

  22

  n/a

  Unsubsidised jobs

  914

  141

  394

  Undertaken training

  617

  59

  68

  412W

  New deal for young people

  New deal for long-term unemployed aged 25†

  New deal forlone parents

  North-West

  Subsidised jobs

  5,288

  1,798

  n/a

  Unsubsidised jobs

  30,449

  5,068

  8,932

  Undertaken training

  22,473

  3,073

  2,302

  The New Deal for Lone Parents does not have a subsidised employment component.

  Disabled unemployed people have the option of joining either the New Deal for young people or the New Deal for long-term unemployed aged 25† without having to complete the usual six or 24 months unemployment. These people are therefore included in the figures quoted in the table. There are currently New Deal for Disabled People pilots running in only some areas, including one in Bolton. To end August 2000, 340 people had found work in Bolton through the pilot. We know that significant numbers of people leave the New Deal for jobs without telling the Employment Service.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people in Wales have found employment through the New Deal since its inception; and what percentage this represents of all unemployed young people. [140124]

  Ms Jowell
  Latest figures to the end of August 2000 show that 16,580 young people in Wales have gained employment through the New Deal for Young People.

  As at October 2000, the number of 18 to 24-year-olds claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in Wales was 15,100—compared to 19,400 as at April 1998.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of the young people who found employment through the New Deal have found sustained unsubsidised work.[140214]

  Ms Jowell
  Latest figures to the end of August 2000 show that 244,450 young people have gained employment through the New Deal for Young People. Of these, 66 per cent. were sustained unsubsidised jobs. Young people leaving the New Deal do not have to notify the Employment Service that they have found jobs: independent surveys have found that over half of young people whose destination upon leaving the New Deal is recorded as unknown have, in fact, found work.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received from Stagecoach performing arts schools about changes to the Children Act 1989. [139928]

  Ms Hodge
  We have received many letters sent on behalf of Stagecoach schools. The Government are presently reforming the system for regulating child care in England, bringing in new national standards to be regulated by a new Early Years Directorate in Ofsted. The correspondents are concerned about the potential impact of these changes on activity-based organisations such as Stagecoach whose primary purpose is not child care. The Government recognise these concerns and are considering
  413
  whether it is appropriate to bring such organisations under the new arrangements. We will take full account of all the concerns raised when we reach a decision.

  Teachers' Pension Scheme
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the estimated value of funds available to the Teachers' Pension Scheme(a) now and (b) in 20 years. [140098]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Government Actuary estimates that the current value of the notional Fund is just over £100 billion.

  The future value of the notional Fund depends on many factors including the level of investment markets, the rates of inflation and earnings growth, and the demographic experience of the Scheme. Consequently, any estimate of the value of the Fund in 20 years' time would not be meaningful.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will be in a position to start making annual pension statements for individual members of the Teachers' Pension Scheme. [140097]

  Mr. Wicks
  Some 40,000 benefit statements are issued each year on request to members of the Teachers' Pension Scheme. We are working with the scheme administrators and representatives of teacher and employer associations on a scheme which will see benefit statements issuing automatically to a pilot segment of the membership in 2001.

  Teaching Vacancies
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teaching vacancies are unfilled in(a) Gloucestershire and (b) England; and if he will make a statement. [140285]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: There were 26 vacancies (0.7 per cent.) for qualified teachers in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sector in Gloucestershire in January 2000. The equivalent figure for England was 2,910 vacancies (0.8 per cent.).

  The number of regular teachers in maintained schools increased by 6,900 between January 1998 and January 2000.

  A DfEE survey of maintained secondary schools in England in the first week of September 2000 indicated that there were about 1,000 secondary teacher vacancies; the equivalent figure at January 2000 was 1,200.

  Rail Network (Skills Training)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he intends to take to improve the level of skills training on the rail network. [140414]

  Mr. Wicks
  I wrote to Sir Alastair Morton, the Chairman of the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority, on 16 November to invite him to discuss using the regulatory and franchising framework to ensure that the current and future skill needs of the rail industry are met.
  414W

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) males and (b) females have been placed on modern apprenticeships since the introduction of the scheme. [140484]

  Mr. Wicks
  500,000 people had started modern apprenticeships in England up to end June 2000 (the latest period for which information has been published), 51 per cent. of which were male.

  Modern apprenticeships consist of Advanced Modern Apprenticeships (AMA) and Foundation Modern Apprenticeships (FMA). At end June 2000 there had been 360,000 starts on AMA (54 per cent. male), and 140,000 starts on FMA (54 per cent. female).

DEFENCE

  European Security
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the NATO Secretary General to discuss European security. [138590]

  Mr. Hoon
  I last met the NATO Secretary General, along with other EU Defence Ministers, during the Capabilities Commitment Conference that took place on 20 and 21 November.

  A400M
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the procurement of the A400M aircraft. [138592]

  Dr. Moonie
  A400M partner nations announced on 27 July that they intend to procure, in an initial order, numbers of aircraft sufficient to launch the programme. We are pressing ahead with the programme, in co-operation with our partners, and continue to expect the aircraft to enter service with the Royal Air Force in the latter part of this decade.

  Flooding (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans his Department has made for the armed forces to provide assistance to communities affected by flooding. [138593]

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans his Department has made for the armed forces to provide assistance to communities affected by flooding. [138597]

  Mr. Spellar
  Armed forces support to communities threatened by flooding or other natural disasters is provided through contacts between local military headquarters, the emergency services, and local authorities, using tried and tested procedures. Local commanders have the authority to respond immediately to requests for assistance if they believe lives to be in danger, or if the emergency services have no alternative to military assistance. These procedures worked very effectively during the recent floods with more than 60 units of the armed forces providing support to the emergency services in 15 different counties. In addition, personnel from TA units also provided valuable assistance.
  415W

  Departmental Spending Plans
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on changes to his Department's spending plans as a result of the comprehensive spending review.[138598]

  Mr. Spellar
  As a result of the Spending Review settlement announced earlier this year the Defence Budget will increase in real terms by 1 per cent. between 2000–01 and 2003–04. This substantial funding increase will, over the period, provide £1,250 million of new money for defence, after allowing for inflation. The settlement builds on the Strategic Defence Review and sends an important signal about the Government's intention to sustain the capabilities of the armed forces. We are now looking at the priorities for further expenditure, particularly housing and accommodation, as part of our annual planning process, which will culminate early next year.

  Armed Forces (Retention)
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the steps being taken to improve retention in the armed forces. [138600]

  Mr. Spellar
  Retention is being tackled as a high priority. A key outcome of the Strategic Defence Review was a widespread recognition of the need for an Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy (AFOPS) as part of the 'Policy for People', which was introduced to give more emphasis to personnel issues. The strategy, which was implemented in April this year, is a key element in showing our continuing commitment to our personnel and their families, and reinforces the message that we place people at the centre of our plans. The AFOPS is, in turn, underpinned by personnel strategies in each of the Services.

  There have been welcome signs of improvement in retention in recent months. We have sought to mitigate the impact of overstretch upon Service personnel and to make improvements to the welfare of those who are deployed on operations.

  Measures include: more free telephone calls home; wider access to the internet for personal communication; a guaranteed period of post-operational tour leave for those returning from operations. In addition to these measures, a number of single Service retention positive initiatives have or are being introduced, for example, Financial Retention Incentives have been introduced to stop the outflow of Leading Rate Operator Mechanics and Royal Signallers in the Navy and Army respectively, and the RAF has introduced the 'Link-Up' Scheme to fund Civilian Pilots licences in return for longer service.

  Smart Procurement
  Mr. St.Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings his Department expects to realise from the Smart Procurement programme. [138601]

  Dr. Moonie
  Over the three successive annual planning rounds since the inception of the Smart Procurement Initiative, we have identified costing reductions attributable to Smart Procurement which total £2 billion over the 10-year period to 1998 to 2008. We expect to improve on this in current and future planning rounds.
  416

  Army Capabilities
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase spending on defence capabilities for the Army. [138602]

  Mr. Spellar
  As a result of the Spending Review settlement announced earlier this year the Defence Budget will increase in real terms by 1 per cent. between 2000–01 and 2003–04. This substantial funding increase will, over the period, provide £ 1,250 million of new money for defence, after allowing for inflation. We have as a result already been able to announce some measures to address lessons learned from the operation in Kosovo and we are now looking at other proposals, particularly housing and accommodation, for further expenditure as part of our annual planning process.

  Armed Forces (Education and Training)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on recent developments in education and training for the armed forces. [138603]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart).

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current strength is of each of the reserve forces.[138604]

  Dr. Moonie
  The latest available figures for the strength of each of the reserve forces as at 1 October are:

  Number

  Royal Naval Reserve/Royal Marine Reserve

  4,686

  Royal Fleet Reserve

  9,913

  Territorial Army

  40,382

  Regular Army Reserve

  34,189

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force

  1,724

  Royal Air Force Reserve

  14,939

  US National Missile Defence
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representation he has had, or made to the US Government, on the proposed National Missile Defence system. [138606]

  Mr. Hoon
  We continue to discuss regularly the proposed US National Missile Defence system with the US Government, and with our other NATO Allies and others.

  Sierra Leone
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of British armed forces in Sierra Leone. [138607]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath),Official Report, column 624.
  417W
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which occasions his Department's officials met Mr. Mikhail Karacostas during Mr. Peter Penfold's period as UK High Commissioner in Sierra Leone. [138756]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am not aware of any meetings between officials of the Ministry of Defence and Mr. Karacostas during Mr. Penfold's period in office as UK High Commissioner.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what briefing his Department has provided since 1997 to newspaper editors on matters relating to(a) police corruption, (b) terrorist activities, (c) arms trafficking and (d) Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [138791]

  Dr. Moonie
  Press officers for the Ministry of Defence give oral briefings to journalists every day in response to inquiries on all matters relating to defence. In addition, they provide collective briefings for journalists on a regular basis on issues of topical interest.

  No central record is kept of briefings for journalists.

  Troop Deployment (Europe)
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on changes to his Department's spending plans on troop deployment in Europe as a result of the comprehensive spending review. [138608]

  Mr. Hoon
  As a result of the Spending Review settlement announced earlier this year the Defence Budget will increase in real terms by 1 per cent. between 2000–01 and 2003–04. This substantial funding increase will, over the period, provide £1,250 million of new money for defence, after allowing for inflation.

  The settlement builds on the Strategic Defence Review, which included the relocation of some Army units from Germany to the UK, and sends an important signal about the Government's intention to sustain the capabilities of the armed forces. In addition, the UK has taken a leading role in NATO adaptation and in arguing for the development of European defence capabilities. The additional provision demonstrates that we continue to take those responsibilities seriously.

  Service Accommodation
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's plans relating to spending on accommodation for service personnel. [138609]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mr. Prosser) and for Salford (Ms Blears),Official Report, columns 632–33.

  NATO Ballistic Missile Defence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's contribution is to the NATO ballistic missile defence programme. [138610]

  Mr. Hoon
  NATO does not have a ballistic missile defence programme. The Ministry of Defence has, however, contributed to NATO studies on the subject, including preparations for studies into the feasibility of 418W
  theatre ballistic missile defence. We expect the theatre ballistic missile defence feasibility studies to start next year.

  Executions (First World War)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the most recent representations he has received in relation to soldiers executed in the first world war. [138605]

  Mr. Spellar
  A number of representations have been received recently from those seeking pardons for soldiers executed during the First World War. This subject and all the case files held in this country were carefully considered during the Review whose outcome was announced on 24 July 1998,Official Report, columns 1372–86. As a result of this, those who were executed are now recognised as victims of a terrible war, the stigma of execution has been lifted and, as public recognition of this, those responsible have been asked to add these men's names to War Memorials and Books of Remembrance throughout the country.

  Bosnia
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit Bosnia to inspect British troops. [138585]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be departing for a visit to the Balkans this afternoon, and will be in Sarajevo tomorrow afternoon.

  Shoeburyness Ranges
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the new ranges in Shoeburyness. [138599]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) is continuing to work with SERCO Ltd. to rationalise the new ranges estate and to introduce new businesses which are able to co-exist with the continuing range activities. For example, the engineering workshop has been leased to a company which has successfully attracted new engineering work and the main office block will have a number of new tenants shortly including a catering training establishment. As mentioned in my answer on 20 March 2000,Official Report, columns 716–17, other possible businesses include an innovative agricultural process for producing fruit and vegetables which could lead to 1,000 new jobs. DERA and SERCO will continue to work closely with both Southend Borough and Rochford District Councils on preparing the 10 year development plan for the introduction of new commercial activities on to the site. Public consultation will be a key feature in taking forward any proposals.

  C-17 Aircraft
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions have been placed on the operational use of the RAF's leased C-17 aircraft. [140014]

  Mr. Hoon
  The C-17 will fill the UK requirement for outsized strategic airlift pending the arrival in service of the A400M. Tactical airlift capability will be provided by the C-130 fleet. Detailed operating parameters for RAF C-17s remain under consideration.
  419W

  RAF Henlow
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that the work force at the Directorate of Engineering Interoperability at RAF Henlow are kept fully informed of the changes initiated by the Defence Logistics Organisation. [140076]

  Mr. Spellar
  Yes. The work force and their trade union representatives will be kept fully informed and will be consulted on any proposed changes.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what type of Iraqi vehicles were recovered by the armed forces from the Gulf War. [139846]

  Mr. Spellar
  According to records held by my Department as of 11 April 1991 the numbers of vehicles, including tracked, wheeled or towed equipment, recovered or captured and held by British armed forces in theatre were as follows:

  Vehicle

  Number

  Main Battle Tanks (MBT)

  136

  (T-55: 42; T-69: 80; T-62: 13; T-72: 1)

  'A' Vehicles

  100

  B' Vehicles

  72

  Missiles1

  9

  Artillery and Anti Aircraft Systems2

  294

  Total vehicles, artillery and Anti-aircraft equipment held

  611

  1Missiles mounted on carrying vehicles.

  2Primarily tracked vehicles, operating under own power, or wheeled equipments requiring towing.

  Our records indicate that a number of these vehicles, those that were intact, were earmarked for return to the UK:

  Vehicle

  Number

  Main Battle Tanks

  26

  Other Armoured Vehicles (A Vehicles)

  38

  Soft Skinned Vehicles (B Vehicles)

  33

  Vehicle Mounted Artillery Systems

  8

  Field Artillery

  37

  Anti Aircraft Gun Systems

  80

  Armed Forces (Equal Opportunities)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the implications for the UK armed forces of the recent report of the Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities Committee of the European Parliament. [140129]

  Mr. Spellar
  The European Parliament has no role in the operation of the armed forces of member states. We do not envisage any impact on UK military operations.

  DA Notices
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many DA notices have been issued since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [138747]
  420W
  Mr. Spellar
  Defence Advisory Notices are not issued in response to particular events. There are standing DA Notices to which editors and others refer as necessary. In 1997 there were six such standing notices. In May 2000 these were reduced by the independent Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee to five, and the system was made less restrictive and the guidance more specific, to allow greater debate on national issues. Full details are in the House of Commons Library, and on www.dnotice.org.uk.

  Gurkhas
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to visit the training facilities of the Gurkhas in Nepal. [138595)

  Mr. Hoon
  On current plans, I am intending to visit Nepal just before the end of the year. My programme will include a visit to Gurkha recruiting and welfare facilities.

  Fibre Buoys
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what capabilities RTOF buoys have for enabling covert two-way data exchange between a submerged submarine and surface ships, aircraft, and shore stations; if the buoys will be used under the network-centric concept of operations; and if he will make a statement. [138980]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is conducting research into improving the two-way data exchange between a submerged submarine and other units. The Recoverable Towed Optic Fibre (RTOF) buoy which is being investigated under this research could provide part of the solution. The capabilities which a RTOF buoy could give would be determined by the overall system's characteristics.

  Arborfield Garrison
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for further property sales at the Arborfield Garrison; and if he will make a statement on the future of the garrison. [140162]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Arborfield Garrison, along with all other defence training establishments, is being looked at as part of the Defence Training Review (DTR), a wide-ranging and fundamental review of the way in which training is conducted across the Ministry of Defence. This review is still in progress and it is not possible to draw conclusions at this time.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the additional cost implications in(a) support, (b) fatigue and (c) training of arming the Eurofighters with a cannon; and what are the cost implications of changing the original specifications. [139962]

  Mr. Hoon
  The RAF have assessed that the support, fatigue and training cost implications of the Mauser cannon on Eurofighter outweigh the cannon's minimal operational utility, particularly given the capability of the
  421W
  advanced short-range air-to-air missiles with which the aircraft will be armed and the pattern of operations over the last decade.

  Specifically, the disadvantages of the cannon include: the damaging effects of the shock of its recoil on the electronics; the corrosive effects of its exhaust gas; the strain which it puts on the aircraft, reducing the aircraft's useful life; and a range of training costs, including new targets and the cost of removing training rounds from the environment.

  The deletion of the gun will save some £30 million over the forward equipment programme, and more than £3.5 million every year of Eurofighter's operational life in support costs.

  Medical Staff
  Dr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the establishment requirement

  Specialty

  Operational and retained task requirement1

  Consultants/GMPs etc. in specialty2

  Consultants/GMPs etc. command and staff posts

  Total consultants/GMPs etc.

  Percentage shortfall

  Anaesthetists

  120

  29

  —

  29

  76

  General physicians

  51

  19

  9

  28

  45

  General surgeons

  44

  18

  3

  21

  52

  Orthopaedic surgeons

  28

  8

  —

  8

  71

  Burns and plastics

  10

  3

  —

  3

  70

  Accident and emergency

  23

  3

  —

  3

  87

  Psychiatrists

  34

  14

  —

  14

  59

  Ophthalmic surgeons

  10

  5

  —

  5

  50

  Radiologists

  11

  10

  —

  10

  9

  Pathologists

  18

  11

  1

  12

  33

  Ear, nose and throat

  10

  4

  —

  4

  60

  Rheumatology and rehabilitation

  6

  5

  —

  5

  16

  Occupational medicine

  49

  12

  20

  32

  35

  General practitioners

  437

  175

  33

  208

  52

  Dental officers

  277

  248

  312

  251

  9

  1Figures exclude manning and training margins

  2Figures exclude specialists under training

  3Dental officers in command and staff appointments may undertake occasional clinical work

  422W
  of (a) anaesthetists, (b) general physicians, (c) general surgeons, (d) orthopaedic surgeons, (e) burns and plastics, (f) accident and emergency, (g) psychiatrists, (h) ophthalmic surgeons, (i) radiologists, (j) pathologists, (k) dental officers, (l) ear, nose and throat, (m) rheumatology and rehabilitation, (n) occupational medicine, (o) general practice and (p) command and staff stating in each case the (i) manning and (ii) percentage shortfall; and if he will make a statement. [139703]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 22 November 2000]: The establishment requirements against manning figures for accredited consultants, vocationally trained general medical practitioners and dental officers are set out in the table. There is no separate requirement for command and staff posts and the table shows those consultants, general medical practitioners and dental officers filling such appointments. The figures show continuing serious shortfalls among medical officers, although their manning levels have stabilised over the last two years.

  Doctors
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many civilian doctors were employed(a) in the hospital sector and (b) in primary care in the DMS in each month since April 1999; and how many of these were employed in civilian in lieu of military posts; [139701]

  (2) how many (a) military consultants, (b) military junior doctors and (c) civilian consultants employed by his Department were employed at Haslar on 31 March; and how many of each of these (i) continue to work at Haslar, (ii) have prematurely retired from the DMS or otherwise left the services and (iii) have been deployed elsewhere. [139699]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 22 November 2000]: This information will take some time to collate. However, I will write to the right hon. and learned Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) consultants, (b) junior hospital doctors, (c) general practitioners and (d) GP registrars sought premature voluntary retirement from the DMS in each month since April 1999. [139700]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 22 November 2000]: This information will take some time to collate and I will write to the right hon. and learned Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Service Pilots (Pay and Conditions)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on ensuring competitive conditions and rates of pay for service pilots in relation to civil aviation pilots. [140128]

  Mr. Spellar
  Levels of Service pay are based on the recommendations of the independent Armed Forces' Pay Review Body who work on the principle of broad comparability with the pay of civilians in jobs of similar weight and responsibility (derived by job evaluation) against a number of factors. An additional element called the "X-factor" (currently 13 per cent. of basic pay) is then added to basic pay in order to reflect the difference between conditions of service experienced by members of the armed forces and conditions in civilian life which cannot be taken into account when assessing pay comparability. X-factor is paid in full to all ranks up to the mid-point on the Lieutenant Colonel scale. In addition
  423W
  to basic pay, certain groups are paid additional pay, as a supplement to basic pay, as a supplement to basic pay, to counter market forces' pressures. Pilots receive such payments, in the form of flying pay, at levels geared to support retention.

  The pay package for pilots, as with all groups where market forces have an impact, is kept under review.

  War Widows Pensions
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what data his Department collect on the numbers of United Kingdom war widows whose war widows pensions and in respect of which years ceased on remarriage. [140142]

  Dr. Moonie
  I assume that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) refers to those widows who have been awarded a War Widows Pensions Agency and who have, in addition, been awarded an attributable forces family pension under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS). We can retrieve from our computer database records of the numbers of widows who have remarried since 1998, but our records of past remarriages do not separately identify which widows receive attributable forces family pensions. The number of widows remarrying in each of the last two years is:

  Year

  Number

  1998–99

  52

  1999–2000

  67

  Although our past records do not distinguish between attributable and non-attributable widows, we believe that around one in 20 widows are paid an attributable forces family pension. More detailed information could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Future Strategic Tanker
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the Future Strategic Tanker project and the roles of RAF Brize Norton and DERA Boscombe Down. [140086]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: The Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) is planned to begin replacing the RAF's current fleet of VC10 and Tristar tanker/transport aircraft from around 2007. We are currently investigating the potential for achieving a service-based solution to the requirement under the Private Finance Initiative. The current fleet is based at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. DERA is seeking to act as a commercial partner to the FSTA consortia and is promoting its Boscombe Down airfield as a potential alternative operating base. Our work on development of the Public Sector Comparator for FSTA has concluded that RAF Brize Norton is likely to offer the most cost effective operating base for the FSTA service.

  However, under a PFI procurement strategy we would be prepared to consider innovative proposals from the bidding consortia that maintain operational capability and offer value for money. We have not yet launched the formal bidding process for the FSTA requirement and do not expect to make final decisions on the programme before 2002.

  ASTOR Aircraft
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ASTOR aircraft he intends to procure. [138429]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is intended to procure five modified Global Express Business jets as part of the Prime Contract for ASTOR.

  Alternative Landing Ships Logistic
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what types of vessels will be built by Swan Hunter and BAE Systems Marine as a result of the Alternative Landing Ships Logistic contract; what time is set for successful completion of the programme; and if he will make a statement. [138981]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Alternative Landing Ships Logistic (ALSL) are new amphibious landing ships. They are designed to deploy troops, with vehicles and stores, directly into the operational area. They will operate in conjunction with the new landing platform dock ships and the helicopter landing platform. ALSLs will also be suitable for low intensity operations and for humanitarian and disaster relief missions. They will be operated by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and replace the capability provided by current aging landing ships.

  Negotiations are currently taking place with both contractors and we are aiming to bring the ships into service between autumn 2004 and summer 2006.

  Radio Spectrum
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what part of the radio spectrum is used by his Department; and what estimate he has made of its commercial value. [139144]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence uses various portions across the entire radio spectrum in accordance with the allocations made by the World Radio Conference, to which the UK is a signatory.

  The Radiocommunications Agency of the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for managing the frequency spectrum and levies charges for allocations to all users, including the MOD. Currently, the MOD is charged a standard commercial rate by the Radiocommunications Agency, and pays £22.8 million for the spectrum it is allocated.

  Decommissioned Frigates
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expressions of interest in the past three years he has received from foreign navies in respect of the purchase of decommissioned Type 22 frigates; and if he will make a statement. [139345]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since the announcement of the disposal of the Royal Navy's now decommissioned Type 22 frigates, HMS Beaver, HMS London, and HMS Boxer in the Strategic Defence Review in July 1998, marketing of the ships to overseas navies to date have elicited expressions of interest of various degrees from at least five nations, a number of which in the case of HMS London are being pursued further. I am withholding details of the sources
  425W
  and the strength of these expressions of interest in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what value his Department expects to realise from the disposal of(a) HMS London, (b) HMS Boxer, (c) HMS Beaver and (d) HMS Brave. [139465]

  Dr. Moonie
  All the ships mentioned, HMS London, Boxer, Beaver and Brave, are or will be subject to sales negotiations. I am withholding details of expected sales values under Exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his French counterpart about the application of qualified majority voting to EU(a) foreign policy and (b) defence policy. [139476]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have had regular contact with the French Defence Minister and last met him at the Capability Commitment Conference on 20 and 21 November.

  We have always agreed that decisions to launch military crisis management operations must be taken by the member states by consensus. The commitment of UK national assets to any European Union-led crisis management operation will be based on the sovereign decision of the UK Government.

  Foreign policy is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

  Typhoon Trials
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was to DERA of(a) hiring the tanker aircraft from the RAF and (b) the dumped fuel on Friday 3 November in connection with the typhoon tanking trials at Warton; how many litres of fuel were dumped; and where they were dumped. [139473]

  Dr. Moonie
  There was no cost to DERA for either the aircraft or the fuel. The aircraft was provided as part of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and the cost of the fuel will be met by the Defence Procurement Agency (DPA). In all some 40,000 litres of fuel were jettisoned in free airspace over the Irish sea.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason(a) the typhoon tanking trial flight at Warton on Friday 3 November was abandoned and (b) the weather window was lost. [139470]

  Dr. Moonie
  Standard pre-flight checks, which identified a number of faults requiring investigation, prevented the Eurofighter development aircraft from taking off at the scheduled time for the tanking trials on 3 November. By the time the faults were rectified the weather conditions, which could affect the sensitive trials instrumentation on the aircraft, were unfavourable and the flight was abandoned. The flight trial was successfully completed a few days later.
  426W

  Committee Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the(a) total costs and (b) total level of manpower of (i) the Political and Security Committee and (ii) the Military Committee. [139916]

  Mr. Hoon
  These two bodies, in both their current interim and future permanent forms, consist of national representatives of member states. There are therefore no consolidated figures for the costs or level of manpower of the bodies.

  European Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated annual cost to public funds of British participation in the European rapid reaction force. [139783]

  Mr. Hoon
  The objective of the European Union in setting the Headline Goal is to ensure the ability of nations to be able to generate forces rapidly in response to a crisis. There will be no standing rapid reaction force entailing an annual cost to public funds.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy will be for determining priorities between commitments to the European rapid reaction force and to NATO. [139950]

  Mr. Hoon
  Decisions on deployment of British troops will continue to be made on the basis of UK national interests, operational circumstances, our Treaty commitments to NATO and our current deployments. The decision to commit troops to an operation under any international organisation, whether it be NATO, OSCE, UN or the EU, will remain a UK Government decision based on the above factors.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria he will apply in determining whether or not a military confrontation is appropriate for crisis management by an EU rapid reaction corps. [139952]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no EU rapid reaction corps. Large-scale military confrontation in Europe, particularly when territorial defence of a NATO country may be involved, is, and will remain, a matter for NATO. NATO will also continue to be available to respond to other crisis management needs as its members decide.

  The EU' s commitment is to develop the ability, where NATO is not engaged, to deploy military forces across the full range of Petersberg tasks. These include humanitarian and rescue tasks; peacekeeping tasks; and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace making.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on UK security of duplicating military structures in Europe. [139959]

  Mr. Hoon
  There will be no duplication in military structures in Europe. The small military staff being established within the EU will be offset by the winding down of the equivalent staff in the Western European Union.
  427W
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assurances he has received of increased defence expenditure from his counterparts in(a) France, (b) Germany and (c) Italy in relation to an EU rapid reaction corps. [139960]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK does not comment on the spending plans of other nations. We do, however, seek to encourage nations to spend their defence budgets as effectively and efficiently as possible and to target spending on improving military capabilities.

  Crisis Management Operations
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria he will apply in distinguishing between military crisis management operations and war fighting. [139949]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK is able to contribute forces to crisis management operations designed to prevent, contain and resolve conflict, in support of international order and humanitarian principles. The most demanding case is peace enforcement and armed forces deployed for this task must be able to exercise their authority and ensure compliance by the use of force if necessary. But this would fall short of "warfighting", which is normally taken to mean high intensity conventional warfare.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent studies his Department has made of the relationship between war fighting and failed attempts to manage crises. [139954]

  Mr. Hoon
  There have been no specific recent studies into the relationship between war fighting and failed attempts to manage crises. However, the Ministry of Defence conducts a review of operational lessons from every operation in which the armed forces are involved. In addition, historical and operational analysis are used to support MOD planning.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate his Department has made of the effect on deterring conflicts of the absence of US automatic involvement in crisis management by the EU. [139956]

  Mr. Hoon
  No state is automatically involved in crisis management, either in NATO or in the EU. Where Europeans and North Americans wish to act together in a military response to a crisis, NATO will remain the most likely framework. Where NATO as a whole is not engaged, the EU might launch an operation. In such a case the EU would expect to have recourse to NATO assets and capabilities, if necessary, as proposed by NATO at its Washington Summit in April 1999.

  The availability of a full range of possible responses from the EU and NATO acting in cooperation, as envisaged under the current proposals, should improve our ability both to deter and resolve crises.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what circumstances he considers that the NATO structure would be unsuitable for crisis management. [139955]

  Mr. Hoon
  NATO has the capacity to conduct a wide range of crisis management operations and would be the natural choice of organisation where Europeans and North 428W
  Americans wished to act together. The decision whether or not to use NATO structures for a particular operation would be taken by NATO members in the light of circumstances.

  Fleet Air Arm Sea Harrier
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Fleet Air Arm Sea Harriers are potentially fully operational; and how many Fleet Air Arm Sea Harrier pilots are combat ready. [140126]

  Mr. Spellar
  The requirement for Sea Harrier operational aircraft is 24 aircraft. As of 20 November 2000, all 24 aircraft were available at the required readiness including 14 in front-line squadrons as planned. On the same date, there were 18 combat ready Fleet Air Arm Harrier pilots in front-line squadrons as planned. A further 13 pilots were at planned lower states of readiness.

  Fleet Air Arm Pilots
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries under consideration for a possible training role for Fleet Air Arm pilots operating from full-size aircraft carriers in future. [140130]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no countries under consideration for training of Fleet Air Arm pilots to operate from full size aircraft carriers.

  Cluster Munitions
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the failure rate was of BL755 cluster munitions deployed in the Falklands conflict. [139764]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: British forces dropped a total of 107 BL755 cluster bombs during the course of the Falklands conflict. A further four failed to release. The Department does not hold records of the rate of failure of individual bomblets.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of cluster bombs against modern main battle tanks. [139766]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: While the cluster bombs currently in service with the RAF have limited effectiveness against modern main battle tanks, they do remain effective against lighter armoured vehicles, soft skinned vehicles, artillery and mortar positions, surface to air missile sites and area targets such as fuel or logistics storage depots. We are taking steps to enhance our air launched anti-tank capability with the introduction of Maverick precision guided missiles in early 2001 and Brimstone in 2002.

  Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the UK Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment programme; and if he will make a statement. [140018]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: The Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme (TRRAP) is examining the characteristics of ballistic missiles, the performance of radars and other sensors, the guidance of interceptors and their potential for defeating

  429W
  ballistic missile warheads. Good progress is being made and the study is now expected to complete in the autumn of 2001.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with what weapons the UK version of the Joint Strike Fighter will be armed; and if he will make a statement. [140015]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: The UK is participating in the Concept Demonstration Phase of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme which has recently seen the successful first flights of demonstrator aircraft from both competing prime contractors. While JSF remains a strong contender to meet our requirement for a Future Carrier Borne Aircraft, no decision has yet been taken on its procurement. The Government are now considering whether to continue as a full collaborative partner in the next phase of the programme, Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD). The aircraft will allow for the internal and external carriage of a range of air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons, including those meeting UK-specific requirements. Further progress in this area will depend upon our continued participation in the programme.

  Defence Attachés
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the overall(a) salary and (b) associated costs were of defence attachés in the latest year for which figures are available. [140453]

  Mr. Spellar
  The overall salary cost of officers deployed as attachés in 1999–2000 was £10.2 million and the associated cost was £13.7 million.

  Training (Foreign Armed Forces)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a breakdown of the(a) income and (b) expenditure derived from UK training of personnel from foreign armed forces in each of the last three years. [140461]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 14 November 2000,Official Report, column 576W, to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd). The amount of receipts recovered for the provision of education and training in general for the last three years are as set out.

  Year

  Million

  1997–98

  62

  1998–99

  51

  1999–2000

  58

  MOD Police (RAF Innsworth)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he had with(a) staff at RAF Innsworth and (b) Gloucestershire constabulary, before deciding to reduce the number of his Department's police at RAF Innsworth; and if he will make a statement. [140025]
  430W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: The proposal to reduce the Ministry of Defence Police complement at RAF Innsworth was discussed with the Gloucestershire Constabulary as part of my Department's assessment of the policing needs at that location. There have been no direct discussions with the staff of RAF Innsworth but the Defence Police Federation has been fully involved in the consultation process.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people worked for the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in each of the last three years. [139008]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) was launched in November 1997. The numbers of staff in post, at the end of each financial year since then, are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1997–98

  86

  1998–99

  133

  1999–2000

  147

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in each parliamentary constituency are eligible for the Minimum Income Guarantee; and if he will make a statement. [139103]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 20 November 2000,Official Report, column 69W, concerning the Minimum Income Guarantee, when he expects to announce his conclusions. [140003]

  Mr. Rooker
  Administration issues will be considered as part of our detailed programme to take forward the Pension Credit. Any announcements will be made in the normal manner.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent by his Department on promoting applications for the Minimum Income Guarantee. [139990]

  Mr. Rooker
  The TV campaign to encourage pensioners to claim the Minimum Income Guarantee and to promote the new Minimum Income Guarantee teleclaims centre will cost around £4 million.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his estimate is of the number of pensioners who are eligible to apply for the Minimum Income Guarantee. [139976]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on 13 November 2000,Official Report, column 519W.
  431W
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the latest available figures on(a) the number of applications for Minimum Income Guarantee, (b) the number of applications rejected, (c) the number of applications accepted and (d) the average amount awarded in applications accepted. [139984]

  Mr. Rooker
  The effect of the Minimum Income Guarantee take up campaign will not be known until it comes to a conclusion. We will provide further details of the campaign in due course.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if pensioners were involved in designing the claim form for the Minimum Income Guarantee. [140421]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Minimum Income Guarantee claim form, SP1, has evolved from a series of postal claim forms introduced in the early 1980s. Pensioners have expressed their views on this form to Ministers on several occasions during the eleven "Listening to Older People" events last year and this has prompted us to look at the design again. We will ensure that pensioners will be fully involved in the design of future forms.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the annual cost of administration of applications for Minimum Income Guarantee. [139991]

  Mr. Rooker
  The total estimated expenditure on administration costs for the Minimum Income Guarantee for 2000–01 is around £250 million. An estimated 2 million pensioners are gaining on average £40.17 per week.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 572W, on the relationship between pensioners' incomes and the Minimum Income Guarantee, if he will update the table assuming a MIG level of £90 for single pensioners and £135 for married couples and to include pensioners with savings between £20,000 and £25,000. [137608]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 9 November 2000]: The information is in the table. On the basis that next year pensioners with savings of up to £12,000 will be eligible for the Minimum Income Guarantee, and cases with up to £30 above the Minimum Income Guarantee were nearly all negligible, I have confined the answer to pensioners with less than £12,000 savings for ease of comparison.

  The distribution of pensioners' incomes below and above the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG), 2001–02 rates

  Thousand

  Savings (£)

  Income for MIG calculation

  0

  0–3,000

  3,000–8,000

  8,000–12,000

  Below MIG

  900

  550

  200

  50

  £0£10

  150

  150

  50

  —

  £10£20

  100

  100

  50

  —

  £20£30

  100

  100

  50

  —

  £30 and above

  550

  850

  650

  350

  Total

  1,850

  1,800

  1,050

  450

  Notes

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 50,000 cases. No figure is shown where the underlying case load is less than 25,000. Totals may not tally due to rounding.

  432W

  2. The proposed MIG rates for 2001–02 of £92.15 for single pensioners and £140.55 for couples, detailed in the pre-Budget Report have been used. The figures have been calculated using the Policy Simulation Model for Income Related Benefits. This models the benefits system in 2001–02 and is based on data from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) for 1997–98, uprated to 2000–01 prices.

  3. Figures exclude Residential Care or Nursing Home cases.

  4. These figures are not calibrated to administrative records of capital levels and as with all survey data may be subject to survey errors.

  5. Figures exclude Entitled Non Recipients.

  6. Income is defined according to the amount used for the calculation of a benefit award and therefore may differ from actual pensioner income.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps the Government are taking to ensure an increase in the take up of pensioner benefits. [140523]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are examining a numbers of measures, which will reduce the complexity of the current system and encourage pensioners to claim their correct entitlement. As a first step we have launched an intensive national campaign to increase take-up of the minimum income guarantee.

  The campaign started on 30 May and includes: data matched screening to identify those pensioners most likely to be entitled and using this information writing to over two million pensioners to encourage a claim; a national high profile TV advertising campaign headed by Dame Thora Hird and, as a focal point for the programme, a national minimum income guarantee Teleclaims centre allowing pensioners to make a claim without leaving their home.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide the evidence to support the statement on page 11 of the pension credit consultation paper (Cm 4900) that early results from the Minimum Income Guarantee take-up campaign suggest there will be 100,000 successful new claims. [139119]

  Mr. Rooker
  The effect of the Minimum Income Guarantee take up campaign will not be known until it comes to a conclusion. We will provide further details of the campaign in due course.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners have applied(a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully for the Minimum Income G0uarantee, expressed as a percentage of (i) the total numbers and (ii) each benefit area.[137771]

  Mr. Rooker
  The effect of the Minimum Income Guarantee take up campaign will not be known until it comes to a conclusion. We will provide further details of the campaign in due course.

  State Pension
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women are aged 60 and over; and what percentage of them are in receipt of the full basic State Pension of £67.50 per week. [139841]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are 6,739,000 women aged 60 and over, 49 per cent. of which receive a full category A State Pension.

  Notes:

  1. Figures for the percentage receiving State pension are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  433W

  2. Percentages are calculated using the ONS mid-term 1999 population estimates for the relevant gender and age band.

  3. Figures for population are rounded to the nearest thousand and those for Retirement Pension are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the effective marginal rate of deduction from the 2001–02 increase in the basic State Pension for those recipients who receive(a) Housing Benefit, (b) Council Tax Benefit and (c) (a) and (b) together. [139845]

  Mr. Rooker
  Pensioners in receipt of income-related benefits will gain fully from the increase in the basic State Pension, as these benefits will be increased by the same amount as the minimum income guarantee.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent discussions his Department has held with pensioner organisations concerning the level of the State Pension; and if he will place a record of the proceedings of such meetings in the Library. [139985]

  Mr. Rooker
  Throughout this Parliament we have held discussions with pensioner organisations. Discussions cover the range of issues of interest to pensioners. We do not publish details of private meetings.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on 21 November 2000,Official Report, column 145W, on the state pension, on what levels of basic State Pension for a single person over each of the next four years he based the expenditure projections. [140377]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Assumed rates of the basic State Pension for a single person for the next four years

  Year

  Rate of BSP (£)

  2000–01

  67.50

  2001–02

  72.50

  2002–03

  75.50

  2003–04

  77.55

  Notes:

  1. Rates relate to a full Category A basic state pension.

  2. Rate in 2003–04 is based on Treasury assumptions about the level of the Retail Price Index.

  Thousand

  Population figures

  Men aged 65 and over

  Women aged 60 and over

  Men with full basic pension in their own right1

  Percentage of the male retired population

  Women with full basic pension in their own right1

  Percentage of the female retired population

  March

  1992

  3,584.1

  6,795.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  3,608.7

  6,782.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  3,626.8

  6,757.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  3,656.3

  6,748.2

  3,141.6

  86

  1,713.3

  25

  1996

  3,683.5

  6,736.0

  3,202.2

  87

  1,742.8

  26

  1997

  3,710.2

  6,728.3

  3,265.6

  88

  1,775.7

  26

  1998

  3,735.8

  6,737.6

  3,324.6

  89

  1,819.2

  27

  1999

  3,757.0

  6,739.0

  3,368.1

  90

  1,842.2

  27

  2000

  3,757.0

  6,739.0

  3,420.0

  91

  1,882.6

  28

  1Figures include Category A and AB

  434W
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will uprate the State Pension of expatriate residents of Canada who have contributed for more than 40 post-war years. [140000]

  Mr. Rooker
  Our priority is to focus the resources available on pensioners in the UK, especially those who are in greatest need. There are no plans to unfreeze the pensions in countries where upratings are not payable.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he proposes to have before announcing the State Pension level for future years. [139987]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department receives a number of representations on benefit levels, including the level of State Pension, on a regular basis.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons expenditure on the basic pension in his reply to the hon. Member for Truro and St Austell (Mr. Taylor) on 21 November 2000,Official Report, column 145W, differs from the estimates in Table A6.1 of the Government Actuary's report (Cm 5920). [140557]

  Mr. Rooker
  The principal differences are that the estimates given in my written answer on 21 November to the hon. Member for Truro and St Austell (Mr. Taylor) include forecasts of graduated Retirement Pension whereas the estimates in the Government Actuary's report exclude graduated Retirement Pension.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the net change in the value of the National Insurance Fund for the year 2001–02 would be resulting from an increase in the basic pension of £2 per week for a single pensioner and £3.20 for a couple and an increase in employers' contributions of 0.3 per cent. of earnings. [140472]

  Mr. Rooker
  None.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate for each year since 1992 the proportion of retired men and women who(a) possess an entitlement to a full basic State Pension in their own right, (b) possess an entitlement to a reduced basic State Pension in their own right, (c) are dependent on their partner for entitlement and (d) have no entitlement. [140539]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the tables.
  435W

  Men with reduced basic pension in their own right1

  Percentage of the male retired population

  Women with reduced basic person in their own right1

  Percentage of the female retired population

  March

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  191.8

  5

  732.7

  11

  1996

  210.5

  6

  760.0

  11

  1997

  232.3

  6

  792.8

  12

  1998

  255.8

  7

  832.8

  12

  1999

  281.9

  8

  881.5

  13

  2000

  299.3

  8

  922.3

  14

  1Figures include Category A, AB, C and D

  Men dependent on their partner for entitlement 1

  Percentage of the male retired population

  Women dependent on their partner for entitlement 1

  Percentage of the female retired population

  March

  1992

  0.4

  0

  3,836.5

  56

  1993

  0.5

  0

  3,804.1

  56

  1994

  0.6

  0

  3.454.6

  51

  1995

  0.4

  0

  3,711.8

  55

  1996

  0.4

  0

  3,617.3

  54

  1997

  0.4

  0

  3,590.8

  53

  1998

  0.4

  0

  3,562.5

  53

  1999

  0.4

  0

  3,519.6

  52

  2000

  0.6

  0

  3,465.4

  51

  1 Figures include Category B, ABL and BL

  Men with no entitlement to basic pension

  Percentage of the male retired population

  Women with no entitlement to basic pension

  Percentage of the female retired population

  March

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  322.9

  9

  590.4

  9

  1996

  270.8

  7

  616.0

  9

  1997

  212.3

  6

  569.1

  8

  1998

  155.4

  4

  523.1

  8

  1999

  107.1

  3

  495.7

  7

  2000

  37.7

  1

  468.7

  7

  Note:

  Figures are in thousands and are rounded to the nearest hundred

  Source:

  Population figures are from the Office for National Statistics mid-term estimates for Great Britain.

  Retirement Pension figures are a 5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System for Great Britain at 31 March for each year quoted.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he is reviewing the measures of inflation used for uprating the basic pension and other benefits. [139121]

  Mr. Rooker
  A wide range of factors are taken into account, including the Retail Prices and Rossi Indices when considering the annual uprating of benefits.

  Pensioner Support
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total expenditure on pensioner support in each year since 1996–97, with an estimate for 436W
  2000–01 and 2001–02 on the basis of proposals in the pre-Budget report, with a breakdown in (a) cash and (b) annual percentage share terms for (i) universal contribution based, (ii) universal but not based on contribution eligibility, (iii) income-related contribution and (iv) income-related but not based on contribution eligibility benefits. [140536]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  £ million

  Percentage

  All benefits for the elderly

  1996–97

  40,808

  100.0

  1997–98

  42,577

  100.0

  1998–99

  44,502

  100.0

  1999–2000

  47,774

  100.0

  2000–01

  50,428

  100.0

  2001–02

  54,171

  100.0

  Contributory benefits

  1996–97

  32,106

  78.7

  1997–98

  33,664

  79.1

  1998–99

  35,684

  80.2

  1999–2000

  37,832

  79.2

  2000–01

  38,851

  77.0

  2001–02

  42,074

  77.7

  Non-contributory benefits

  1996–97

  45

  0.1

  1997–98

  236

  0.6

  1998–99

  239

  0.5

  1999–2000

  946

  2.0

  2000–01

  2,091

  4.2

  2001–02

  1,679

  3.1

  Income-related contributory benefits

  1996–97

  None

  —

  1997–98

  None

  —

  1998–99

  None

  —

  1999–2000

  None

  —

  2000–01

  None

  —

  2001–02

  None

  —

  Income related non-contributory benefits

  1996–97

  8,657

  21.2

  1997–98

  8,678

  20.4

  1998–99

  8,579

  19.3

  1999–2000

  8,996

  18.8

  2000–01

  9,486

  18.8

  2001–02

  10,417

  19.2

  Notes:

  1. Totals may appear not to sum due to rounding.

  2. Information is consistent with pre-Budget Report Cm4917 and with Table 3 of the Social Security Departmental Report 2000, Cm 4614.

  3. The benefits included in each category above are:

  Contributory benefits: Retirement Pension (basic and earnings related) and Christmas Bonus for elderly recipients of contributory benefits.

  Non-Contributory Benefits: Non-contributory Retirement Pension, Winter Fuel Payments, Concessionary TV licences and Christmas Bonus for recipients of qualifying non-contributory benefits.

  Income-related contributory benefits: None

  Income-related non-contributory benefits: Income Support/ Minimum Income Guarantee, Social Fund, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report a table

  437W
  corresponding to the table on page 30 of the consultation paper on the pension credit, showing the guaranteed (a) income top-up, (b) savings credit and (c) post-credit income for a person whose original income includes a basic pension at half the full rate.[140558]

  Mr. Rooker
  Under our proposals for the Pension Credit, single pensioners with incomes of between £77 and £135 a week will be rewarded. Income from a combination of different sources, including varying rates of the basic State Pension, will be aggregated when assessing entitlement to the Pension Credit.

  Free Television Licence
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the (i) cost and (ii) number of beneficiaries of extending the free television licence scheme to all households without a resident aged 75 years or over but with a resident in receipt of(a) invalid care allowance, (b) the higher rate care component of disability living allowance, (c) the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance, (d) the higher rate care and/or the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance, (e) invalid care allowance and/or the higher rate care component of disability living allowance and (f) invalid care allowance and/or the higher rate care and/or higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance. [140290]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Cost(£ million)

  Beneficiaries

  Invalid Care Allowance (ICA)

  30

  350,000

  Higher Rate Care (HRC) component

  40

  400,000

  Higher Rate Mobility (HRM) component

  130

  1,250,000

  Higher Rate Care and/or Higher Rate Mobility

  140

  1.400,000

  ICA and or Higher Rate Care

  70

  650,000

  ICA and/or HRC and/or HRM

  160

  1,600,000

  Notes:

  1. Based on Disability Living Allowance administrative data May 2000 and Family Resources Survey data.

  2. Cost rounded to the nearest 10 million, gainers to the nearest 50,000.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the (i) cost and (ii) number of beneficiaries of extending the winter fuel payment scheme to all households without a resident aged 60 years or over but with a resident in receipt of(a) the higher rate care component of disability living allowance, (b) the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance,(c) the higher rate care and the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance, (d) the higher or medium rate of disability living allowance care component and (e) any form of disability living allowance. [140289]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is as follows.

  The estimates cost, and number of households to benefit if the winter fuel payment scheme was extended to all households without a resident aged 60 years or over but with a resident in receipt of the following benefits:
  438W

  Cost (£ million)

  Households benefiting

  Higher Rate Care component

  50

  250,000

  Higher Rate Mobility component

  130

  650,000

  Higher Rate Care and Mobility component

  30

  150,000

  Higher Rate or Middle Rate Care component

  130

  650,000

  Any Disability Living Allowance (DLA)

  240

  1,200,000

  Notes:

  1. Based on DLA administrative data, May 2000 and Family Resources Survey data.

  2. Cost rounded to the nearest ten million, gainers to the nearest fifty thousand.

  3. Winter Fuel Payment is considered to be paid at £200 for gaining households.

  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in each parliamentary constituency are entitled to receive the winter fuel payment this year; and what the total amount paid out in each constituency will be. [139101]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information based on payments made so far this winter has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the (i) cost and (ii) number of beneficiaries of extending the Winter Fuel Payment scheme to all households without a resident aged 60 years or over but with a resident in receipt of Invalid Care Allowance and(a) the higher rate care component of Disability Living Allowance, (b) the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance, (c) the higher rate care and/or the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance, (d) the higher or medium rate of Disability Living Allowance care component and (e) any form of Disability Living Allowance. [140291]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is as follows.

  Estimated cost, and numbers of households to benefit if the Winter Fuel Payment (WFP) scheme was extended to all households without a resident aged 60 or over, but with a resident in receipt of Invalid Care Allowance and a resident in receipt of one of the following benefits:

  Cost £ million

  Households benefiting

  Higher Rate Care component

  20

  100,000

  Higher Rate Mobility component

  20

  100,000

  Higher Rate Care and/or Mobility component

  20

  100,000

  Higher Rate Care or Middle Rate Care component

  30

  150,000

  Any Disability Living Allowance (DLA)

  30

  150,000

  Notes:

  1. Based on DLA administrative data May 2000 and Family Resources Survey data.

  2. Cost rounded to the nearest 10 million, gainers to the nearest 50,000.

  3. WFP is considered to be paid at £200 for gaining households.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will uprate Mobility Allowance to match recent increases in the cost of petrol. [140288]

  Mr. Bayley
  The mobility component of Disability Living Allowance, which replaced mobility allowance in 1992, is uprated annually by the rate of inflation as measured by the movement in the retail prices index. The
  439W
  basket of goods used to calculate the retail prices index includes the cost of petrol, as well as the cost of taxi fares and other motoring costs. More generally, Disability Living Allowance is intended to act as a contribution to the extra costs associated with disability; it is not intended to underwrite specific costs, and it is up to the individual to decide how to use the money.

  Occupational Pension Income
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the size of the average occupational pension income for each income decile of retired people(a) in total and (b) for men and women separately. [140538]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is not readily available in decile bands.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many, and what percentage of properties, which are subject to Council Tax Benefit restrictions, are(a) owner-occupied and (b) rented in (i) London and (ii) England. [138633]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Council Tax Benefit recipients subject to council tax band restrictions split by owner occupied and rented—May 1999

  Owner occupied

  Rented

  Total restricted

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  England

  18,000

  13,000

  74

  5,000

  26

  London

  7,000

  4,000

  61

  3,000

  39

  Notes:

  I. The data refer to households, which may be a single person, a couple or a family.

  2. The numbers of cases have been rounded to the nearest thousand and the percentage rounded to the nearest whole number.

  3. The data relating to Owner Occupiers will include cases where the Local Authorities have been unable to identify the correct tenancy as it has not been reported, Council Tax Benefit is in payment and there is no Housing Benefit entitlement shown.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, Annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 1999.

  POWs (Compensation)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when compensation payments will be paid out to those eligible under the scheme for former POWs and their spouses held by the Japanese. [138577]

  Mr. Bayley
  We intend to make these ex-gratia payments as quickly as possible but we do not expect to have everything in place before February. There are good reasons for this. First, the regulations needed to ensure that the ex-gratia payments are disregarded in relation to entitlement to income-related benefits cannot be in place until 1 February, and we want to be absolutely sure that there is no risk of anyone being disadvantaged in the few weeks prior to that date. Second, we need time to set up the payment systems.

  Departmental Employees (HIV)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to ensure that people who are HIV-positive do not suffer discrimination as a result of employment practices followed by his Department. [137794]

  Mr. Rooker
  This Department is committed to employing a diverse work force and values the contribution of all employees irrespective of their background or personal circumstances. The Department does not discriminate on the ground of HIV positivity and this is reflected in current employment policies.

  Pensioner Income
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much in total pensioners' income will have risen between May 1997 and April 2001 as a result of Government measures; and what this figure would have been if basic pensions had been linked to the rise in average earnings over the same period. [140240]

  Mr. Rooker
  The average pensioner household will have seen their net income rise by £9.10 a week over and above inflation by April 2001 thanks to the measures introduced since 1997 (Minimum Income Guarantee, Winter Fuel payments and the real rise in the Basic State Pension). If we include the effects of tax changes over the same period the average pensioner household will have seen their net income rise £10.90 per week.

  By way of comparison the average pensioner household would have seen their net income rise by only £3.10 above inflation if pensions had been linked to earnings since 1997, and £4.90 if the effects of tax changes were included. In addition many pensioner households also gain £2 a week from free TV Licences for the over 75s.

  Children (Workless Households)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of children(a) live in workless households and (b) lived in workless households in each of the last five years. [140213]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Proportion of children living in workless households (UK)

  Year

  Percentage

  1995

  19.4

  1996

  19.4

  1997

  17.9

  1998

  17.9

  1999

  17.3

  2000

  15.8

  Note:

  The figures show the percentage of children aged under 16 living in a working-age household where no adult works.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, Spring Quarters.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources he proposes
  441W
  to make available to (a) the police and (b) child protection agencies to combat and investigate child abuse; and if he will make a statement. [138763]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Vigorous action against child abuse is very important. However, it is for individual chief police officers to determine how best to allocate their resources in the light of their respective priorities. Although we have not made resources available to forces specifically to combat and investigate child abuse, the recent spending review has resulted in a significant boost in spending on the police generally. By 2003–04 total provision for the police will have risen by almost £1.6 billion against provision for this year.

  We have not yet allocated any additional resources to child protection agencies but are currently considering representations from one agency on this matter.

  Drugs Related Crime
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of property crime in the United Kingdom has been committed by(a) heroin users, (b) tranquilliser users and (c) cannabis users in each of the last 10 years. [140378]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Figures are not collected centrally on the extent to which property crime in the United Kingdom is committed by different types of drug user. However, the Home Office's programme of interviewing and drug testing arrestees provides some insight into this issue. The latest findings report on research undertaken at four sites (in London, Liverpool, Nottingham and Sunderland).

  Over two-thirds of arrestees (69 per cent.) tested positively for at least one drug (excluding alcohol). Arrestees were asked if they had committed any property crimes over the last 12 months. Half of all arrestees admitted to at least one such crime. However, the likelihood of committing property crime rose for those arrestees who stated they were using cocaine/crack (53 per cent.); heroin (61 per cent.); or heroin together with cocaine/crack (87 per cent.).

  The links between drug use and crime are outlined in the report from which these figures are drawn (Home Office Research Study 205, Drugs and Crime: The results of the second developmental stage of the NEW-ADAM programme). Copies of this publication are available from the Library.

  Police Cadet Training (Hendon)
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cadet police officers commenced basic training at Hendon in 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999; and what number are planned to do so in 2000. [139907]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the number of officers who commenced basic training at Hendon in the years requested was as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1996

  1,065

  1997

  1,012

  442W

  Year

  Number

  1998

  1,046

  1999

  1,131

  Since January 2000, 835 recruits have commenced training at Hendon and a further 150 are expected to commence in December. Should these estimated figures be achieved the total for the year will be 985.

  The Metropolitan Police Cadet Scheme ceased in June 1993.

  Sexual Assaults (Minicabs)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reported sexual assaults occurred in minicabs in(a) London and (b) the rest of England in each of the last five years. [139994]

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

  Charities and Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many charities and voluntary organisations there are in England and Wales; and how many people are(a) employed by and (b) contribute financially to these bodies. [139492]

  Mr. Boateng
  Over 185,000 charities in England and Wales are registered with the Charity Commission. It is estimated that there are between 80,000 and 100,000 other charities which are excepted or exempt from registration, such as churches, schools and museums. There is no reliable information on the number of voluntary and community organisations which are not registered charities—estimates vary up to 500,000.

  The other information requested is not recorded centrally.

  Rikki Reel
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost to date is of the inquiry by Bedfordshire police into the Metropolitan Police Service's investigation of the death of Rikki Reel; when the inquiry will be completed; and if the report will be made available to the Reel family. [139759]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Bedfordshire police are conducting their inquiry on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service, under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority. The rechargeable cost of the Bedfordshire police inquiry up to the end of October is £12,500; salary costs are not rechargeable. Bedfordshire police expect that their inquiry will be concluded by the end of the calendar year. The decision to disclose the inquiry's findings will rest with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Criminal Record Checks
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the (1) annual cost of administering the Criminal Record Bureau checks for volunteers; [139687]
  443W
  (2) annual cost of providing criminal record checks for volunteers; [139685]

  (3) annual income derived from charging voluntary organisations for criminal record checks. [139686]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Work is continuing to estimate both the likely volume of demand for checks from the voluntary sector and from other sectors wishing to make use of the services to be offered by the Criminal Records Bureau, and the costs of the Bureau and of others, such as the police, who will contribute to providing these services. These factors will need to be taken into account in setting the fees to be charged by the Bureau. The fees will be kept to the minimum necessary to recoup costs.

  Licensing Hours
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures the Government are taking to ensure the maintenance of law and order in areas in which there are extended licensing hours. [139650]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is generally a requirement in law, and is in any case the normal court practice, to consider any objections made by the police with regard to the prevention of crime and disorder before licensing justices and magistrates courts grant permission for any licensed premises or registered members' clubs to open beyond normal permitted hours.

  Reducing alcohol-related crime and disorder is a key consideration in the proposals for modernising the licensing laws in England and Wales set out in the White Paper "Time for Reform" (Cm 4696). In addition, we set out a major programme to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder in the Home Office action plan on alcohol-related crime, launched on 3 August. The plan promotes action against underage drinking, public drunkenness and alcohol-related violence, to address the crime and other anti-social behaviour that is often associated with alcohol abuse.

  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the review of licensing hours for 31 December. [139452]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A consultation paper setting out our proposal to amend the Licensing Act 1964 to allow on-licensed premises and registered members' clubs to sell alcohol throughout the night on each New Year's Eve was published on 9 November 1998. It also sought views on a more modest proposal to relax the hours by extending them by five hours. The consultation ended on 12 February 1999. There were 313 responses to the consultation paper:75 supported all night relaxation every New Year's Eve (mainly licensed trade and local authorities);
  115 supported all-night relaxation for Millennium Eve but did not offer a view on subsequent New Year's Eves (mainly members of the Campaign for Real Ale);
  21 supported a five-hour relaxation for every New Year's Eve (mainly local authorities);
  Seven supported longer hours but expressed no preference over how long;
  33 supported longer hours, but only for Millennium Eve (mainly police, courts and local authorities);
  49 opposed both options (mainly residents' associations and local authorities);
  Eight opposed both options for Millennium Eve but did not offer a view on subsequent New Year's Eves; and
  Five expressed no clear view.
  444W
  After considering a report of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee on these proposals, the Government decided to restrict the relaxation of hours under the Deregulation (Millennium Licensing) Order 1999 to the Eve of the Millennium only, with a view to bringing forward a further deregulation proposal in respect of future New Year's Eve, if the Order proved successful. It was subsequently not possible to bring forward a further proposal in respect of New Year's Eve this year for the reasons I set out in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) on 26 October 2000, Official Report, columns 204–05W.

  Since Millennium Eve, I have received regular representations from the hospitality and leisure industry supporting the relaxation of licensing hours generally and on New Year's Eves; and from the Association of Chief Police Officers who consider that the Millennium celebrations were unique and atypical, and that a further test of relaxed hours is required at a normal New Year's Eve before decisions are made concerning others in the future.

  Alcohol (Minors)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the use of test purchases of alcohol by minors to enable detection and enforcement of licensing laws. [140001]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Because of doubts about the lawfulness of the test purchasing of alcohol by children it has not been widely used. A recent study carried out under the auspices of the Alcohol Education and Research Council showed that children had little difficulty in buying alcohol. A summary of the report of the study was published with the Council's annual report for 1999–2000, a copy of which is in the Library. The researchers concluded from their study that test purchasing would enable more effective enforcement of the minimum age laws. It is the Government's policy, as set out in our White Paper "Time for Reform", to amend licensing law to provide a clear statutory basis for test purchasing.

  Stasi (British Agents)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if it is his policy to pass files on British Stasi agents to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision to be taken on whether to prosecute them; [136320]

  (2) when the Security Service made a full examination of the Berlin Stasi archive in relation to British Stasi agents; [136251]

  (3) when the Government first obtained evidence of the existence of reports to the Stasi from a source in Chatham House; [136247]

  (4) what criteria the Government uses in deciding whether (a) to pass files to the Crown Prosecution Service for possible prosecution and (b) to reveal publicly the names of past secret agents of hostile intelligence agencies in peace-time. [136249]

  Mr. Straw
  It has been long-standing Government policy not to comment on the work of the Security Service. I can add nothing to the written answers that I gave the hon.
  445W
  Member about the East German Stasi on 2 November 2000, Official Report, column 610W; 9 November 2000, Official Report, column 398W; and 20 November 2000, Official Report, columns 80–81W.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the number of asylum seekers dispersed from the Dover/Deal/Thanet areas in each month since April 2000.[140103]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the numbers of asylum seekers granted(a) extended leave to remain and (b) first stage decisions to uphold appeals and grant permanent residency (i) between April 1999 to April 2000 and (ii) since 1 April 2000. [140104]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information is given in the table.

  The figures for appeals allowed by adjudicators do not necessarily equate to the numbers granted settlement as there are further rights of appeal which may overturn the adjudicator's determination.

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum1,2

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain1,2

  Appeals allowed by adjudicators3

  19994

  April

  1,490

  530

  1,440

  May

  3,235

  275

  June

  1,755

  100

  July

  255

  95

  1,495

  August

  170

  125

  September

  200

  145

  October

  215

  250

  655

  November

  180

  270

  December

  125

  95

  20004

  January

  180

  170

  245

  February

  225

  680

  210

  March

  590

  1,225

  150

  April

  2,090

  1,845

  150

  May

  2,015

  1,930

  160

  June

  1,135

  1,455

  235

  July

  710

  980

  170

  August

  575

  925

  220

  September

  375

  495

  340

  October

  645

  285

  435

  1Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period and exclude the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  2 Based on decisions implemented for in-country cases and on decisions made for port cases until September 2000. Based on decisions made from October 2000 onwards.

  3Based on data from the Refugee Index (April to September 1999) and the Presenting Officers Unit (October 1999 to October 2000). Figures for 1999 are the best available published figures due to poor data quality.

  4Provisional figures.

  Note:

  Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish for each of the last 446W
  12 months for which figures are available (a) the number of principal asylum seekers entering the United Kingdom and (b) his estimate of the numbers of individual asylum seekers that this figure represents. [140102]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Total applications received1

  Total applications received including dependants2

  19993

  November

  6,420

  8,230

  December

  7,180

  9,205

  20003

  January

  6,110

  7,835

  February

  6,110

  7,835

  March

  6,680

  8,565

  April

  5,890

  7,550

  May

  6,185

  7,930

  June

  5,900

  7,565

  July

  6,255

  8,020

  August

  6,430

  8,245

  September

  6,435

  8,250

  October

  6,970

  8,935

  1Includes principal applicants who apply at port and in-country

  2Estimated figures

  3Provisional figures

  4Figures rounded to the nearest 5

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the(a) start date and (b) timescale is for the proposed review of the voucher scheme for asylum seekers; [140354]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the changes to be implemented in the review of the voucher scheme for asylum seekers. [140353]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer the Home Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 26 October 2000,Official Report, column 210W. Work on the review of the operation of the voucher scheme began in October. We are consulting stakeholders and others and we aim to complete the review early next year.

  Prison Health Policy Unit
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisons have drawn up health improvement programmes since the setting up of the Prison Health Policy Unit;[139824]

  (2) what progress has been made by the Prison Health Policy Unit on assisting health authorities to identify the health needs of prisoners in their area; and if he will make a statement. [139823]

  Mr. Boateng
  As part of the programme of reform set out in "The Future Organisation of Prison Health Care", each prison and its local health authority is required jointly to review the health needs of the local prison population and to develop joint improvement plans by the end of March 2001. Our assessment is that generally satisfactory progress is being made towards that objective, supported by the Prison Health Task Force and the Prison Health Policy Unit. To date, at least 38 establishments,
  447W
  with their local health authorities, have completed the needs assessment part of the process and are drawing up health improvement plans.

  Search Warrants
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information was served on the justice of the peace who granted the search warrant for the searching of premises occupied by(a) Detective John Redgrave on 3 February 1997 and (b) Michael Charman on 17 July 1998; and if he will make a statement. [140115]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Commissioner that the searching of Mr. Redgrave's premises on 3 February 1997 was as a result of a search warrant granted by a justice of the peace. The information presented to the justice of the peace was sufficient for the search warrant to be granted. It would not be appropriate to disclose the detailed information available to the police which was presented to the magistrate to obtain a warrant.

  The premises of Detective Constable Charman to which my hon. Friend refers were in fact those of his girlfriend and they were searched on 16 July. This search was carried out under the powers in section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

  Operation Nectarine
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken following the judgment given by Judge Harvey Crush at Maidstone Crown court on trials consequent upon Operation Nectarine. [140375]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This is a matter for the Chief Constable of Kent Constabulary and the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, I understand that, due to concerns about the outcome of this case, they have both instigated internal reviews of the conduct of Operation Nectarine which will establish lessons to be learned and implications in respect of future similar prosecutions.

  Stephen Lawrence
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to act on the recommendation 58 of the report by his honour Judge Macpherson into the death of Stephen Lawrence. [140101]

  Mr. Straw
  In March 1999, I published my Action Plan which set out how the Government proposed to take forward the recommendations of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry.

  Recommendation 58 of the report is about steps which can be taken to ensure that serious complaints against police officers are independently investigated.

  Following recommendations for change by the Home Affairs Committee in 1998, we commissioned a feasibility study by KPMG on the establishment of a more independent complaints system. At the same time but separately, Liberty undertook a study into an Independent Police Complaints Commission. The results of both studies were published for consultation in May 2000. We have now considered the responses to consultation and will announce our conclusions shortly.

  Departmental Employees (HIV)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that people who are HIV-positive do not suffer discrimination as a result of employment practices followed by his Department. [137781]

  Mr. Straw
  The published Home Office business plan states that:The Home Office is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all staff, regardless of ethnic origin, religious belief, gender, sexual orientation, disability or any other irrelevant factor.

  In addition, guidance distributed and available to all staff on preventing and tackling harassment and discrimination makes it clear that harassment and discrimination of any kind are unacceptable and that the Department is committed to eliminating these behaviours. The guidance explicitly recognises that real or suspected infection with AIDS/HIV is one of several grounds by which people may be subject to harassment or discrimination, and that such behaviour will be dealt with under the Department's disciplinary code.

  Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) it is unlawful for an employer to treat an employee or applicant with a disability less favourably than others because of that disability. The employer has a duty to make a reasonable adjustment if a disabled applicant or employee is at a substantial disadvantage in relation to others. The duty applies to all aspects of employment, including recruitment and selection, training, transfer, career development and retention.

  The DDA definition of disability covers a broad range of people. Special rules apply to people with progressive conditions which are covered by the DDA from the moment any impairment resulting from that condition has some effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The Act cites HIV infection as an example of a progressive condition.

  Metropolitan Police (Anti-corruption Campaign)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) serving and (b) ex-police officers have been charged in the last year in connection with the Metropolitan police service's anti-corruption campaign. [139999]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Since November 1999, eight serving police officers have been charged with corruption related offences. Over the same period no ex-police officers have been charged with corruption related offences.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, following the Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Thurrock, on 31 October 2000,Official Report, columns 192–201WH, he has assessed the evidence provided of corruption and arms dealing with Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [140109]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that all the allegations arising from Operation Nightshade have been fully considered.

  Open Prisons
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 November 2000,Official Report, column 255W, on open prisons, how many absconders from open prisons have been caught and re-imprisoned since 1997: how many of these were returned to open prisons; what steps he is taking to reduce the number of absconders; and if he will make a statement. [140347]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of absconds from open prisons that have been caught and re-imprisoned are given in the table.

  Year

  Absconders

  Recaptures

  1997

  720

  539

  1998

  607

  561

  1999

  570

  459

  20001

  434

  296

  1 Up to 6 November

  The change in the figures given in my answer of 8 November 2000, Official Report, column 255W, for the numbers of absconds is due to additional information being inputted onto the Incident Reporting System.

  The categorisation system seeks to ensure that prisoners who cannot be trusted not to abscond are not placed in open prisons. If, within an open prison, there are indications that a prisoner is going to abscond or abuse the trust placed in him or her, action can be taken to recategorise the prisoner and he or she may be returned to closed conditions. The Governor of each open prison is set a key performance target by his or her Area Manager, requiring absconds to be reduced below a certain level agreed for that prison.

  Those recaptured may be placed in closed or open prisons. A breakdown of the numbers returned to each can be provided only at disproportionate cost. I invite the hon. Member to write to me if he would like advice on a particular case.

  Registered Charities
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional Government funding has been made available for registered charities known to be in financial difficulty in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [139662]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office does not routinely keep records of the levels of all Government funding to charitable organisations.

  The Home Office funds a range of charitable organisations in different contexts. These include, for example, organisations which support voluntary activity and promote race equality. Decisions on which charities to support and to what level are taken on the basis of how their work contributes to the Department's aims and objectives.

  In accordance with Government expenditure rules relating to payments in support of outside organisations, the Home Office applies set criteria for the consideration of all applications for funding. These will include the organisation being able to provide assurances to the department that it is financially viable and has adequate
  450W
  management and financial controls in place to be able to administer the funding successfully and to achieve the objectives for which the funding has been provided.

  Violent and Sexual Offences
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the(a) total and (b) average sum of money paid out in criminal injuries compensation in each police authority area as a result of sexual and physical abuse cases in the last two years.[139140]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [pursuant to the reply, 22 November 2000, c. 213–20W]: The correct figures are given in the table. There was a typographical error in the previous table provided.

  Cases involving physical and sexual abuse 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  Police

  Number of cases

  Total paid(£)

  Average paid(£)

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  106

  513,675.00

  4,845.99

  Bedfordshire Police

  35

  133,850.00

  3,824.29

  British Transport Police

  14

  20,980.00

  1,498.57

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  65

  235,925.00

  3,629.62

  Central Scotland Police

  24

  97,100.00

  4,045.83

  Cheshire Constabulary

  99

  407,185.00

  4,112.98

  Cleveland Constabulary

  74

  314,675.00

  4,252.36

  Cumbria Constabulary

  34

  94,000.00

  2,764.71

  Derbyshire Constabulary

  85

  329,400.00

  3,875.29

  Devon and cornwall Constabulary

  85

  380,675.00

  4,478.53

  Dorset Police

  44

  156,700.00

  3,561.36

  Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary

  19

  61,000.00

  3,201.53

  Durham Constabulary

  74

  357,100.00

  4,825.68

  Dyfed-Powys Police

  29

  111,250.00

  3,836.21

  Essex Police

  116

  491,634.00

  4,238.22

  Fife Constabulary

  51

  277,425.00

  5,439.71

  Gloucestershire Constabulary

  59

  252,429.00

  4,278.46

  Grampian Police

  42

  168,025.00

  4,000.60

  Greater Manchester Police

  274

  1,106,285.00

  4,037.50

  Gwent Constabulary

  74

  291,300.00

  3,936.49

  Hampshire Constabulary

  178

  862,875.00

  4,847.61

  Hertfordshire Constabulary

  46

  202,425.00

  4,400.54

  Humberside Police

  79

  312,725.00

  3,958.54

  Kent County Constabulary

  159

  826,600.00

  5,198.74

  Lancashire Constabulary

  139

  510,090.00

  3,669.71

  Leicestershire Constabulary

  64

  362,475.00

  5,663.67

  Lincolnshire Police

  54

  246,875.00

  4,571.76

  Lothian and Borders Police

  118

  534,925.00

  4,533.26

  Merseyside Police

  179

  699,325.00

  3,906.84

  Metropolitan Police

  525

  2,555,316.00

  4,867.27

  Norfolk Constabulary

  72

  242,450.00

  3,367.36

  North Wales Police

  108

  431,250.00

  3,993.06

  North Yorkshire Police

  66

  256,125.00

  3,880.68

  Northamptonshire Police

  59

  254,400.00

  4,311.86

  Northern Constabulary

  23

  91,000.00

  3,956.52

  Northumbria Police

  177

  766,332.50

  4,329.56

  Nottinghamshire Constabulary

  126

  571,400.00

  4,534.92

  Port of Liverpool Police

  2

  2,000.00

  1,000.00

  RAF Military Police

  1

  2,000.00

  2,000.00

  South Wales Police

  152

  714,565.00

  4,701.09

  South Yorkshire Police

  128

  552,250.00

  4,314.45

  Staffordshire Police

  68

  282,952.50

  4,161.07

  Strathclyde Police

  214

  804,335.00

  3,758.57

  Suffolk Constabulary

  63

  272,650.00

  4,327.78

  Surrey Constabulary

  46

  213,625.00

  4,644.02

  Sussex Police

  92

  483,618.50

  5,256.72

  Tayside Police

  49

  192,150.00

  3,921.43

  Thames Valley Police

  108

  577,500.00

  5,347.22

  Warwickshire Constabulary

  32

  182,250.00

  5,695.31

  West Mercia Constabulary

  102

  501,925.00

  4,920.83

  West Midlands Police

  180

  848,925.00

  4,716.25

  451W

  Cases involving physical and sexual abuse 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  Police

  Number of cases

  Total paid(£)

  Average paid (£)

  West Yorkshire Police

  251

  1,048,025.00

  4,175.40

  Wiltshire Constabulary

  29

  116.000.00

  4,000.00

  Total

  5,092

  22,321,972.50

  4,383.73

  Cases involving physical and sexual abuse 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  Police

  Number of cases

  Total paid(£)

  Average paid(£)

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  88

  415,900.00

  4,726.14

  Bedfordshire Police

  31

  194,100.00

  6,261.29

  British Transport Police

  14

  36,500.00

  2,607.14

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  62

  216,200.00

  3,487.10

  Central Scotland Police

  21

  90,250.00

  4,297.62

  Cheshire Constabulary

  109

  479,671.50

  4,400.66

  City of London Police

  3

  3,000.00

  1,000.00

  Cleveland Constabulary

  65

  241,358.00

  3,713.20

  Cumbria Constabulary

  40

  183,335.00

  4,583.38

  Derbyshire Constabulary

  113

  414,707.50

  3,669.98

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary

  152

  748,475.00

  4,924.18

  Dorset Police

  56

  289,812.50

  5,175.22

  Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary

  14

  78,500.00

  5,607.14

  Durham Constabulary

  44

  197,125.00

  4,480.11

  Dyfed-Powys Police

  51

  200,325.00

  3,927.94

  Essex Police

  93

  499,814.00

  5,374.34

  Fife Constabulary

  38

  153,000.00

  4,026.32

  Gloucestershire Constabulary

  32

  158,800.00

  4,962.50

  Grampian Police

  35

  218,000.00

  6,228.57

  Greater Manchester Police

  271

  1,172,740.50

  4,327.46

  Gwent Constabulary

  65

  345,275.00

  5,311.92

  Hampshire Constabulary

  171

  935,400.00

  5,470.18

  Hertfordshire Constabulary

  56

  246,600.00

  4,403.57

  Humberside Police

  78

  329,900.00

  4,229.49

  Kent Country Constabulary

  154

  821,580.00

  5,334.94

  Lancashire Constabulary

  162

  711,082.50

  4,389.40

  Leicestershire Constabulary

  48

  247,275.00

  5,151.56

  Lincolnshire Police

  46

  154,125.00

  3,350.54

  Lothian and Borders Police

  102

  472,675.00

  4,634.07

  Manchester Dock Police

  1

  7,500.00

  7,500.00

  Mersey Tunnels Law Enforcement

  2

  4,000.00

  2,000.00

  Merseyside Police

  135

  565,328.40

  4,187.62

  Metropolitan

  446

  2,320,430.00

  5,202.76

  Ministry of Defence Police

  1

  1,000,00

  1,000,00

  Norfolk Constabulary

  63

  275,350.00

  4,370.63

  North Wales police

  75

  318,500.00

  4,246.67

  North Yorkshire Police

  60

  212,425.00

  3,540.42

  Northamptonshire Police

  37

  197,225.00

  5,330.41

  Northern Constabulary

  14

  73,200.00

  5,228.57

  Northumbria Police

  226

  954,605.00

  4,223.92

  Nottinghamshire Constabulary

  112

  530,962.50

  4,740.74

  Royal Military Police Eastern District

  1

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  Royal Military Police Southern District

  1

  17,500.00

  7,500.00

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  2

  17,500.00

  8,750.00

  South Wales Police

  127

  634,350.00

  4,994.88

  South Yorkshire Police

  118

  546,225.00

  4,629.03

  Staffordshire Police

  58

  277,625.00

  4,786.64

  Strathclyde Police

  225

  888,875.00

  3,950.56

  Suffolk Constabulary

  65

  331,125.00

  5,094.23

  Surrey Constabulary

  58

  227,900.00

  3,929.31

  Sussex Police

  72

  359,450.00

  4,992.36

  Tayside Police

  57

  258,450.00

  4,534.21

  Thames Valley Police

  120

  640,225.00

  5,335.21

  The Commissioner of Police

  2

  2,000.00

  1,000.00

  Warwickshire Constabulary

  28

  109,185.00

  3,889.46

  West Mercia Constabulary

  72

  239,525.00

  3,326.74

  West Midlands Police

  210

  895,425.00

  4,263.93

  452W

  Cases involving Physical and sexual abuse 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  Police

  Number of Cases

  Total Paid(£)

  Average paid(£)

  West Yorkshire Police

  228

  1,065,575.00

  4,677.96

  Wiltshire Constabulary

  46

  237,400.00

  5,160.87

  Total

  4,876

  22,458,387.40

  4,605.90

  Cases involving physical and sexual abuse 1 April 1998 to 31 March 2000

  police

  Number of Cases

  Total Paid(£)

  Average paid(£)

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  194

  929,575.00

  4,791.62

  Bedfordshire Police

  66

  327,950.00

  4,968.94

  British Transport Police

  28

  57,480.00

  2,052.86

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  127

  452,125.00

  3,560.04

  Central Scotland Police

  45

  187,350.00

  4,163.33

  Cheshire Constabulary

  208

  886,856.50

  4,263.73

  City of London Police

  3

  3,000.00

  1,000.00

  Cleveland Constabulary

  139

  556,033.00

  4,000.24

  Cumbria Constabulary

  74

  277,335.00

  3,747.77

  Derbyshire Constabulary

  198

  744,107.50

  3758.12

  Devon and cornwall Constabulary

  237

  1,129,150.00

  4,764.35

  Dorset Police

  100

  446,512.50

  4,465.13

  Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary

  33

  139,500.00

  4,227.27

  Durham Constabulary

  118

  554,225.00

  4,696.82

  Dyfed-Powys Police

  80

  311,575.00

  3,894.69

  Essex Police

  209

  991,448.00

  4,743.77

  Fife Constabulary

  89

  430,425.00

  4,836.24

  Gloucestershire Constabulary

  91

  411,229.00

  4,519.00

  Grampian Police

  77

  386,025.00

  5,013.31

  Greater Manchester Police

  545

  2,279,025.50

  4,181.70

  Gwent Constabulary

  139

  636,575.00

  4,579.68

  Hampshire Constabulary

  349

  1,798,275.00

  5,152.65

  Hertfordshire Constabulary

  102

  449,025.00

  4402.21

  Humberside Police

  157

  642,625.00

  4093.15

  Kent County Constabulary

  313

  1,648,180.00

  5,265.75

  Lancashire Constabulary

  301

  1,221,172.50

  4,057.05

  Leicestershire Constabulary

  112

  609,750.00

  5,444.20

  Lincolnshire Police

  100

  401,000.00

  4,010.00

  Lothian and Borders Police

  220

  1,007,600.00

  4,580.00

  Manchester Dock Police

  1

  7,500.00

  7,500.00

  Mersey Tunnels Law Enforcement

  2

  4,000.00

  2,000.00

  Merseyside Police

  314

  1,264,653.40

  4,027.56

  Metropolitan Police

  971

  4,875,746.00

  5,021.37

  Ministry of Defence Police

  1

  1,000.00

  1,000.00

  Norfolk Constabulary

  135

  517,800.00

  3,835.56

  North Wales Police

  183

  749,750.00

  4,096.99

  North Yorkshire Police

  126

  468,550.00

  3,718.65

  Northamptonshire Police

  96

  451,625.00

  4,704.43

  Northern Constabulary

  37

  164,200.00

  4,437.84

  Northumbria Police

  403

  1,720,937.5

  4,270.32

  Nottinghamshire Constabulary

  238

  1,102,362.5

  4,631.78

  Port of Liverpool Police

  2

  2,000.00

  1,000.00

  RAF Military Police

  1

  2,000.00

  2,000.00

  Royal Military Police Eastern District

  1

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  Royal Military Police Southern District

  1

  7,500.00

  7,500.00

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  2

  17,500.00

  8,750.00

  South Wales Police

  279

  1,348,915.00

  4,834.82

  South Yorkshire Police

  246

  1,098,475.00

  4,465.35

  Staffordshire Police

  126

  560,577.50

  4,449.03

  Strathclyde Police

  439

  1,693,210.00

  3,856.97

  Suffolk Constabulary

  128

  603,775.00

  4,716.99

  Surrey Constabulary

  104

  441,525.00

  4,245.43

  Sussex Police

  164

  843,068.50

  5,140.66

  Tayside Police

  106

  450,600.00

  4,250.94

  Thames Valley Police

  228

  1,217,725.00

  5,340.90

  The commissioner of Police

  2

  2,000.00

  1,000.00

  Warwickshire Constabulary

  60

  291,435.00

  4,857.25

  453W

  Cases involving physical and sexual abuse 1 April 1998 to 31 March 2000

  Police

  Number of cases

  Total Paid(£)

  Average paid(£)

  West Mercia Constabulary

  174

  741,450.00

  4,261.21

  West Midlands Police

  390

  1,744.350.00

  4,472.69

  West Yorkshire Police

  479

  2,114,600.00

  4,414.61

  Wiltshire Constabulary

  75

  353,400.00

  4,712.00

  Total

  9,968

  44,780,359.90

  4,492.41

  Police Funding
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce funding allocations to police forces taking up Airwave in 2001–02. [140622]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Earlier this year I announced that the Government were making provision of £500 million over three years to meet the costs of a new police radio service known as "Airwave". All police authorities which have signed their service contracts for the new service will benefit from this funding. This will relieve them of a significant burden that would otherwise have had to be met from their policing budgets.

  Those forces which feature early in the roll-out programme and whose authorities have signed their service contracts will receive the following allocations in 2001–02. The remaining authorities which have signed their service contracts will receive their allocations in the subsequent two years.

  Allocation of airwave grant for 2001–02 (year 1)

  £000

  Force

  Capital

  Revenue

  Lancashire Constabulary

  4,922

  2,557

  Greater Manchester Police (GMP)

  10,259

  5,329

  North Yorkshire Police

  2,109

  1,096

  West Mercia Constabulary

  3,095

  1,608

  Gloucestershire Constabulary

  1,684

  875

  Leicestershire Constabulary

  2,796

  1,453

  Suffolk Constabulary

  1,886

  980

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary

  4,755

  2,470

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  4,597

  2,388

  Derbyshire Constabulary

  2,789

  1,449

  Durham Constabulary

  1—

  1—

  Dorset Police

  1,913

  994

  Humberside Police

  3,101

  1,611

  Northumbria Police

  5,771

  2,998

  Cumbria Constabulary

  1,650

  676

  Wiltshire Constabulary

  1,769

  724

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  2,052

  840

  Thames Valley Police

  6,138

  2,514

  Gwent Constabulary

  1,885

  772

  Dyfed-Powys Police

  1,408

  0

  Hertfordshire Constabulary

  3,045

  0

  South Wales Constabulary

  4,432

  0

  Total England and Wales

  70,143

  30,340

  1Contracts not signed

  A further £2.226 million (capital) and £1,156 million (revenue) will be available for distribution in 2001–02 to the other police authority listed once it has signed its service contract.

  Payment to BT for the core service will be made centrally.
  454W
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he will take in respect of funding police authorities for the execution of warrants during 2000–01.[140623]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Transfer of responsibility for warrant enforcement, originally planned for 1 October 2000, has been rescheduled for 1 April 2001. I am arranging for the relevant funding, £4.34 million, to be allocated to police authorities according to police grant/Standard Spending Assessments levels for 2000–01.

  The allocations are given in the table.

  £

  Police authority

  Spending assessment

  Avon and Somerset

  104,455

  Bedfordshire

  38,645

  Cambridgeshire

  46,632

  Cheshire

  67,598

  City of London

  32,866

  Cleveland

  51,020

  Cumbria

  37,498

  Derbyshire

  63,384

  Devon & Cornwall

  108,050

  Dorset

  43,462

  Durham

  50,570

  Dyfed-Powys

  31,998

  Essex

  104,553

  Gloucestershire

  38,260

  Greater Manchester

  233,104

  Gwent

  42,826

  Hampshire

  122,464

  Hertfordshire

  69,195

  Humberside

  70,466

  Kent

  115,311

  Lancashire

  111,832

  Leicestershire

  63,541

  Lincolnshire

  39,380

  Merseyside

  145,987

  Metropolitan Police

  924,557

  Norfolk

  52,114

  North Wales

  46,797

  North Yorkshire

  47,933

  Northamptonshire

  40,817

  Northumbria

  131,131

  Nottinghamshire

  77,976

  South Wales

  100,716

  South Yorkshire

  106,677

  Staffordshire

  70,242

  Suffolk

  42,854

  Surrey

  62,768

  Sussex

  103,945

  Thames Valley

  139,461

  Warwickshire

  32,614

  West Mercia

  70,324

  West Midlands

  236,757

  West Yorkshire

  179.031

  Wiltshire

  40,189

  4,340,000

  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision will be made for police recruitment under the Crime Fighting Fund for 2001–02. [140635]

  Mr. Straw
  The total provision for police forces in 2001–02 for officers recruited under the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) is likely to be £129 million. This includes funding for the continued employment of officers recruited during 2000–01 as well as funding for new recruits in 2001–02.
  455W
  The table provides an indicative breakdown of payments between forces, assuming that all forces recruit their full CFF allocation in 2000–01 and that they also recruit their full CFF allocations in 2001–02.

  Bids from forces to accelerate or to defer CFF allocations between 2000–01 and 2001–02 are presently under consideration. CFF allocations for 2001–02 are therefore provisional and depend upon forces meeting the Continuation Criteria set out in the CFF bidding guide. Decisions on acceleration/deferral and on compliance with the continuation criteria may affect the amounts payable to forces in 2001–02.

  Crime fighting fund provision 2001–02: indicative breakdown by force

  Forces

  CFF year 1 allocation 2000–01

  Continuation cost of year 1 allocation in 2001–021.2(£000)

  CFF year 2 allocation 1 2001–023

  Cost of year 2 recruitment in 2001–022.3(£000)

  Total(£000

  Avon and Somerset

  67

  1,691

  51

  706

  2,397

  Bedfordshire

  28

  707

  31

  424

  1,131

  Cambridgeshire

  37

  934

  23

  296

  1,230

  Cheshire

  47

  1,186

  50

  704

  1,890

  City of London

  8

  253

  15

  222

  475

  Cleveland

  20

  505

  27

  353

  858

  Cumbria

  25

  631

  23

  296

  927

  Derbyshire

  49

  1,237

  55

  742

  1,979

  Devon and Cornwall

  77

  1,943

  79

  1,125

  3,068

  Dorset

  29

  732

  26

  335

  1,067

  Durham

  36

  908

  23

  296

  1,204

  Dyfed-Powys

  25

  631

  38

  515

  1,145

  Essex

  70

  1,766

  62

  851

  2,618

  Gloucestershire

  29

  732

  35

  460

  1,192

  Greater Manchester

  186

  4,694

  201

  2.818

  7,512

  Gwent

  31

  782

  18

  275

  1,058

  Hampshire

  82

  2,069

  77

  1,057

  3,127

  Hertfordshire

  40

  1,009

  30

  422

  1,432

  Humberside

  47

  1,186

  41

  565

  1,751

  Kent

  82

  2,069

  92

  1,274

  3,343

  Lancashire

  75

  1,893

  77

  1,057

  2,950

  Leicestershire

  46

  1,161

  56

  758

  1,918

  Lincolnshire

  29

  732

  18

  275

  1,007

  Merseyside

  105

  2,650

  112

  1,555

  4,205

  Metropolitan4.5

  663

  20,999

  699

  17,094

  38,093

  Norfolk

  35

  883

  47

  635

  1,518

  North Wales

  34

  858

  32

  429

  1,287

  North Yorkshire

  20

  505

  23

  296

  801

  Northamptonshire

  32

  808

  32

  429

  1,236

  Northumbria

  85

  2,145

  87

  1,198

  3,343

  Nottinghamshire

  52

  1,312

  54

  729

  2,041

  South Wales

  59

  1,489

  49

  679

  2,167

  South Yorkshire

  67

  1,691

  61

  847

  2,538

  Staffordshire

  49

  1,237

  51

  706

  1,943

  Suffolk

  31

  782

  21

  284

  1,066

  Surrey

  46

  1,161

  48

  655

  1,816

  Sussex

  69

  1,741

  64

  870

  2,611

  Thames Valley

  111

  2,801

  108

  1,500

  4,301

  Warwickshire

  21

  530

  14

  228

  758

  West Mercia

  50

  1,262

  59

  819

  2,081

  West Midlands

  173

  4,366

  179

  2,509

  6,875

  West Yorkshire

  107

  2,700

  91

  1,269

  3,970

  Wiltshire

  26

  656

  21

  284

  940

  Totals

  3,000

  80,025

  3,000

  48,844

  128,869

  NPT6

  16,100

  Contingencies7

  6,031

  Grand Total

  151,000

  1 Assumes that all forces recruit their full CFF allocation in 2000–01

  2Costs include 3 per cent. increase over 2000–01 provision for pay related costs

  3Assumes that all forces will recruit their full CFF allocations in 2001–02 and that recruitment will be spread evenly over the year

  4The cost of the increase in London Allowance implemented in 2000 for new recruits to the Metropolitan police service (MPS) and City of London police has been included in the calculations for CFF recruits to the MPS and City (including an element for employers NIC)

  5Training costs of £7,000 per officer for new MPS recruits has been included in the calculation for MPS

  6 NPT training costs of £16.1 million are based on a cost of £7k per officer for forces, except the MPS

  7A contingency is required to cover additional costs that may arise, including possible additional costs for CFF recruits from implementation of an Outer London Allowance

  456W
  Payments to forces for individual CFF recruits are made pro rata from the point at which the CFF officers are recruited. Payments due will change to reflect the actual pattern of recruitment, if it is different from the even distribution assumed for the purposes of the table.

  In addition to payments direct to forces, National Police Training (NPT) will receive funding to train new recruits to provincial forces. The total CFF provision also includes a contingency to cover, for example, costs arising from any new allowances that may be introduced which affect CFF recruits.
  457W
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the allocations of police grant for individual police authorities in England and Wales for 2001–02. [140629]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today put a copy of my proposals for the allocation of police grant for 2001–02 in the Library. I intend to implement these proposals subject to

  2000–01(£ million)

  2001–02(£ million)

  Increase(£ million)

  Percentage increase

  (a) Total Standard Spending

  7,354

  7,732

  377

  5.13

  (b) Special police grants and central support services

  219

  531

  312

  —

  (c) Police Authority capital

  144

  232

  88

  —

  Total

  7,718

  8,495

  777

  10.06

  Note:

  All figures rounded to nearest £ million
  458W
  consideration of any representations I receive about them, and to approval by the House.

  The total provision for policing in 2001–02 is £8,495 million. This is an increase of 10.1 per cent. over the initial provision for this year. I propose to distribute the police settlement as follows.

  (a) Total Standard Spending

  Police funding proposals within the local government finance system are being announced today by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and by the National Assembly for Wales. These proposals and mine would provide Total Standard Spending on the police in England and Wales of £7,731.774 million, an increase of around £377.4 million or 5.1 per cent. over the comparable provision for 2000–01.

  The overall increase is 5.1 per cent., but increases for individual police authorities vary. The formula used to determine the distribution of grant/Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) is unchanged for 2001–02. The main reasons for differences between police authorities result from changes in the data applied from one year to the next. These include changes in population, unemployment, projected pensions commitments and the Area Cost Adjustment.

  I propose that the Metropolitan police service should continue to receive additional funding in recognition of its distinct national and capital city functions. It has proved very difficult for the principal formula to take account of these special circumstances. As in previous years, therefore, a special payment of grant will be made to the Metropolitan police service over and above that available through the principal formula. I have set the amount of this special payment at £191 million, which is included in the total provision.

  I am proposing to make special payments of grant to the following police authorities in 2001–02 in recognition of the additional costs which will be incurred as a result of the changes to the Metropolitan police district boundaries as follows:

  £

  Essex

  14,000

  Hertfordshire

  627,000

  Surrey

  1,609,000

  My proposed allocations, compared with those for last year, are given in the table as follows. The table also includes provisional allocations for capital financing SSA and for SSA Protection Grant and Central Support Protection Grant where appropriate.

  (b) Special Police Grants and Central Support Services

  The substantial increase since the last settlement provides the opportunity to develop a number of specific ring fenced initiatives.

  Crime Fighting Fund—(£151 million, of which up to £129 million will be targeted grants) for the estimated cost in 2001–02 of police officers recruited this year and next, over and above forces' existing recruitment plans. The overall cost includes recruitment and training. Targets agreed with each force for recruitment, and performance against them, will be reviewed regularly. Actual payments to police authorities will be based on performance.

  Rural Policing Fund—(£30 million) to help address the particular pressures of policing rural areas. The payment follows an allocation of £15 million made this year. I shall expect police authorities to demonstrate how they have used the added investment to reduce crime and the fear of crime in more rural areas.

  Airwave—(£49 million) for introduction of the public safety radio communication system. The total includes up to £32.488 million grants to police authorities for start-up costs for introduction of Airwave. Grants will be paid to forces taking Airwave in 2001–02. Similar arrangements will apply in future in the year each force joins the system. I shall also provide centrally for payment centrally of the core service charge to the contractor. I envisage that the total provision in the years 2001–02 to 2003–04 (for start up, capital and core costs) will reach £500 million.

  Basic Command Unit Fund—(£5 million) to support and encourage initiatives to prevent crime and the fear of crime at the policing level closest to the general public and to extend inspection to BCU performance. Details of the scheme are being developed.

  DNA Expansion Project—(£63 million) for processing samples, scientific support, training and evidential casework. Work on how most effectively to target this money is in hand.

  National Strategy for Police Information Systems—(£12 million) to support information system developments by forces on behalf of the service.
  459W
  (c) Capital

  I intend to increase the provision of grant and supplementary credit approvals from £144.43 million this year to £157.43 million next year. Allocations will reflect any remaining outstanding undertakings given to support particular capital projects and will otherwise be guided as in previous years by the grant/SSA formula. In addition, capital grants for the introduction of Airwave (up to £75 million) will be made available to those police authorities taking up the service in 2001–02. Grants will be made in future years to those taking up the service subsequently.

  I will inform the House of any significant allocations of grant to police authorities for these initiatives.

  Several projects to be carried forward next year were launched or increased with new money this year, in addition to that in the settlement for 2000–01. The original targets in the Crime Fighting Fund were accelerated (£24 million), the Rural Policing fund was introduced (£15 million), provision was made for special initiatives to counter robbery in metropolitan areas (£20 million) and a central programme of recruitment advertising to support local police authority initiatives was launched (£7 million).

  The settlement continues to take account of my commitment to improve police efficiency. For the third year running, I have set a target of 2 per cent. efficiency gains year on year for the police service from 2001–02. As in previous years, police authorities may invest the savings to help meet front line policing priorities. Police grant allocations for 2002–03 will be considered in the light of police authorities meeting the 2 per cent. efficiency targets. Authorities which fail to achieve the efficiency gain sought may be subject to an appropriate deduction from their resources. I am pleased that performance this year is such that it has not been necessary to apply this sanction to the grant allocations for 2001–02.

  I expect police authorities in England to exercise restraint and sound financial management by setting budgets that are responsible, prudent and reasonable. We shall be monitoring the position very carefully. The National Assembly for Wales is responsible for exercising reserve powers to limit council tax increases in Wales.

  Police authority

  2000–01 allocation1(£ million)

  2001–02 allocation1(£ million)

  Percentage change

  English Shire forces

  Avon and Somerset

  173.7

  181.5

  4.4

  Bedfordshire

  64.1

  68.0

  6.2

  Cambridgeshire

  77.2

  81.3

  5.4

  Cheshire

  111.9

  118.6

  5.9

  Cleveland

  84.7

  88.8

  4.8

  Cumbria

  62.2

  64.8

  4.2

  Derbyshire

  105.4

  111.1

  5.4

  Devon and Cornwall

  178.9

  187.9

  5.0

  Dorset

  72.4

  75.0

  3.7

  Durham

  83.9

  87.5

  4.3

  Essex

  174.8

  185.3

  6.1

  Gloucestershire

  63.5

  67.0

  5.5

  Hampshire

  202.7

  213.9

  5.5

  Hertfordshire

  117.2

  122.9

  4.8

  Humberside

  116.9

  121.1

  3.6

  Kent

  191.2

  204.4

  6.9

  Lancashire

  185.3

  193.0

  4.2

  460W

  Police authority

  2000–01 allocation1(£ million)

  2001–02 allocation1(£ million)

  Percentage change

  Leicestershire

  105.6

  110.8

  4.9

  Lincolnshire

  65.4

  68.6

  4.9

  Norfolk

  86.5

  91.5

  5.8

  North Yorkshire

  79.7

  84.0

  5.4

  Northamptonshire

  67.7

  70.9

  4.8

  Nottinghamshire

  130.0

  136.1

  4.6

  Staffordshire

  116.8

  121.7

  4.2

  Suffolk

  70.9

  75.0

  5.8

  Surrey

  112.8

  111.0

  -1.6

  Sussex

  172.4

  181.8

  5.4

  Thames Valley

  231.7

  245.2

  5.8

  Warwickshrie

  54.3

  57.0

  5.0

  West Mercia

  117.2

  124.4

  6.1

  Wiltshire

  66.7

  69.5

  4.2

  English Metropolitan forces

  Greater Manchester

  386.1

  404.6

  4.8

  Merseyside

  242.3

  252.7

  4.3

  Northumbria

  218.4

  227.7

  4.2

  South Yorkshire

  177.2

  184.8

  4.3

  West Midlands

  392.7

  409.8

  4.3

  West Yorkshire

  297.1

  310.7

  4.6

  London forces

  Metropolitan police2

  1,731.2

  1,823.3

  5.3

  City of London3

  56.4

  57.4

  1.8

  English Total

  7,045.1

  7,390.5

  4.9

  Welsh forces

  Dyfed-Powys

  53.2

  56.3

  6.0

  Gwent

  71.9

  75.1

  4.4

  North Wales

  77.5

  82.2

  6.1

  South Wales

  167.6

  176.1

  5.0

  Welsh Total

  370.2

  389.8

  5.3

  Total

  7,415.3

  7,780.3

  4.9

  1Rounded to the nearest £100,000. The Allocation is the sum of Police Grant, Transitional Grant, Police SSA, Capital Finance SSA, SSA Reduction Grant and Central Support Protection Grant. Figures for Capital Finance SSA are provisional.

  2Figure for the Metropolitan police includes its Special Payment.

  3Figure for the City includes Police SSA, Grant and SSA Reduction Grant, but excludes other SSAs (eg Capital Financing) and Central Support Protection Grant. These are allocated to the Common Council of the City of London as a whole in respect of all its functions.

  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he will allocate the money provided to enhance rural policing for 2001–02. [140628]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Spending Review 2000 made provision for the allocation of £30 million for rural policing in each year of the settlement period. The sums for 2001–02 have been apportioned on the basis of population weighted by a sparsity score. The allocations for 2001–02 are given in the table.

  Police Authority

  £

  Avon and Somerset

  992,875

  Bedfordshire

  163,540

  Cambridgeshire

  1,125,169

  Cheshire

  228,487

  City of London

  0

  Cleveland

  0

  Cumbria

  1,370,910

  Derbyshire

  416,190

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,114,489

  Dorset

  442,209

  Durham

  246,803

  Dyfed-Powys

  2,588,337

  Essex

  503,710

  461W

  Police Authority

  £

  Gloucestershire

  776,548

  Greater Manchester

  0

  Gwent

  204,476

  Hampshire

  220,430

  Hertfordshire

  0

  Humberside

  710,250

  Kent

  599,342

  Lancashire

  64,054

  Leicestershire

  433,988

  Lincolnshire

  1,978,690

  Merseyside

  0

  Metropolitan Police

  0

  Norfolk

  2,078,830

  Northamptonshire

  704,141

  Northumbria

  0

  North Wales

  1,533,723

  North Yorkshire

  2,013,806

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  South Wales

  0

  South Yorkshire

  0

  Staffordhire

  275,072

  Suffolk

  1,422,627

  Surrey

  11,048

  Sussex

  550,563

  Thames Valley

  1,262,860

  Warwickshire

  562,546

  West Mercia

  2,311,653

  West Midlands

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  Wiltshire

  1,092,634

  Total

  30,000,000.00

  Policing Objectives
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his objectives are for policing for 2001–02. [140630]

  Mr. Straw
  The Police Act 1996 allows me to set objectives, or Ministerial Priorities, for policing. The objectives for 2001–02 will be:to reduce local problems of crime and disorder in partnership with local authorities, other local agencies and the public; and
  to increase trust and confidence in policing among minority ethnic communities.

  These are the same priorities I set for 2000–01. They remain in place for another year, and I have refrained from setting further priorities, to allow the police to concentrate their efforts on these key areas.

  Hi-tech Crime Unit
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 November 2000,Official Report, column 150W, concerning the Hi-tech Crime Unit, what assessment he has made of the level of resources allocated by each constabulary to its local police computer crime unit; and how many constabularies
  (a) have established such a unit, (b) plan to establish such a unit and (c) have no plans for such a unit. [140221]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that, of the 43 police forces in England and 40 have at least one person Wales, (not always full-time) working in the field of forensic computing. Of the three which do not, I understand that one may be about to allocate resources to this field. I understand that in total there are 75 police personnel engaged in these duties in England and Wales. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 13 November 2000,Official Report, column 531W, we are making £25 million available to the police over the next three years to enhance their capability to investigate crimes where new technology is used.

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) rapes and (b) serious sexual assaults were recorded in each police authority area in England and Wales in each of the last 20 years. [140485]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of rapes and serious sexual assaults recorded in each police authority area in each of the last 20 years is given in tables 1 and 2, available in the Library.

  Since 1981, these offences have more than doubled. Much of this rise, however, is thought to be attributable to both an increase in reporting by the public and changes in police practice.

  Drugs
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many seizures of(a)cocaine and (b) heroin have been made in the UK in each of the last 10 years.[140371]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The most recent figures on United Kingdom drug seizures go up to the year 1998. Seizures of cocaine and heroin from 1988 to 1998 can be found in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 3/0 entitled "Drug Seizures and Offender Statistics, United Kingdom, 1998". Copies of this publication can be found in the Library.

  To assess long-term trends, figures on the number of seizures made over the last 10 years need to be viewed together with figures on the quantities of drugs seized.

HEALTH

  MRSA
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the prevalence of and frequency of infection by MRSA in NHS hospitals. [135014]

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of Methicillin Resistant Staphycoccocus Aureus were reported in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) Devon; and if he will make a statement. [135141]

  Mr. Denham
  The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) compiles aggregate data on the numbers of incidents of MRSA which are voluntarily submitted by trusts for specialist microbiological tests. The PHLS also compiles data on blood stream and other serious infections caused by Staphylococcus Aureus in hospitals and the community, reported by microbiology laboratories. Figures for England are given in the tables. From April 2001 all acute trusts will produce data on the prevalence of hospital-acquired infection, including MRSA, to provide a more complete picture of the situation. This information will be published in 2002–03. Matters relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are for their respective devolved Administrations.

  Incidents of MRSA and rates per 100,000 population 1997–2000

  Numbers

  1997

  Anglia and Oxford

  297

  North Thames

  544

  North West

  259

  Northern and Yorkshire

  224

  South and West

  254

  South Thames

  385

  Trent

  123

  West Midlands

  102

  Wales

  176

  Total

  2,364

  1998

  Anglia and Oxford

  223

  North Thames

  289

  North West

  215

  Northern and Yorkshire

  202

  South and West

  101

  South Thames

  220

  Trent

  109

  West Midlands

  69

  Wales

  169

  Total

  1,597

  1999

  Eastern

  80

  London

  290

  Northern and Yorkshire

  170

  North West

  180

  South East

  170

  South West

  40

  Trent

  100

  West Midlands

  30

  Wales

  130

  Total

  1,190

  464W

  Incidents of MRSA and rates per 100,000 population 1997–2000

  Numbers

  2000

  Eastern

  30

  London

  100

  Northern and Yorkshire

  40

  North West

  50

  South East

  60

  South West

  10

  Trent

  30

  West Midlands

  30

  Wales

  30

  Total

  380

  Notes:

  1. For the first half of 1997 data have been amalgamated to the approximate boundaries of the new Regional Office areas. This allows for comparison with subsequent years.

  2. Data for 2000 is for January-June only.

  3. An incident is three or more patients infected or colonised by the same strain of MRSA in the same month from the same hospital.

  4. The criteria for submission of isolates of MRSA (and other isolates of staphylococcus aureus) to the PHLS for specialist tests have been revised twice since 1996 (in January 1998 and in January 2000). These revised criteria have led to a fall in the number of incidents of MRSA that were reported to the PHLS.

  Laboratory reports of staphylococcus aureus isolated from blood

  1999

  2000

  South-west region

  Total report

  1,010

  644

  Sensitive to methicillin

  591

  314

  Percentage

  59

  49

  Resistant to methicillin

  294

  211

  Percentage

  29

  33

  Susceptibility not reported

  125

  119

  Percentage

  12

  18

  England

  Total report

  9,373

  5,697

  Sensitive to methicillin

  4,934

  2,661

  Percentage

  53

  47

  Resistant to methicillin

  2,804

  1,919

  Percentage

  30

  34

  Susceptibility not reported

  1,635

  1,117

  Percentage

  17

  20

  Consultants' Contracts
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish his response to the Health Select Committee's report HC 586 on Consultants' Contracts. [140654]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government's response to the Health Select Committee's Third Report on Consultants' Contracts is published today as Cm 4930 and copies have been placed in the Library.

  BMA Guidelines
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss its guidelines for the withholding and withdrawal of treatment; [134765]
  465W
  (2) if he will urge the British Medical Association to make alterations to its guidelines on the withholding and withdrawal of treatment. [134766]

  Yvette Cooper
  Ministers have not met representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss their guidelines on withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging medical treatment nor are there plans to do so. The aims of the document are to identify the range of clinical, ethical and legal factors which need to be considered in making decisions on withdrawing and withholding medical treatment and on potential procedures, including consulting the healthcare team and seeking a second opinion where appropriate.

  We have no plans to take any action on these guidelines nor urge the British Medical Association to amend them. A revised second edition was published in October 2000.

  BCG Vaccine
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made since 31 July to identify additional suppliers of the TB vaccine BCG. [138062]

  Yvette Cooper
  Discussions are ongoing with possible suppliers to the United Kingdom market. The Department hopes to make an announcement shortly on the future supply of BCG vaccine to the UK.

  Flu Vaccinations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of extending free influenza inoculations to(a) all over 60s and (b) all over 60s in poor areas; and if he will make a statement. [139028]

  Yvette Cooper
  This year, influenza immunisation policy has been extended to include everyone aged 65 and over without an underlying risk condition. At the same time the Department has set a target of 60 per cent. uptake of flu vaccine this year and a wide range of measures have been put in place both nationally and locally to increase influenza vaccine uptake from their traditionally low levels. Additional funding of up to £60 million has also been put in place for general practitioners and health authorities to achieve these targets.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts in each NHS region are offering flu jabs to nursing and medical staff; how many social service departments are offering flu jabs to home care, care home and social work staff; and if the jabs are funded by(a) winter pressures funding and (b) another specific budget. [140298]

  Yvette Cooper
  Winter planning guidance was issued to the National Health Service and social services departments by the Department on 23 May 2000. This guidance stated that all NHS employers should offer, and social services employers should consider offering, flu immunisation to all staff involved in the delivery of care and/or support to patients. All health employers have now offered, or have mechanisms in place to offer, immunisation to their staff. Around three-quarters of 466W
  social care employers intend to offer immunisation. No specific funding arrangement has been made for staff immunisation.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many persons aged over 65 years in South Gloucestershire have received influenza vaccinations this year; [138568]

  (2) what is the average waiting time for persons aged over 65 years to receive an influenza vaccination in South Gloucestershire. [138569]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information from Avon Health Authority is that over 62 per cent. of persons over 65 years in South Gloucestershire have received flu vaccinations.

  It is not possible to determine the average waiting times as call forward procedures vary between individual general practitioner practices.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the optimal time by which patients should have received an influenza vaccine for it to be effective in the winter 2000–01.[138570]

  Yvette Cooper
  Influenza activity is closely monitored through the Public Health Laboratory Service and Royal College of General Practitioners. Baseline activity of influenza does not usually rise significantly before the middle of December. Antibody levels may take up to 10–14 days to rise and therefore the ideal time for immunisation is October and November, although it is common for some general practitioners to run flu immunisation clinics in early December.

  Electronic Patient Records
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute hospital trusts in England have set up electronic patient records. [138828]

  Ms Stuart
  Electronic Patient Records (EPRs) consist of a number of components expressed in terms of levels. Targets in "Information for Health" relate to the implementation of EPR level 3, which encompasses clinical activity support (electronic clinical orders, result reporting, electronic prescribing and multi-professional care pathways).

  The position at the end of September 2000 was that 11 acute trusts had EPR level 3 systems in place. This figure is forecast to rise to 21 by the end of the current financial year. The figures represent 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the acute trusts in England (based on 212 acute trusts). This accords with the targets set out in "Information for Health."

  In addition, a further 65 business cases are being progressed and are at various stages of completion. The breakdown is as follows:
  16 have been approved;12 are being considered;37 are expected to be submitted for approval in the next 6–8 months.
  The figures indicate an increase in pace at local level towards achieving the targets set.
  467W
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that the NHS develops a national electronic health record. [138830]

  Ms Stuart
  A key objective of "Information for Health" (IfH) is to ensure relevant information contained in an Electronic Health Record (EHR) is available to authorised clinicians in carefully prescribed circumstances on a 24-hour basis. In order to address this objective the strategy called for a number of demonstrator sites to be set up to explore the issues associated with the creation of EHRs. The creation of these sites is a key component of supporting the delivery of electronic records throughout the National Health Service. The demonstrator sites will also take on board issues arising from the NHS Plan, e-Government, and the Modernising Government Agenda.

  In response to this commitment the Electronic Record Development and Implementation Programme (ERDIP) was launched in November 1999. Following a rigorous selection process I announced the names of the four successful demonstrator sites (Cornwall, Tees, South Staffs and County Durham) in April this year.

  In addition, I also announced the names of 14 Electronic Patient Record (EPR) demonstrator sites. The presence of EPRs is a pre-requisite to the implementation of the national EHR. These sites will focus on:
  Specific issues identified in the information strategy for the NHS;
  Supporting the Government's key health priorities, bringing together patient records for those receiving treatment for cancer and coronary heart disease;
  Establishing links between health and social care for mental health, child and elderly care, between walk-in centres and primary care or NHS Direct and other health organisations;
  Specific areas such as maternity services or integrated care pathways.

  The NHSIA is currently formalising the deliverables, timescales and the associated release of funding with each of the sites.

  The work of the EHR demonstrator sites is being supported by two projects managed centrally by the NHSIA:
  Definition of the components of the first generation EHR that will need to be in place by 2005 to support 24-hour emergency care access to patient records.
  The development of an evaluation programme to ensure the sites will deliver solutions that can be applied on a national basis.

  Free Eye Tests
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate how many pensioners have received free eye tests in each local authority area and in each constituency in Tyne and Wear since the introduction of free tests. [139625]

  Mr. Hutton
  We extended eligibility for National Health Service sight tests to everyone aged 60 and over from 1 April 1999. Figures for the numbers of people aged 60 and over who have received free eye tests in particular areas are not collected centrally. However, the increase in the total number of sight tests paid for in the year ending 31 March 2000 by Gateshead and South Tyneside Health Authority was 14,320 and by Newcastle and North Tyneside Health Authority was 25,170. It is 468W
  fair to assume that the majority of these increases were due to newly eligible people aged 60 or over obtaining NHS sight tests.

  Isard House Care Home, Bromley
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the Isard House Care Home, Bromley; and if he will make a statement. [139599]

  Mr. Hutton
  A number of letters have been received regarding the Isard House Care Home, Bromley. The matters to which these letters referred have been thoroughly investigated by the appropriate local agencies, and steps have been taken to implement the investigation's findings.

  Asylum Seekers (Children)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many unaccompanied children seeking asylum were assessed under(a) section 17 and (b) section 20 of the Children Act 1989 in each of the last three years for which data exist. [139598]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the legal basis for support and care provided to unaccompanied asylum seeking children by local authorities under the Children Act 1989 is not held centrally.

  Calman-Hine Proposals
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the Calman-Hine proposals for cancer care; and if he will make a statement.[139429]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Calman/Hine report, "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services", was published in 1995 in response to concerns about variations in treatment across the country.

  This is being supplemented by a series of site specific guidance to improve outcomes for the main cancers (breast, colorectal, lung and gynaecological cancers).

  As a result of this guidance the National Health Service is introducing site specific specialist multi-disciplinary teams for cancer treatment and is establishing networks of cancer services.

  In September this year we published the NHS Cancer Plan spanning prevention, diagnosis, treatment, care and research. This plan builds on the Calman/Hine report and sets out the first ever comprehensive strategy to tackle the disease.

  The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) is currently reviewing the national progress towards achieving the aims of the Calman/Hine report. CHI will work closely with the Director of National Cancer Services, Professor Richards, the NHS and national bodies representing patients and professionals and plans to publish the findings in summer 2001.

  Psittacosis
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the reported cases of psittacosis in(a) London and (b) the rest of England in each of the last 10 years. [139676]
  469W
  Yvette Cooper
  The number of laboratory reports for psittacosis in England and Wales (and separately for London) to the Public Health Laboratory Service's Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre for each of the last 10 years is provided in the table.

  Year

  London

  England and Wales

  1990

  81

  468

  1991

  51

  369

  1992

  40

  325

  1993

  29

  354

  1994

  41

  482

  1995

  32

  480

  1996

  21

  344

  1997

  20

  317

  1998

  29

  284

  1999

  3

  213

  Weils Disease
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidences of Weils disease there were in(a) London and (b) the rest of England in each of the last 10 years.[139675]

  Yvette Cooper
  The number of laboratory reports for leptospiral infections caused by Leptospira serovar icterohaemorrhagiae (Weil's Disease) in England and Wales (and separately for London) to the Public Health Laboratory Service's Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre for each of the last 10 years is provided in the table.

  Year

  London

  England and Wales

  1990

  0

  19

  1991

  0

  8

  1992

  1

  13

  1993

  12

  16

  1994

  23

  21

  1995

  0

  6

  1996

  0

  3

  1997

  0

  12

  1998

  9

  1999

  0

  23

  1One case acquired on River Bann in Northern Ireland by service personnel

  2One case acquired on River Wye by service personnel

  Communicable Diseases
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is carrying out into the diseases spread to humans by pigeons in England. [139665]

  Yvette Cooper
  A research study at the Cambridge Public Health Laboratory is currently working to determine the prevalence of two organisms(Chlamydia psittaci and Campylobacter jejuni) in feral pigeons by routine testing of pigeon faeces. Seasonal variations will be explored and an attempt will be made to link this to the number of human cases occurring in the area.

  Healthcare Charges (Guernsey)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he took after July 1999 to inform UK residents of new charges for healthcare in Guernsey. [139710]
  470W
  Ms Stuart
  Guernsey introduced charges for some healthcare services for United Kingdom visitors from 3 July 1999. The Department produced an information note available to the public on request in July 1999. The Department's leaflet "Health Advice for Travellers" included revised information from September 1999.

  Emergency Contraception
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received on the legality of the morning after pill in regard to the protection of nascent human life before implantation; and if he will make a statement; [139944]

  (2) if he will introduce legislation to amend the Abortion Act 1967 as it applies to the issuing of the morning after pill by pharmacists. [139849]

  Yvette Cooper
  So far this year, approximately 45 letters have been received, either direct from members of the public or via hon. Members expressing concern that emergency contraception is a method of abortion. A number of the responses to the public consultation exercise on whether levonorgestrel 0.75 mg should be reclassified from prescription only to pharmacy availability for women aged 16 and over, also expressed similar concerns.

  The established legal and medical view is that emergency contraception is not an abortifacient, and therefore the Abortion Act 1967 does not apply to emergency contraception. In 1983 the then Attorney-General concluded
  that this form of post-coital treatment (emergency contraception) does not constitute a criminal offence within either sections 58 or 59 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861.—[Official Report, 10 May 1983; Vol. 42, c. 237.]

  Disabled People
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to monitor and improve the implementation of good practice guidance detailed in the Department of Health report "Doubly disabled: equality for disabled people in the new NHS: access to services (July 1999)" and to ensure that the provision of health care by the National Health Service complies with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [139790]

  Mr. Hutton
  Implementation of "Doubly Disabled" is part of our wider strategy of implementing Section 21 of the Disability Discrimination Act. We have issued a survey to the National Health Service asking them what progress they have made towards implementing Section 21. The survey will be repeated annually until 2004 and the results of the initial survey should be available in the early spring of 2001.

  Health Service Complaints
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints were made about health services to(a) hospital trusts and (b) CHCs in England in each of the last five years; and how many such complaints were resolved by the trust or CHC concerned. [139756]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 23 November 2000]: Statistics on complaints to National Health Service trusts and health authorities in England are contained in

  471W
  the annual statistical bulletin "Handling complaints: monitoring the NHS complaints procedures". Data on complaints prior to the introduction of the current procedures in April 1996 are contained in the document "Written complaints by, and on behalf of patients, England". Copies of both these documents are available in the Library.

  Data on complaints made to community health councils are not collected centrally.

  CJD Sufferers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on help for CJD sufferers in terms of extra patient care; and if he will make a statement.[140078]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have recently received representations in the form of ministerial correspondence regarding packages of care for people with CreutzfeldtJakob disease.

  We have established a new national fund to meet the care needs of people with variant CJD. The fund will ensure a speedy response following diagnosis and improvements in the quality of care for patients. We are working closely with the voluntary organisations and families to ensure that this package is effective, and properly meets the needs of patients.

  NHS Pension Scheme
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will backdate the pension arrangements for widowers of female members of the NHS pension scheme to align them with the pension arrangements of widows of male members of the scheme. [140271]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: There has been alignment of widow and widowers National Health Service pensions on service since April 1988. Female members were able to cover service before then at a subsidised cost, until June 1989. We currently have no plans to provide free cover for widowers pensions before 1988, because of the additional costs to the Scheme, estimated at £500 million.

  Registered Health Professionals
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information he collates on the proportion of nurses, midwives and health visitors who are registered but do not practice;[140012]

  (2) how many nurses, midwives and health visitors have (a) retired from and (b) joined the register in each of the last five years. [140013]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: These data are not collected centrally.

  The United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visitors (UKCC) collects this information. The UKCC website is at: www.ukcc.org.uk (telephone number: 020 7333 6557/6558).

  The Hague Convention on International Adoptions
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the UK will ratify The Hague Convention on International Adoptions. [140191]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: The United Kingdom signed the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption in January 1994. Preparations are in hand in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ratify in 2001.

  Free Nursing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the responsibility for funding a person's nursing care will remain with the NHS after the point at which that person becomes eligible for means-tested support for their care costs. [140293]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service will meet the costs of registered nurse time spent on providing, delegating or supervising care in a care home. This will be for everyone who needs it, whether or not they have means-tested support for their other care costs.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 21 November 2000,Official Report, column 170W, concerning free nursing care, how people who have a care home placement part-funded by a local authority will have their nursing care costs paid.[140292]

  Mr. Hutton
  Responsibility for the payment of the nursing costs will be with the National Health Service—this could be discharged through a contract between the NHS and the care home, but in areas where the NHS and social services are using the Health Act flexibilities this may be handled through pooled budgets and lead commissioning by the local authority.

  Radiotherapy Waiting Lists
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) total waiting list and (b) waiting lists per 100,000 population for radiotherapy treatment of cancer (i) nationally, (ii) by NHS region and (iii) by health authority area in the (A) Northern and (B) Yorkshire region. [140535]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information is not collected on waiting lists for radiotherapy treatment.

  The National Health Service cancer plan published on 27 September includes new targets to be rolled out over the next five years to reduce waiting times at all stages of the cancer patient pathway from referral, diagnosis, to treatment. The ultimate goal is that no patient should wait longer than one month from an urgent referral by their general practitioner with suspected cancer, to the start of treatment. Arrangements will be developed to monitor progress towards these new targets.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will permit new patients to be accepted for beta interferon while he is waiting for a final recommendation from the National Institute of Clinical Excellence. [140314]
  473W
  Mr. Denham
  The Department issued guidance (in Executive Letter (95)97) to the National Health Service in 1995 about prescribing of beta-interferon. It recommends that health authorities should have in place arrangements for hospital specialists to initiate treatment in the light of medical evidence and local priorities. This guidance continues to apply until the National Institute for Clinical Excellence publishes its guidance on beta interferon.

  Cancer Care (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when it was decided that the Northern Centre for Cancer Treatment in Newcastle required replacement; how many radiotherapy cancer treatment machines were available at that time, and what their ages and downtimes were; how many radiotherapy cancer treatment machines are available; and what are their ages, and downtimes. [140537]

  Yvette Cooper
  During 1998 Newcastle and North Tyneside Health Authority formally consulted on the relocation of the Northern Centre For Cancer Treatment to Freeman Hospital in association with the timescale for completion of the remainder of the Newcastle strategic review.

  In 1998 there were six linear accelerators in use. They were installed in 1984, 1988, 1990, 1992(2) and 1995. In 1998 their annual total downtimes ranged from 280 hours 33 minutes to 694 hours 34 minutes.

  The same machines remain in service in November 2000. Downtimes for October 2000 ranged from four hours 38 minutes to 57 hours 39 minutes.

  Residential Care (Scotland)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had about the funding of longterm residential care with his counterpart in the Scottish Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [140473]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have regular contact with colleagues in the devolved Administrations to discuss the Government's plans concerning the funding of long-term residential care.

  Obesity
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the National Health Service of obesity-related conditions for each of the past five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [140105]

  Yvette Cooper
  The economic costs associated with obesity are direct medical costs incurred during diagnosis, treatment and management of obesity per se and those arising from related conditions. Conditions attributable to obesity are diabetes, coronary heart disease, gallstones, hypertension, high blood cholesterol, gout and several cancers.

  While estimates of costs to the National Health Service for most of these specific conditions were reported by the Department in the publication 'Burdens of Disease' 1996, no estimates of the proportion of the costs were attributed to obesity.
  474W
  The analysis required to provide these data is complex and at present there is no authoritative estimate of the cost to the National Health Service of obesity related conditions.

  Children's Hospices
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review public funding of children's hospices; and if he will make a statement. [140384]

  Yvette Cooper
  Children's hospices play an important role in supporting children with life threatening and limiting illnesses, and their families. The National Health Service has provision for funding children's hospices and we have recently announced an additional £50 million in new funding to expand specialist palliative care services for adults and children in the community. We are working with the children's hospice movement and other professional groups to define care packages which will be of most benefit to children and their families.

  In addition the "Caring about Carers: A National Strategy for Carers" initiative is making available £140 million over three years to meet carer's needs including families who have a child with a life threatening condition.

  NHS Trust Employees (Mental Health Problems)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts have adopted policies on the employment of people who have experienced mental health problems; and what steps he is taking to encourage NHS trusts to adopt such policies. [139826]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on how many National Health Service trusts have adopted policies on the employment of people who have experienced mental health problems is not collected centrally but may be held locally by individual employers. The NHS Executive is currently working with representatives of professional bodies, unions, management and voluntary organisations from the mental health field to draft guidance on mental health and employment. This guidance, which we intend to publish in the spring, will encourage NHS employers to adopt inclusive policies.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trusts providing mental health services have a user employment programme or similar scheme; and what steps he is taking to encourage the setting up of such schemes. [139825]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on how many trusts providing mental health services have a user employment programme or similar schemes is not collected centrally.

  To ensure the sharing of best practice, the National Health Service Employment Policy Branch recently funded the production of a "Good Practice Guide" developed within South West London and St. George's NHS Trust. The trust has pioneered efforts to tackle employment discrimination within the trust against people who have experienced mental health difficulties.

  The guide was circulated to delegates at a conference the trust held in London in March 2000, and the Department will be disseminating this guide more widely to the NHS.

  Carers (Abuse)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will strengthen the right of access to files of persons who have complained of abuse while(a) in care and (b) their carers were under investigation; and if he will make a statement. [138761]

  Mr. Hutton
  Provision has already been made for those wishing to access personal information held on file. This is provided by the Data Protection Act 1998, which came into force on 1 March 2000. Any living person, who is the subject of personal information held and processed by a social services authority, or someone acting on its behalf, has the right of access to those records. This access can be limited only where it is not possible to disclose information without disclosing information about another person who has not provided their consent and it is not reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the request or disclosure would be likely to prejudice the carrying out of social work by causing serious harm to the physical or mental health or condition of the individual or another person. Where access is refused there is a right of appeal to the Courts or the Data Protection Registrar.

  The provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 apply regardless of whether the person, who is the data subject, has complained of abuse and of whether any alleged abuser, who is or was a carer, is or has been under investigation.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will disclose relevant personal files held by(a) public authorities and (b) voluntary organisations to those who allege abuse while (i) in care and (ii) their cases were being dealt with by such agencies. [138762]

  Mr. Hutton
  Where records are manual and can be classed as health records, educational records, local authority housing records or local authority social services records, the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 relating to an individual's right to access information about themselves apply. Where manual records are held by a public authority or voluntary organisation that do not fall into these categories, the subject access provisions presently apply only to records created after 24 October 1998. Those records created before 24 October 1998 will not come within the scope of the Data Protection Act until 24 October 2007. Where records are automated, if they were created after 24 October 1998, the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 will apply; otherwise they are exempt until 24 October 2001.

  Thus, the Data Protection Act 1998 makes specific provisions to enable individuals to exercise that right to access, which apply whether or not allegations of abuse have been made.

  Sittingbourne Memorial Hospital
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was allocated by West Kent health authority to Sittingbourne Memorial Hospital day unit for the treatment of mental illness in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–2000; and how much will be allocated in 2001–02.[140360]
  476W
  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not available centrally in the requested format. Information on West Kent health authority's expenditure on mental illness is shown in the table.

  £

  Year

  HA expenditure on mental illness

  1996–971

  37,857,000

  1997–98

  42,814,000

  1998–99

  46,498,000

  1999–20002

  37,217,000

  1West Kent health authority came into existence on 1 April 1996 so data before that date are not comparable.

  2The 1999–2000 figure excludes PCG expenditure on mental illness of £19,275,000.

  Note:

  No data are available for 2000–01.

  Sources:

  Health authority audited accounts 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99

  Health authority audited summarisation schedules 1999–2000

TREASURY

  Euro
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what total amount of purchases of the euro has been made by the Treasury and Bank of England since 1 January 1999. [135972]

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (1) pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) of 9 November 2000,Official Report, column 427, what the value is of euros purchased by the Treasury and the Bank of England since 1 January 1999; and if the Treasury and the Bank of England have made a loss as a result of these operations; [138664]

  (2) how much the Treasury and the Bank of England have lost as a result of the purchasing of euros since 1 January 1999. [138838]

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost is to date to Her Majesty's Government of trading operations in the foreign exchange markets relating to the euro. [138674]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answers 6 and 16 November 2000]: Net purchases of euros since 1 January 1999 have resulted from the reinvestment of the $2 billion proceeds from the nine gold auctions held to date. The currency split of the reinvestment is the same as the existing net foreign currency reserves (40 per cent. dollars; 40 per cent. euros; and 20 per cent. yen). The programme of gold sales is part of a prudent restructuring of the reserves aimed at achieving a better balanced portfolio by diversifying assets more widely. It would not be meaningful to provide a snapshot of the value of these medium-term portfolio decisions as this could be distorted by short-term fluctuations in asset prices and currencies.

  The UK also participated in the concerted intervention by the G7 monetary authorities on 22 September 2000 by purchasing 85 million euros against sterling. The Government do not comment on individual currency transactions.
  477W
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he had with the Governor and Court of the Bank of England ahead of the recent international support for the euro; and how much has been spent from UK reserves in that operation since 1 September. [134628]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: The Chancellor has regular discussions with the Governor of the Bank of England. Details of intervention undertaken during September were published in the monthly Foreign Currency Reserves press notice on 4 October.

  Import Duty
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 November 2000,Official Report, column 757W, on import duty, what studies he has undertaken of the limits, above which import duty is paid, on (a) goods ordered from abroad via the internet, post and telephone and (b) goods brought into the UK by returning travellers; and if he will make a statement. [140346]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Both issues are being kept under review.

  Disadvantaged Communities
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 November 2000,Official Report, column 763W, on disadvantaged communities, what definition he uses for the most disadvantaged areas. [140532]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The criteria for the definition of disadvantaged areas within each of the component parts of the UK for the purpose of the Stamp Duty relief will be announced in Budget 2001.

  Stamp Duty Exemptions
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the cost of stamp duty exemptions in deprived areas which will be applicable to existing residential properties in the(a) 1 per cent., (b) 3 per cent. and (c) 4 per cent. tax bands. [140350]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is not yet possible to provide any breakdown of the cost of the relief since the areas to benefit from it have yet to be determined.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account the departmental expenditure limits set out in Spending Review 2000 take of the possible costs on 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 of preparation for, and conversion to the euro; and if he will make a statement. [140284]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: The results of the Spending Review covering the period 2001–02 to 2003–04 were published in July. An update on changeover planning was given in the Fourth Progress Report on Euro Preparations, published on 6 November.

  Property Conversions
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the VAT reduction for conversion of properties referred to in the pre-Budget report will apply to(a) houses converted into flats and (b) flats converted into houses. [139935]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 November 2000]: The reduced rate for conversion services will apply to residential buildings converted into a different number of dwelling units. It will apply to a range of conversion services including the conversion of houses into flats and flats into houses.

  Child Poverty (Wales)
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children in Wales have been lifted out of poverty since May 1997. [140355]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Personal tax and benefit changes announced during this Parliament will lift around 1.2 million children in the UK as a whole out of poverty, defined as 60 per cent. of median income after allowing for housing costs. Because of the margins of error, it is not possible to model the precise effects in any country or region. However, around 5 per cent. of UK children live in Wales suggesting that on a pro-rated basis around 60,000 children in Wales will be lifted out of poverty.

  Moreover, 67,000 families in Wales are now benefiting from the Working Families Tax Credit, 360,000 from the increases in Child Benefit and around 50,000 Lone Parents will have benefited from the increases in the child premia in Income Support. From next April up to a quarter of a million families in Wales will benefit from the Children's Tax Credit.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to column 4917, if he will breakdown the tax credits contained in footnote 1 of Table B8 for each year in the table; and if he will make a statement. [140193]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Figures for total tax credits in £ billion are shown in Table B8 of the pre-Budget report. Figures for total tax credits as a per cent. of GDP are shown in Table B8. Figures for the Working Families and Disabled Persons Tax Credits are shown in Table B20.

  Over 1.1 million families currently receive the Working Families Tax Credit—nearly 300,000 more than the peak number of families receiving Family Credit. These families are, on average, around £30 a week better off compared to Family Credit.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Wales have benefited from the Working Families Tax Credit to date; and how many children in Wales are in such families. [140372]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is provisionally estimated that 67,000 families in Wales were in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit at the end of August 2000. About 130,000 children were in these families.
  479W
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown of the average earnings of the main earner in households in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit by(a) occupation and (b) employment status. [140259]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the number of families receiving the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) at the end of May 2000 are shown analysed by the occupation group of the main earners at Table 5.1 in the WFTC Quarterly Enquiry for May 2000.

  A copy has been placed in the Library. The estimates are based on a 5 per cent. sample of awards. The average gross weekly earnings of the main earners in each group are as follows:

  Number(000)

  Average gross weekly earnings of main earner(£)

  All occupations

  1,060.8

  153

  Managers and administrators

  34.8

  170

  Professional occupations

  25.6

  187

  Associated professional and technical occupations

  74.5

  187

  Clerical and secretarial occupations

  201.3

  168

  Craft and related occupations (non-managerial workers)

  163.4

  167

  Personal and protective services

  278.2

  125

  Sales occupations

  147.4

  129

  Plant and machine operatives

  120.5

  163

  Other occupations

  15.1

  176

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the families in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit are eligible for passported benefits; and if he will list the benefits concerned. [139829]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The passport to benefits can apply generally to everyone receiving Working Families Tax Credit or it can be targeted on those on lowest incomes. For example Maternity and Funeral payments from the Department of Social Security Social Fund are available to all families receiving Working Families Tax Credit.

  Construction Industry Scheme
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions and on what dates, the joint working group appointed to review the construction industry scheme, met; and if minutes of its meeting will be published. [140358]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Joint Working Group met eight times. The dates it sat on were the 11 April, 3 May, 17 May, 31 May, 14 June, 21 June, 17 July and 10 August.

  The group was set up so that the industry and the Revenue could share their concerns and build up an overall picture of how best to reduce the administrative costs of the construction industry scheme while continuing to protect the flow of tax and NI to the Exchequer. The group does not intend to publish the minutes of its meetings, as this may not only breach confidentiality but put tax at risk.

  However, the Joint Working Group was clear that the route to a cheaper but secure scheme lay in the electronic exchange of information. The initial steps taken towards
  480W
  an electronic future and what further work will now be done is given in Inland Revenue Press Release (PR REV6/2000) published on 8 November.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish performance outturns in relation to targets set in the public service agreements following the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review for all Departments; and if he will make a statement. [140110]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Performance outturns against the targets set for all Departments in the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review Public Service Agreements were published in the spring 2000 Departmental Reports. The next such report is due in spring 2001.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the average length of time taken by his Department to answer a parliamentary question tabled for a named day in July; what was the average number of days by which the day an answer was given exceeded the named day; and if he will make a statement; [140296]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the most recent figures relating to his Department's performance against targets for answering parliamentary questions; [140114]

  (3) by what average time the day on which a parliamentary question tabled to his Department was answered exceeded the named day for which it was asked in July for questions asked by (a) a Labour Member, (b) a Conservative Member, (c) a Liberal Democrat Member and (d) a Member of another party; and if he will make a statement. [140192]

  Mr. Timms
  In the 1999–2000 session to date, 59 per cent. of named day written questions, 71 per cent. of ordinary written questions and 89 per cent. of House of Lords written questions have been answered on time. The Treasury's targets for these categories of questions are 50 per cent., 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. respectively.

  The information sought relating to answers to named day questions could not readily be provided from the Treasury's records.

  Widowers
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the implications of the Crossland case for the claims of widowers for equality of treatment. [140624]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The case of Christopher Crossland has no implications for other claims for Widow's Bereavement Allowance. The Government recognise that the system of tax allowances which applied before 2000 did not target support fairly on those who needed it most. A new system has now been introduced, which focuses resources on families with children. Most widows and widowers with children under 16 will, from next April, be entitled to the Children's Tax Credit, worth over twice as much as the Widow's Bereavement Allowance. We believe that this will give the right support to those who need it most.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many inheritance tax returns were filed in each of the years ending on 5 April(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000; [140164]

  (2) how many inheritance tax returns filed in the years ending (a) 5 April 1998, (b) 5 April 1999 and (c) 5 April 2000 showed net assets of (i) minimum limit to £500,000, (ii) £500,000 to £1,000,000 and (iii) over £1,000,000; and what was the amount of inheritance tax charged in each of the years (a) to (c) above. [140163]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of accounts received for each of the financial years 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 were 52,800, 51,300 and 56,300 respectively. For compliance reasons, and because of the operation of reliefs, these include estates not ultimately liable to tax.

  Figures broken down by net assets are not available on this basis. The available data relate to the size of estates and tax liability on deaths in 1997–98 and were published in Inland Revenue Statistics 2000 Table 12.4 (page 127), a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Taxation
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the change in the overall level of taxation has been since 1 May 1997. [140153]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Figures for tax revenues were published in Annex B of the November 2000 pre-Budget report.

  Road Fuel
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what dates over the last three months his Department held meetings with representatives of major oil companies; and on which such occasions he discussed(a) petroleum revenue tax and (b) ultra low sulphur petrol. [138516]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 November 2000]: The Government met representatives of the major oil companies on 7 November and discussed the availability of ultra-low sulphur petrol in the UK.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to place an additional tax on diesel fuel carried on commercial road vehicles arriving in the United Kingdom from other European Union member states where the comparable cost of fuel is significantly lower, by virtue of differential duty or taxation of fuel. [140009]

  Mr. Timms
  There are no plans to charge any additional duty on diesel fuel carried in the standard fuel tanks of commercial vehicles arriving from other EU member states.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a fuel rebate for volunteer ambulance and other volunteer drivers; and if he will make a statement. [140246]

  Mr. Timms
  There are no plans to introduce a rebate scheme for volunteer drivers. However, all motorists will benefit from the measures announced in the pre-Budget report.
  482W
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the duty point for independent petrol retailers. [138775]

  Mr. Timms
  There are no plans to change the point at which duty is charged on mineral oils.

  Smuggled Fuel
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish for each of the last five years and the current year to the most recent date for which figures are available, his estimate of the loss to the Revenue of(a) petrol and (b) diesel fuel smuggled into Northern Ireland and not seized by the RUC and Inland Revenue officials. [140319]

  Mr. Timms
  HM Customs and Excise has responsibility for excise revenues. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 20 March 2000,Official Report, column 442W.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish for each of the last five years and the current financial year to the latest date for which information is available, the quantities of smuggled road fuel seized by Revenue officials and the RUC in Northern Ireland, indicating the quantity of(a) diesel and (b) petrol seized; and what was the amount of revenue lost to the Exchequer associated with such smuggled fuel. [140317]

  Mr. Timms
  For the seizures of smuggled fuel for financial years 1995–96 to 1999–2000, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 5 July 2000,Official Report, column 201W. For the period April to September 2000, seizures of smuggled fuel are as follows:
  Volume seized—729,530 litres1
  Revenue—£296,221.
  1A breakdown by type is not available.

  Car Scheme Rules
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 June 2000,Official Report, column 591W, on car scheme rules, what petrol price is assumed in the Inland Revenue fixed profit car scheme calculation. [139909]

  Mr. Timms
  None. The proposals are a development of the current rates, to provide a greater incentive to drive cleaner vehicles for business trips, as explained in paragraphs 6.61–6.62 of the Pre-Budget Report.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action Customs and Excise is taking against internet sites selling tobacco products which give misleading information to customers about the legal status of their purchases. [139778]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A number of companies which advertise cigarettes at discounted prices on internet websites claim quite incorrectly that what they are doing is legal. In fact the purchase of tobacco by a private person in the UK from a trader elsewhere is described as
  483W
  Distance Selling and certain regulations apply. They require the vendor to account for duty and tax liable in the UK prior to dispatch of the goods. If this is not done the tobacco is liable to forfeiture on arrival in the UK.

  The Government have made clear their determination to tackle this problem. As part of the strategy to achieve this, Customs recently launched a publicity campaign. The campaign includes adverts on internet search engines to warn consumers of these fraudulent cigarette sites. Customs have also written to all identified websites advising them of correct procedures to be followed. They have also notified Internet Service Providers (ISPs) whose sites are being used.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 22 May 2000,Official Report,
  484W
  column 381W, on National Insurance (1) how many people in contracted-out money purchase pension schemes have received National Insurance contribution rebates that were previously outstanding; and how much these rebates are worth in total; [135772]

  (2) how many people are in contracted-out money purchase pension schemes that are owed outstanding National Insurance contribution rebates; how much these rebates are worth in total; and when the Government plan to have paid all the outstanding rebates. [135771]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are approximately 22,000 people awaiting rebates for 1997–98 and the 1998–99 tax years. About £7.5 million of rebates remain to be paid. Approximately 258,000 people have received rebates that were previously outstanding and these rebates amounted to about £132.5 million. We expect to have reached the normal situation in relation to payment of outstanding rebates by March 2001.

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

Legislation: Parliamentary Scrutiny
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that their legislation next Session is less detailed and contains more statements of purpose and of principle, and that adequate time is provided for its thorough consideration by each House of Parliament.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, with his long-standing interest and authority in this area, will be aware that statements of purpose and principle have been less common in recent years under successive governments and that detail is often seen as the fail-safe way of achieving certainty in law. In the 1970s the noble Lord chaired a committee on the preparation of legislation which decided that the draftsman should not be required to sacrifice legal certainty for simplicity of language. The Government agree and also seek to ensure adequate time for consideration of legislation. In this Session we have sat for extra days to allow such scrutiny, although the number of Bills introduced in Parliament has been an average number for a third Session.
Lord Renton: My Lords, while I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, perhaps I may remind her that so far in this Session we in this House have made 4,619 amendments to government legislation, which is more than twice as many as ever before. That is partly because the legislation is too detailed but also because Members of another place have not had a full opportunity to consider it. In the interests of democracy, will the Government please mend their ways?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I was very grateful to receive from the noble Lord a copy of his lecture on this subject entitled, The Evolution of Modern Statute Law and its Future, in which in his concluding remarks he enjoined everyone to do better. That is what the noble Lord is seeking to do today. In his lecture he made some very constructive proposals for achieving change and improvement in legislation, which included increasing the number of Bills that should be considered in pre-legislative form and increasing the number of Bills in draft. I think the noble Lord would agree that the Government are seeking to do that whenever possible.
Lord Peston: My Lords, am I alone in believing that we provide more than adequate time to scrutinise the
1102
legislation placed before us and indeed that we would have even more time if noble Lords would consider sticking to the rules and not making Second Reading speeches at every stage of a Bill's progress through the House? If noble Lords actually scrutinised the legislation, my guess is that we would certainly improve it and that we would certainly get through it rather more quickly.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He has raised on several occasions the point about the strict procedures of the House. I must say that my observation of current practice inclines me to agree somewhat with his general remarks. As he will know, there has been discussion about perhaps taking the Committee stage of more Bills in the Moses Room, which might allow for precisely the practice that he suggests. Perhaps I may point out that in the equivalent Session—the third Session—of the 1987–1992 Parliament the House sat for 153 days and passed 27 Bills. In the last Session, we sat for 154 days and passed an equivalent number of Bills. Therefore, my noble friend can see that this practice has been going on for some time.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will not accuse me, at any rate, of not being impartial on this matter. Perhaps I may remind her that increasingly over the years it has been a besetting sin of all governments to bombard Parliament with ill-conceived legislation which then requires an immense amount of amendment. Will the noble Baroness attempt to persuade some of her less helpful colleagues that quantity can be the enemy of quality?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, gives me the opportunity to repeat the point that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the advantages, which the Government are anxious to pursue, of considering Bills in pre-legislative form and publishing Bills in draft. The noble Lord is of course right; this has been a problem for successive governments, as I think I made clear in my original Answer. I would just say to him that in the third Session of the 1979–83 Parliament—that is, 1981–82—the House considered 46 Bills, and this year we hope to pass 39 Bills. Therefore, as I said a few moments ago, it is not a new problem.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree that were the Government, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, to draft primary legislation in broader terms, that would have the added benefit for the United Kingdom of allowing the National Assembly for Wales to prepare its subordinate legislation within a broader framework?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, without venturing into the question of the appropriate activities for the National Assembly, I would simply say to the noble Lord that this demonstrates the continuing problem of the tension between broad-brush statements of principle—there have been

1103
occasions in the past few years when those have seemed appropriate—and the difficulty of ensuring absolute legal accuracy in the detail of a Bill.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, it is clear that our parliamentary draftsmen are working under enormous pressures of both time and the number of people available to carry out the work. Will the Government consider increasing the number of parliamentary draftsmen to enable them to cope with the amount of work that they are now being forced to carry out?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will wish to congratulate the parliamentary draftsmen on their herculean efforts in often difficult circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will be pleased to hear that the number of parliamentary draftsmen is being increased. Whether the increase will be sufficient to meet the demands upon them we shall have to wait and see.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree that one of the biggest problems we face is that, increasingly, legislation arriving in this House from another place has been badly scrutinised? Given that the other place is reviewing its procedures in order to introduce far more use of the guillotine, does the Minister further agree that that will increase the problem and that even more badly drafted, badly scrutinised legislation will arrive in this House, which will have a knock-on effect as regards the work that we do here?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Leader of the Opposition is braver than I in criticising the activities and procedures of the other place. As I have said on two occasions, the practices that we are introducing of a greater amount of legislation being looked at under pre-legislative scrutiny arrangements—as we did, for example, with the Freedom of Information Bill and the Financial Services and Markets Bill—have meant that both Houses have been able to give such legislation greater attention. It has been acknowledged that both of the Bills that I have mentioned have been improved by the detailed scrutiny of this House.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept the figure produced by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the number of amendments passed by the House during this Session amounts to 4,619? A couple of weeks ago she said that such a figure was not available.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I think what I said then—I shall repeat it for the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill—is that amendments that are passed are not broken down between those which originate from the Government and those which originate from other sources. But, of course, the majority of amendments passed are those brought forward by the Government.
1104
If it is not too dangerous to say so, I am willing to believe that the research of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is better than the figures provided to me. The figure that I have in front of me is that 3,930 amendments have been passed, which is the figure that I gave on the previous occasion.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the figure that I have just given was obtained this afternoon from the Public Bill Office.

Asylum Seekers: Health Needs
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Prashar Baroness Prashar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What financial resources have been given to the National Health Service and primary care services in areas affected by the Government's dispersal system in order to assess and meet the health needs of asylum seekers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government recognise that caring for asylum seekers can place additional pressure on the NHS. We expect the service to meet the cost of caring for asylum seekers from its unified budget. We are also encouraging it to meet these pressures through a number of initiatives which target specific resources in these areas. These include PMS pilots and local development schemes.
Baroness Prashar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that information about entitlement to healthcare is not getting through to asylum seekers and that in some cases they are being denied care? What steps are being taken to develop a coherent strategy to meet both the health needs of asylum seekers and to ensure that they are made aware of their entitlements?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to draw attention to the issue of providing information to asylum seekers. She will know that the Audit Commission report which was published earlier this year suggested that the department and the National Asylum Seeker Service should issue new arrivals with information about their entitlement to health services and a simple explanation of how the UK health system operates. We intend to ensure that that suggestion is implemented. In relation to the Audit Commission's recommendation that we should issue good practice guidance to health authorities so that they can ensure effective service delivery to asylum seekers and refugees, we have made available a grant of £30,000 to ensure that such good practice guidance is issued.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister say exactly what is the entitlement of asylum seekers? Obviously an asylum seeker has not yet been granted asylum. Is he or she in the same category as a

1105
visitor to this country, whereby emergency treatment would be available, or, if asylum has been requested, is he or she immediately entitled to full national health treatment? Can the Minister clarify the position?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, any asylum seeker given leave to remain in the UK or awaiting a decision on his or her application is regarded as ordinarily resident and is eligible for free treatment by a GP. Similarly, asylum seekers needing hospital care will be treated on the same basis as anyone else eligible to receive NHS hospital treatment.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister about interpreter services. In a Midland town in my region an asylum seeker who had lost an eye through torture received no on-going medical treatment through lack of an interpreter, even though he was registered with a GP. Can the Minister comment on that situation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has identified a particularly difficult issue in relation to language. As part of their health improvement programmes, which are aimed at assessing health needs, we expect health authorities to identify interpreting issues and to ensure that such services are available. As part of the good practice guidance arising out of the Audit Commission report, we would expect health authorities to identify the necessity for action in training staff on cultural issues and in providing interpreter, advocacy and translation services.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I declare an interest because all four of my grandparents were fortunate enough to emigrate to this country at the end of the 19th century in circumstances which today would clearly have made them asylum seekers. Can the Minister give an assurance that in health and other matters every effort will be made to deal with asylum seekers swiftly and fairly—perhaps more swiftly and with more apparent fairness than in the past—recognising not only their rights as human beings but that many asylum seekers who settle here will make a significant contribution to the life of this country?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with everything that my noble friend has said. So far as concerns the National Health Service, we are under an obligation to ensure that asylum seekers receive high quality health services.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in many cases asylum seekers do not have easy access to the health services, especially dental services? In many towns there are no vacancies for national health dental patients—if indeed they have national health dentists. Even in the case of emergency treatment there is extreme difficulty. What are the Government doing to make dental services properly available to asylum seekers?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, what we are doing to improve dental services will apply to all
1106
residents of this country. The dental strategy published by the Government two months ago outlines our proposals to ensure that those people who wish to receive NHS dental treatment do receive it. We are establishing dental access centres. We are also establishing initiatives to provide incentives to dentists to increase their NHS provision. Those improvements would apply to asylum seekers as much as to any other group.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, what happens if an asylum seeker has a baby in this country? Is that baby a British citizen?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness on that issue. The responsibilities of the Department of Health are great but they are not as great as that. We expect the families and dependants of asylum seekers to receive the appropriate NHS services.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the single most important step towards solving the difficulties identified by the noble Baroness is proper co-ordination between the Home Office, the Department of Health and local authorities? Does he share my perception that, without a single body taking overall responsibility for the welfare of refugees, general practitioners are picking up the extra workload, often with no notice and no extra back-up funds?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Department of Health will be anxious to pick up any issues raised by general practitioners and ensure that they are discussed either with the Home Office or with the NASS directly. At the end of the day, I do not think it matters which part of government or which particular unit takes overall responsibility. What is important is to ensure a co-ordinated response. I am satisfied that in areas where a greater demand is placed on health authorities through the development of a proper health improvement programme, through the use of local initiatives such as PMS and the local development of services authorities are in a position to target resources where they can be used most effectively.

Military Museums
2.53 p.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What security of tenure military museums have on Ministry of Defence property.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, military museums are afforded tenure of occupation on Ministry of Defence property under a commitment first made in 1956. They should continue to be accommodated unless there are changes in deployment or estate requirements. Some have applied

1107
for security of tenure by way of a lease from the department. But a number of smaller museums, the majority of which are Army regimental and corps museums, have not made such applications. The trustees of these museums may apply to lease their accommodation, except for a very small number which occupy buildings on land known as Old Land Revenue Property, which is owned by the Crown Estate.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that very full Answer. My Question was originally based on an article I read. The noble Baroness's department was kind enough to point out to me this morning that Mr Max Hastings, who wrote it, had reneged on his statement. He said that the Ministry of Defence had stated that most existing museums would be unaffected. I hear what the Minister says, but that sounds rather dangerous. I hope that she can inform the House that all existing museums will be unaffected if they so wish.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord that complete assurance. As I indicated in my initial Answer, there may be changes to regimental accommodation because of changes in deployment or in estate requirements. Where there are such changes, as there have been on one or two occasions, sometimes the museum is able to follow its regiment elsewhere.
I am interested that the noble Lord believed every word of the article. As I recall, it started off by saying that Malcolm Rifkind was a disastrous Defence Secretary and Michael Portillo only marginally less so. The author did not renege on those points.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, based on the exchange that has taken place, can I take it that there is some reason for regimental and other museums to be anxious about the future because their tenure is not secure in the long term? Has there been any contact between the noble Baroness's department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and also with the area museums councils, which are particularly concerned with these issues? Not all regiments which have connections with areas and regions and which have stories and treasures relating to those regions can make the arrangements that have been made, for example, by the King's Liverpool Regiment, which is now under the umbrella of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, and the 60th in Hampshire. Can the Minister offer some word of comfort? Is there a dialogue between her department and other agencies, so that we do not lose valuable treasures?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are some 68 regimental and corps museums throughout the country. In 1998, the executive committee of the Army Board agreed a policy which allows the trustees of museums on the MoD estate to lease their museum accommodation for up to 50 years on sites where the MoD is prepared to agree to such a lease being taken out. That is very different from the
1108
DCMS position. There is contact between all departments on matters of mutual concern, but in this case the leases are a matter for the MoD. As I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, we are not able to give the absolute assurance he would like. Some 14 museums have currently applied for leases; I believe that two have signed up and the remainder are being considered.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, in Scotland, museums are devolved to the Scots Parliament but defence, of course, is not. Is the noble Baroness able to give any assurance or information regarding the important military museum at Edinburgh Castle?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Baroness with any details that I manage to get together about the museum at Edinburgh Castle. However, the MoD estate will remain a matter for the Ministry of Defence. Any museum which is currently on Ministry of Defence land will be affected in the way I have described. There are three categories: a museum may have tenure of occupation under the commitment made in 1956; it may secure a lease under the 1998 Army Board requirements; or it will not be able to do so because it is on Crown property.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, are there any more nuggets of wisdom in the article that was drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, like a good deal of what Mr Max Hastings has written recently, it was very interesting indeed and I can recommend it. It was written on 28th October, and Mr Hastings apologised to the MoD on 25th November for getting the matter wrong.

Criticism of the EU
2.58 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept the opinion of an Advocate-General at the European Court of Justice on 19th October that harmful criticism of the European Union or its institutions is akin to blasphemy and that in such cases the normal right to freedom of expression does not apply; and, if not, whether they will raise the question at the forthcoming European Council in Nice in December.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the noble Lord's Question is based on a factual inaccuracy. At no point in the opinion to which he refers did the Advocate-General state that criticism of the EU was akin to blasphemy or that the right to freedom of expression did not apply in criticism of the EU. The Advocate-General merely concluded, in the context of an internal Commission

1109
staff case, that a former official had been in breach of his obligations according to his terms of employment and that his dismissal was therefore justified. The case will now be considered by the European Court of Justice. We shall await its final judgment before passing further comment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It is true that the Advocate-General in question, Senor Dámas Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, whose 18-page opinion in the French translation I have with me, did not actually say that it was akin to blasphemy. What he said—and this is an opinion commonly held among the continental elite but not, thank goodness, in this country—is that damaging criticism that undermines the prestige, the self-confidence, the dignity, and so on, of institutions like the European Union is as heinous and as unacceptable as blasphemy. He did not say that it was "akin", but it comes to very much the same thing. In the light of that, when the proposal for a European public prosecutor comes to be discussed at Nice in less than a fortnight's time, can we hope that Her Majesty's Government will be extremely cautious?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord raised a number of questions in his response. I should point out that the appointment of a public prosecutor is not something for which the Government find there is any need. Perhaps I may remind the House that the opinion of the Advocate-General is not binding; the European Court of Justice may or may not heed the opinion; and that substantive comment should await the final judgment. Noble Lords will know that advocates are prone to making arguments and suggestions and that judges are prone to disregard them.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, in the light of her previous answers, is my noble friend the Minister able to inform the House as to why in her opinion the European Court of Justice has not so far sought a retraction from the Daily Telegraph?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can assist the House. The press articles written by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard are factually inaccurate. The ECJ wrote to the Daily Telegraph twice asking it to print a rectification. Only this Saturday, nearly one month after the appearance of the original story, did the Daily Telegraph finally print a response from the ECJ. In that letter the ECJ wrote:
"Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is wrong to state that … the Advocate-General … claims that criticism of the European Union is, 'akin to blasphemy and could be restricted without violating freedom of speech'. In fact, the Advocate-General in no way makes that assertion".
As with the earlier Question today, they seem to have got it wrong once again.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, even if the Advocate-General was misquoted—one difficulty may be that his views were set out in both Spanish and French and only recently became known in
1110
English—will the Minister at least reassure the House that there will be nothing unpatriotic or blasphemous about arguing for a development of the European Union in a more flexible and democratic direction than anything that seems to be in prospect at Nice or even in daring to suggest that the, at best, command structure for the defence of Europe might not necessarily lie at the heart of the European Union institutions?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly reassure the noble Lord that it is not blasphemous. However, whether or not it is good sense is another matter.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that we now find ourselves in the position where it is no longer prudent to believe everything that we read in newspaper reports?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it would, regrettably, appear to be so.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is it not true that Article 52 of the new Charter of Fundamental Rights provides for limitations on imposed rights and freedoms otherwise recognised by the charter "if they are necessary" and
"meet the objectives of general interest recognised by the Union"?
Does not that give one cause for concern, especially bearing in mind that, with this unfortunate development of the European Union, we are now in the phase of, "It doesn't exist"? We shall of course in future, as we have with all previous initiatives of this kind in the European Union, go through the phase of, "It doesn't matter", "We'll vote against it", or, "Our partners don't want it either". We then come, do we not, to the final phase, which is, "Oops, sorry; it's too late. You were warned"?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, if I may say so, I do not know what the noble Lord's precise question was—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps the Minister could answer my point about Article 52 of the new Charter of Fundamental Rights, which proposes precisely the sort of sanction to which the noble Lord's Question applies.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights does not permit the wholesale undermining of citizens' rights, as subsequent Articles 53 and 54 make clear. Fundamental rights are guaranteed by the legally binding ECHR, the treaties and the member states' constitutions that the non-binding charter cannot go below.

1111
Perhaps I may further assist the House. Article 52(1) of the charter does indeed state that limitations may be placed on the rights contained within it,
"if they are necessary and generally meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union, or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others".
Yet—I should stress that this is important—the following Articles 53 and 54 state that nothing in the charter should be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting the rights contained within the European Convention on Human Rights, the treaties or member states' constitutions. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord is content and comforted by those words.
Lord Acton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that it is not altogether akin to blasphemy to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for whom I have the greatest respect, is not always totally sound on the subject of the European Union?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as someone said before me, "You may say that; I couldn't possibly comment".

Business of the House: Standing Order 40
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended on Wednesday 29th November so far as is necessary to give the Government power to arrange the order of business.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 36 [Assistance by Commission for existing registered parties
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 30, line 32, leave out ("£500,000")and insert ("£700,000").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment fulfils a commitment that the Government gave on Report to increase, from £500,000 to £700,000, the funding available to assist registered parties to meet the start-up costs associated with the Bill. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, would have liked the funding to be paid over a period of five years, but I hope that he now accepts that it is preferable to distribute the funding available to
1112
qualifying political parties as soon as possible. This will enable parties to put in place quickly the necessary internal systems so that they can comply with the accounting requirements and the controls on donations set out in Parts III and IV of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for small mercies—that is, if one can call an increase of £200,000 a "small mercy". As the noble Lord said, it is not exactly what I sought to achieve. However, as long as the administration and distribution of this money is dealt with both sensitively and fairly, I realise that that will enable the smaller parties not only to do exactly what they need to do to set up these arrangements but also to "squirrel" a little bit by to deal with what happens immediately after, thereby ensuring that they have the necessary mechanisms in place.
I have only one question for the Minister at this point. Can he confirm that there is no terrible little snag somewhere at the back of all this; namely, that, if the money is given in the first year, all of it has to be spent in the first year? Can the noble Lord also confirm that it will be possible for parties which receive this money to spend it over a period of time?
Lord Bach: My Lords, my understanding is that it does not have to be spent in the first year. If I am wrong about that, I shall, of course, let the noble Lord know.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Payments, services etc. not to be regarded as donations]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 41, line 27. leave out ("less") and insert ("not more").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving government Amendment No. 2 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47 and 48.
I remind noble Lords opposite that these comprise the group of government amendments that the Opposition have promised they will not criticise for being brought forward at this stage. They are the balance of those amendments moved last week on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, amending the terms "not less than £5,000" and "more than £5,000" about which he felt so strongly. The amendments simply complete that process we started at Report stage of converting references to "not less than £5,000", or whatever the sum might be, to references to "more than £5,000". For consistency we also need to change references to, for example, "less than £200" in Clause 76(2) to read "not more than £200". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 68 [Reporting of multiple small donations]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 54, line 17. leave out ("less") and insert ("not more").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 69 [Register of recordable donations]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 54, line 42, at end insert—
("(6) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for exempting from inclusion in the register maintained by the Commission under this section any specified details in respect of donations to parties registered in the Northern Ireland register.
(7) An order under subsection (6) shall be so made as to—

(a) apply to the specified details in respect of donations to every Northern Ireland party, and

(b) make the same provision with respect to every such party.

(8) In this section —
"Northern Ireland party" means a party registered in the Northern Ireland register; "specified" means specified in an order under subsection (6).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments concerns the proposed exemption from the whole of Part IV of political parties in Northern Ireland. During the Committee and Report stages we had some enlightening but often, I regret to say, frustrating debates on these matters.
The Neill committee, on whose recommendations the Bill is based, did not recommend a complete exemption from the controls on donations which now comprise Part IV of the Bill. Despite what the noble Lord. Lord Bassam, has said on previous occasions, what the Government propose goes far beyond what the Neill committee thought necessary.
We now have the situation where, certainly until 2005 and possibly beyond, none of the provisions on donations in Part IV will apply to any registered political party in Northern Ireland. I should say, first, that a four-year renewal period is unacceptable. In Committee in another place, the Minister, Mr Tipping, gave some support to the idea of a 12-month renewal. That is what my Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are intended to achieve. However, the main point is the substance of the exemption from Part IV. During a previous debate the Minister said that politics in Northern Ireland are not yet conducted on the same basis as in the rest of the United Kingdom. I wonder what he meant by that. Surely, he did not refer to the activities of Sinn Fein, for example, now regarded by the Government as legitimate enough to take its place and have Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. What are the "special factors" relating to Northern Ireland to which the Minister has repeatedly referred? In what circumstances does the Minister envisage that Part IV will be applied to Northern Ireland only partially? We never had any explanation of what was meant by that.
The situation in the Bill as at present drafted has a number of serious implications. First, there is the question of foreign funding. The Neill committee recommended a very limited exemption to the general ban on foreign funding. One of the central points of the Bill is that political parties in the United Kingdom should no longer be allowed to receive funding from anyone abroad. That is one of the central points of the Bill and of the Neill report.
The Neill committee stated, however, that as regards Northern Ireland there may be a case for exempting citizens of the Republic of Ireland, resident in the Republic and subject to compliance with that country's electoral law; that is, they should be allowed to donate to Northern Ireland parties. My Amendment No. 6 reflects that point. But that is not what the Government intend to allow in the Bill. They intend to allow anyone living anywhere in the world, be it America, Australia or wherever, to give money to political parties in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, admitted that on 11 th May, after rather an effort on my part to get him to do so. He said,
"The question that has been asked is whether a person in the USA can give money to a Northern Ireland party. Fairly and honestly, I believe that, yes, he probably can".—[Official Report. 11/5/00; col. 1823.]
The Minister could have missed out the word "probably"; the fact is that such a person can do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said on 18th October that it was believed that the fund-raiser, Mr Galvin, had now transferred his allegiance to the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA and that those organisations intended to field candidates who would be backed by the foreign money that the Government were perfectly content to allow to flow to Northern Ireland parties.
I shall not speak in detail about the anomalies the provision creates. The most obvious example from my point of view is that the Irish diaspora, predominantly that in America, will be allowed to donate to Sinn Fein but the Scottish and Welsh diaspora will not be allowed to donate to the SNP or to Plaid Cymru. In that respect at least, violence has paid.
We also discovered a further issue in debate. Despite the Minister's initially strong assertion that it was not the case he eventually had to admit that Northern Ireland parties can use foreign money to campaign both in Northern Ireland in a referendum on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom on a GB-wide referendum, for example, on the euro or on proportional representation. I have no doubt that even now some are considering the loopholes the Government have created to see how they can be exploited in any future referendum. What really worries me is that a referendum on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland could be seriously affected by foreign money.
On 18th October the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said:
"I like to be straight with your Lordships' House. The information I have from officials is that Northern Ireland parties can use the fruits of money raised abroad in a UK referendum".—[Official Report, 18/10/00; col. 1038.]
But no one else can, not the Labour Party, not the Conservative Party, not the Liberal Democrats nor the Scottish nationalists. No political party in Great Britain would be allowed to do that. The Minister concluded at col. 1038:
"That may well present difficulties".

1115
Later that day he spoke of the need to ban foreign funding of referendums in the whole of the United Kingdom. Therefore he seemed to be aware of the dangers we had highlighted. However, those difficulties vanished into thin air, along with the need to ban the foreign funding of referendums. By 24th October the Minister said that he was,
"not persuaded of the case for preventing a Northern Ireland party using the proceeds of a foreign donation to meet its own referendum expenses".—[Official Report, 24/10/00, col. 191.].
Not only will Northern Ireland parties be allowed to take foreign money for ordinary elections, they will also, unlike all other UK parties, be allowed to take foreign money for referendums. That seems an amazing exemption.
We have dragged the Minister and his officials, kicking and screaming, to admit that the situation I have described exists. The Bill's ban on foreign participation in referendum campaigns is a sham for a number of other reasons, but here we have the Government explicitly and consciously allowing foreign funding to be used in referendums in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That is plainly wrong. My Amendment No. 11 would go some way, although, I admit, not all the way, to address the point.
We have tried to approach the Bill in a spirit of compromise. The amendments the Government moved a few moments ago were the result of agreement between us. I have tried to envisage how we can find a way to help the Government obey the recommendations of the Neill committee and yet stop the foreign funding. I have conceded the issue of public reporting of donations over £5,000 on security grounds. As I said on Report, the Government have repeatedly justified all they are doing on the basis of donations needing to be kept confidential for the reason that someone in Northern Ireland who was known to give a large donation to a political party might be in danger from some of the men of violence.
If the Government had really believed that there were serious security considerations, they would have done exactly what I suggested doing. But they have gone much further. I am perfectly content to have donations to Northern Ireland parties kept secure and not made public. I think that that is quite reasonable. Amendment No. 4 does just that: no public disclosure of donors' names; and leaving out Clause 70 would achieve that objective. So the Government cannot complain that I have not taken on board their security argument.
The Minister admitted that Amendment No. 4 was something the Government had considered. He gave the impression that they were still considering it. But he said that it should be in addition to, and not in place of, the wider powers in Clause 70 which would allow them to exempt Northern Ireland parties from other parts of the Bill. He claimed—I thought that it stretched credulity somewhat—that one could not give the list of donations to the electoral commission and not make it public because the electoral commission
1116
might leak donors' names. What a condemnation of the Government's view of the electoral commission they are about to set up. What confidence can parties on this side of the Irish Sea have in giving confidential information to an electoral commission that the Government themselves say cannot be made leak-proof?
As I said on Report, the continuation of foreign funding from North America, or any other foreign country, for Sinn Fein/IRA and other republican groups cannot be justified on any grounds whatsoever. The Government cannot logically make the leap from wanting to ensure donors' anonymity to a complex exemption from the ban on foreign funds.
I accepted that the Neill committee suggested that there is a problem with the Republic. Largely at the prompting of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I lifted from the Government of Ireland legislation of 1947 the idea that Ireland was not a foreign country and, therefore, accepted that people who had votes and were resident in the Republic could give money to Northern Ireland parties. Initially I thought that the easy way out would be to allow them to give money to any British political party, but the Government did not like that so I have narrowed the issue further.
The three provisions I put forward are hardly options because one builds on another, but I refer to them as the three options before your Lordships. First—I do not disguise the fact that it is my preferred solution— Amendment No. 12 on its own would remove entirely any special provision for Northern Ireland parties and make Northern Ireland parties subject to the same rules and regulations as parties in Great Britain. However, I have listened to the Government's case and I know that they will not accept that. I am aware of what the Neil committee said.
The combination of Amendment No. 4 with Amendment No. 12 would stop donors' names being made public. That is what the Government have said they want for security reasons. But it would also mean that there would be no foreign funding. The electoral commission would know where the money was coming from and the parties would have to observe the rule on not accepting impermissible donations.
My third building block, the third option—it is not my preferred one, but it is a good deal better than the provisions in the Bill—brings in Amendments Nos. 6 and 8. It would allow the foreign funding of Northern Ireland parties to come from the Republic of Ireland only. Only Northern Ireland parties could be so funded and foreign donations could come only from the Republic of Ireland which, according to the Government of Ireland measure, is not a foreign country. It would also mean that the names of large donors would not be made public so they would still be secure. That would mean that in Northern Ireland parties would have to observe the rules on donations; the commission would be able to ensure that they were not accepting money from abroad; but they would be able to receive funding from the Republic of Ireland.
As I have indicated, Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 are ancillary to the main question. They are about the renewal period. Amendment No. 11 refers to referendums.
Noble Lords have had before the House over the past few weeks a number of measures which many of us believe amount to a massive concession to the men of terror. As well as the provisions in the Bill which allow for foreign funding, we have had the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill which, as we predicted, has undermined morale in the RUC and risks undermining the fight against terrorism. Over the weekend a senior officer has indicated that he no longer wishes to serve in the RUC. Then we have the sinister Disqualifications Bill which has never been properly justified.
It seems to me that in this Bill there is another huge concession without anything given in return, as usual. We oppose what the Government are doing. We believe that it sends out dangerous signals. I have gone a long way to take on board what the Neil committee recommended. I have gone a long way to take on board the problems the Government put before your Lordships' House in defence of what they sought to do. I believe that my amendments together represent the taking on board of the Neill committee's report and represent a sensible way forward which would bring the Government and Opposition together. However, if not, I shall seek the opinion of the House. I hope that noble Lords will consider the issue in a dispassionate way, will see how far my amendments accommodate the objections and, if necessary, will join me. I remind the Liberal Democrats that in another place they voted against the clause standing part of the Bill. I look forward to their transferring that support to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I fully support this group of amendments. We have to consider this rather peculiar provision, in particular Clause 70, in the context of what we have been doing in your Lordships' House over past months, and during the past two weeks. The provisions to permit the IRA in various forms to import unlimited funds from abroad were included in this Bill for reasons which were entirely unconnected with the Neill report. Like several other unique Bills in this category, they come into the "most favoured son" group. The obsession so prevalent in both Houses is that of extra-special treatment of terrorist parties: they have to be placated at all costs, even at the costs of integrity and of honesty. The second obsession is that we in your Lordships' House must avoid sending the wrong signal to terrorists just in case they get annoyed. So we grovel and lick boots in the expectation that our taskmasters in the various terrorist groups, from both sides of the community, will observe obligations and keep their part of any bargain. As many noble Lords have said on other occasions, it is a vain hope. But we now have proof positive of their inability and unwillingness to observe any contract into which they may have entered.
1118
So I ask: is it any wonder that they, the terrorists, despise the lot of us? Can Her Majesty's Government justify Clause 70, with its endearing rubric, on grounds other than what I call the "most favoured son" formula which the Parliament of the United Kingdom has been induced to swallow thus far?
On a similar occasion some weeks ago, I asked your Lordships—I apologise for the language—whether there is anything to which we will not stoop. Last week we completed the passage of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill. The IRA/Sinn Fein grouping has thrown that back in our face in the past 24 hours; and, worse, it has completely wrecked the plans for a new police service consisting of a 50:50 composition. Most, if not all of us, were in favour of a balance representing both sides of the Northern Ireland community in the new force. But Sinn Fein/IRA has this weekend warned Catholics not to join the new service. It has warned those who might volunteer and be suitable to serve on the new police body. Saying that they cannot advise nationalists to serve is code for intimidation—kneecapping and all the rest of it; we have seen it all before. People who serve on the new police board will be putting their lives on the line. There is no doubt about that.
The IRA has gone further and dragged the entire nationalist community into a virtual boycott of all the constructive passages of the Patten report. My comments apply equally to Clause 70, because the terrorist groupings will cheat and cheat again. They will not keep their word.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, quoted the Neill report, which says early on:
"Political parties should in principle be banned from receiving foreign donations".
Why are we exempting from that a political party—or rather a terrorist movement masquerading as a political party? The Neill report went on:
"In relation to donations to political parties in Northern Ireland, the definition of a permissible source should also include a citizen of the Republic of Ireland resident in the Republic subject to compliance with the Republic's Electoral Act".
The Neill committee incorporated a Sinn Fein exemption into its fifth report. It will not benefit the Ulster Unionist Party, the Alliance Party, the Democratic Unionist Party or any other properly constituted democratic party except the nationalist parties, and in particular Sinn Fein. Much to my regret, Sinn Fein will dominate the nationalist grouping and the nationalist community in general, as has been proved over the past 48 hours.
I particularly support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, about the confidentiality of donors. If names are to be disclosed, Catholics will be limited in their financial contributions to supporting one party only—Sinn Fein/IRA. It does not take much imagination, particularly among those of us who come from Northern Ireland or have served there, to understand that that intimidation will be carried through to the ballot box.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, over the weekend I watched a video cassette that had been sent to me from Northern Ireland. It was a recording of an Ulster Television "Insight" programme. The programme contained a discussion about the relative merits of Sinn Fein and the SDLP and which one better represented the nationalist population in Northern Ireland. When the SDLP representative was asked why his party had refused to condemn many of the murders and atrocities carried out by the Provisional IRA over the past year, I was disheartened to hear him answer that it was in case it made the party sound like unionists. What a very lame excuse. Presumably the fact that I am supporting the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, makes me sound like a unionist. I do not believe that I do. I believe that the amendment should have been taken up long ago in the deliberations that have affected this country and its relations with the IRA.
Only this weekend we read in the Northern Ireland newspapers that the relatives of the victims of the Omagh bomb courageously took it upon themselves to come to a public house in the north of London, where, in a room above the bar, representatives of the Continuity IRA—the political arm of the Real IRA, which carried out that atrocious bombing that caused such tragedy in Northern Ireland—were collecting funds from the patrons, be they Irish or English. I take it that they were appealing to the Irish community in London.
How can that be justified? Again I refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. Eric Anderson, who has just resigned, was one of the most dedicated senior policemen whom I have ever met in Northern Ireland. He carried out all the investigations into that terrible tragedy and the people who brought it about. He has just given notification that he is going to resign because he cannot accept some of the recommendations in the Patten report. He knows the identity of those who carried out the bombing in Omagh, but he cannot bring them before a court because it is very hard to get evidence. Does anyone believe that he can be replaced? Does anyone believe that any other member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be able to carry on where he has left off? I do not think that that is possible.
It is a contradiction that the House appears unwilling to ban contributions that come from the United States to reinforce the armed rebellion among the different factions of the IRA. The Government are not expressing the view of the vast majority of the people in the island of Ireland by permitting contributions to be brought from America to support the different factions in the IRA—and making excuses for doing so.
Northern Ireland is allegedly a foreign country, but I know from my experience at the SDLP's yearly functions in the Republic that the amount that we received from people there to help our political objectives would not bankrupt the exchequer. We can push that aside. However, Sinn Fein/IRA receive
1120
subscriptions from America. One group in America is ably led by a man called Martin Galvin, who broke away from the Provisional IRA and is now getting funds to support the Real IRA—the group that let off the bomb at MI6 headquarters and has continued a series of minor explosions in this country. Only the financial assistance of some seriously misguided people in the United States of America makes that possible. I hope that any legislation that we pass will do everything possible to stop foreign subscriptions to such organisations.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Mackay. Having had the difficult honour of being the chairman of a political party north of the Border, I know the strength of the links between Scotland and Canada and the United States of America. I cannot for the life of me see why I, as a previous chairman, should be prevented from asking Scots over there for money to fight elections, when my colleagues in the Ulster Unionists will be able to do so. I hope that my noble friend will press his amendment most strongly.
I wish to raise one other point. Amendment No. 6 seeks to include,
"citizens of the Republic of Ireland resident in the Republic (subject to compliance with the Republic's Electoral Act 1997)".
I do not know the terms of that particular Act. I only hope—my noble friend may be able to enlighten me—that residents in the Republic of Ireland will not be a post box for those further afield who may enter the lists at election time.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, only a few days ago we read in the newspapers that the British and Irish governments had jointly approached the American Government to ask that the Real IRA be declared a terrorist organisation. That was done with the intention of closing up funds from North America to the Real IRA. It was a very clear step.
I believe that there is confusion in the minds of some Members of this House as to the money that goes, I suggest, illegally and completely improperly from North America to fund terrorism in the United Kingdom. It does not require the clauses which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, wants to amend to enable that flow of money to take place, even though for the past 30 years the British Government have done their best to prevent such a supply of money funding terrorism in Northern Ireland. The money does not have to be processed through a political party. The terrorists have only to raise the money, spend it in eastern Europe and then smuggle arms, weapons, bombs and explosives into Ireland to be used in Northern Ireland or in Britain.
Therefore, I do not believe that the argument that the Government are soft on terrorism—an argument that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, used in relation to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill and the Disqualifications Bill—is legitimate. Surely we are talking about money which is used for political purposes. Whatever the closeness of the links between

1121
Sinn Fein and the IRA—I do not dispute the closeness of those links—nevertheless, Sinn Fein also happens to be a legitimate political party. We may not like it, but if Sinn Fein seeks to raise money for legitimate democratic purposes, we should recognise that that is what it seeks to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said that very little money for the SDLP came from the Republic. I believe that there is sufficient to make it important for the SDLP to raise its money there. The difficulty lies in the fact that there is no neat way out of the dilemma that has been posed. Sinn Fein happens to be a political party, both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. As such, it can raise money for its political activities in the Republic and it is then not difficult for it to use some of that money for political purposes in Northern Ireland.
There is no neat way out of the dilemma. That is why I believe that the Government are right to include the clauses in the Bill. And that is why I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is right to suggest that the clauses should be removed. I repeat: it is a very difficult problem. The Government have done their best to find a way through it and I believe that they have succeeded. For that reason, I hope that these amendments will not succeed.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, Lord Molyneaux and Lord Fitt, powerfully drew our attention to the extraordinary series of concessions, not least the legislative concessions, made to Sinn Fein/IRA. Having observed them at reasonably close quarters over the past three-and-a-half years, I cannot believe that in their hearts most members of this Government welcome so many concessions to such a group. One can only suppose that they are acting under duress but that, for reasons of maintaining public confidence, that cannot be admitted publicly.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, I support the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on somewhat different grounds. I believe that a serious constitutional position arises and I very much hope that the Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches will consider these issues. In recent years we have adopted a strong principle that our constitution rests on equality and that there should not be discrimination in terms of gender, race or, indeed, colour. However, there is an inherent proposal in the Bill that there should be a discrimination in terms of geography.
The European Convention on Human Rights, which we have adopted into our own law, seems to me also to be based on a principle of equality; that is, it is against human rights for a legal provision to be made which has radically different effects on different groups on a purely arbitrary basis. I believe that these amendments would improve the Bill substantially by bringing it nearer to the constitutional equality which it has been a major aim of the present Government to secure in relation to other matters.
1122
Let us look at the experience of other countries. A major issue which has arisen in the United States is whether there should be equality under the constitution. In the 1954 case which resulted in a declaration that there should not be segregation in education, it was determined that "equal but different" means "unequal"; that is, it cannot be claimed that something is all right although it is a discrimination because, in some other sense, it is equal.
In this case, I do not believe that it can even be said that the treatment of the non-Northern Ireland parties and the parties in the rest of the United Kingdom is equal. However, if in some sense that could be held out to be so, the position would remain essentially unequal and essentially a discrimination.
Therefore, the question which arises is: if we pass the Bill as the Government would like in an unamended form and if the Government persist in their view that they will not accept all or any of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, shall we be passing a Bill that meets the tests of law, including the tests of the convention on human rights? That is a matter which may come before your Lordships' House in another way through the ordinary process of litigation.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. I believe that on the last occasion that we discussed this matter, I asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, whether Sinn Fein/IRA had supported, and had said that it would support, the proposal that Catholics should enter the RUC. I received no answer to that question. Sinn Fein/IRA has given that answer since and it has been no surprise to most of us.
Perhaps I may suggest strongly that, if the House does not accept this amendment, the people of Omagh will lose all faith in the process of justice. I am afraid that it is no good to say that Sinn Fein is a political party struggling to escape from its unwelcome IRA encumbrance. Sinn Fein/IRA consists of the very people who, when the people of Omagh appealed to both Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to set the witnesses free and tell them they could testify, said that they would not do so because they did not recognise British justice.
If Sinn Fein is a political party in the United Kingdom which does not recognise British justice, I suggest that it is the last party to which we should give special concessions. The people of Omagh will judge us. They will say, "You passed the terrorism Act; you said how hard you would be on terrorism; and the terrorism Act says that money to these people will be stopped. But when an opportunity comes, instead of stopping it, you actually create a position in this Bill in which they will receive favourable treatment and be able to obtain money". That will be absolutely incomprehensible and I suggest very strongly that it would be utterly wrong to accept it.
I hope that the Government will reflect on the fact that Sinn Fein/IRA has now come out into the open and said that it will not support Catholics in the RUC.

1123
At the same time, the best of the RUC are going. One thing which Sinn Fein/IRA has been calling for is the disbanding of the Special Branch. We can expect a good deal of action in the United Kingdom which may not be very agreeable and it will serve us right.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I strongly support that question which my noble friend Lady Park has addressed to the Government. She is asking what kind of message the Government expect will be received in Northern Ireland. With respect, I do not believe that the emollient efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will be of any great assistance to them.
I found the speech of my noble friend Lord Mackay very convincing indeed. It was a real effort to recognise the difficulties which the Government face in relation to this appalling problem. He went a long way to make it easy for them by not pressing for the omission of Clause 70.
As this debate has gone on, it has taken on more and more of the quality of a nightmare. I have begun to wonder more and more whether I am taking part in or listening to a procedure which is real. My noble friend on the Front Bench talked of another huge concession without any return so far, nor expected. It is just another huge concession. I wonder how on earth the noble Lord on the Front Bench, admittedly not a senior member of the Government, will have the gall to answer that challenge. He must reply also to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, who pointed out that this was a concession—I believe I have his words correctly—to our taskmasters in the various terrorist groups. When the noble Lord replies, I hope that he will remember what the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux said; namely, that this is another huge concession to our taskmasters in the various terrorist groups. We heard too from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. He never fails to move me because he speaks from terrible experience.
What I find odd—maybe I am wrong; I hope I am—is that in a short time we shall have the spectacle of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, representing the Government of this country, representing all of us in a manner of speaking, in delivering the message that this Government are prepared to facilitate the collection and passage of money by Sinn Fein or its agents from foreign countries for whatever use may be contemplated. It is all very well for the noble Lord to shake his head. I hope he will lend some force to his apparent rejection of what I am saying when he gets to his feet and defends what most of us believe to be totally and absolutely indefensible.
In conclusion, I want to say that the message which the noble Lord will he delivering this afternoon, in the event that he does not, on behalf of the Government, accept the amendment, is one which for all of us now involves unlimited shame and may well, in the future, provoke physical results of which we shall all bear the consequences.
Lord McNally: My Lords, since it was pointedly asked which way noble Lords on these Benches will vote this afternoon, I can tell the House that we shall be supporting the Government.
1124
It is very easy for those on the Conservative Benches to make emotional speeches. It is worth considering—and it is now on the public record—that it is now nearly 20 years since a leading member of the government of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, the late Lord Whitelaw, entered into direct negotiations with the IRA. Sometimes, some of the speeches this afternoon from those Benches have had the whiff of one more push; that, somehow, there is an alternative which is easily available to a government with more backbone militarily to defeat the IRA.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I merely wish to ask the noble Lord whether he does not draw a distinction between negotiating with what were then people who might conceivably behave in a civilised way eventually and people whom we now know do not behave in a civilised way. We have had years of experience.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I believe that terrorists behave in an uncivilised way full stop. But politicians have a duty not to support them, as the noble Baroness said from a sedentary position, but to try to find a way forward to peace. Of course, just as Lord Whitelaw must have done 20 years ago, the present Government face that horrific dilemma of negotiating with men of violence. Those are difficult dilemmas. I often think of George Woodcock's description of good trade unionism being shabby compromises. There is a lot in the peace process which is shabby compromise. But the peace process is about giving some kind of breathing space for the normality of politics to return to Northern Ireland.
We know that around that process, there are those who will be determined actively to destroy it. The fact is that to give peace a chance, the Executive and the political process, such as it is, with its defects, must he given a breathing space. We believe that this is part of a package of legislation, as has been pointed out, and it does provide such a breathing space. It will be abused; attempts will be made to undermine it by the men of violence; but it gives the men of peace something to hang on to and to build on as well.
As the Neill committee recognised, we all know that it is possible to dog-leg funds through the Republic of Ireland and for the terrorists to cheat. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, mentioned, action can be taken. The joint demarches by the British Government and the Government of the Irish Republic are examples of that.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, made an extremely effective speech. On these Benches, we must take a balance of judgment. It is not right on one side. If it were that simple, we should have either defeated the IRA or returned Northern Ireland to some perfect democracy. But neither is on offer at the moment. What is on offer is a peace process which needs help. Because we believe it needs help and because we believe that this Government are trying to make that peace process work, we shall be with them in the Division Lobby today.
4 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I want to speak personally and not on behalf of my party. I have made my personal position clear to my noble friends, and they have accepted it. Having signed the report of the Neill committee, it would not be honourable for me to vote in a manner inconsistent with the report to which I have put my name. In no way is this a criticism of my party or of the stand being taken by it on this issue. Had I not been a member of the Neill committee I should have been in an entirely different position. Personally, I shall be unable to vote on any Division on these amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, with these amendments we return to the vexed matter of the special provisions for Northern Ireland parties. I readily admit that it is a vexed matter, with strong passions running on both sides of the argument. The House is by now well aware of the case made by the Neill committee for these special provisions, so I shall not detain the House by going over that ground again, but shall confine my remarks to the amendments before us.
The amendments address four different aspects of Clause 70: first, the exemption from disclosure; secondly, the exemption from the ban on foreign funding; thirdly, the time limit on any order made under subsection (1); and, finally, the effect of the exemption in respect of the ban on foreign funding on a referendum campaign. I shall address each of those points in turn.
Amendments Nos. 4, 7 and 8 address the issue of disclosure. They seek to take what some may describe as the middle road between applying the controls in full to Northern Ireland parties and a complete exemption. As I indicated on Report, that is a middle way which the Government have previously closely examined. We have concluded, however, that it is not an approach that we can adopt at this time.
Concern has been expressed that the disclosure of donations to the electoral commission, but not more widely, would not provide the necessary assurance to donors in Northern Ireland. Let me make it perfectly clear that this is not because the Government lack confidence in the ability of the commission to keep information about donors in Northern Ireland parties confidential. The key consideration here is public perception. We know that sections of the community in Northern Ireland do not have full confidence in the public institutions operating in that part of the United Kingdom. Whatever the reality of the situation, there will be a perception that information given in confidence to the electoral commission will somehow leak out.
Consequently, this half-way house will not take the trick. If donors are fearful that their details will be made known, they will stop making donations and it would, as a result, become very difficult for democratic parties in Northern Ireland to operate effectively. Such
1126
a result would not advance the peace process. At this time, therefore, I cannot commend this middle way to the House.
Amendment No. 6 seeks to give effect to the letter of the Neill committee's Recommendation 29. Let me remind the House why we think that this particular recommendation is impractical. Under the amendment, a party in Northern Ireland could accept a donation from a citizen of the Republic of Ireland resident in the Republic, subject to that person's compliance with the Republic's Electoral Act 1997.
The first difficulty with that approach is that we do not believe that it would be practical to require that a United Kingdom party satisfy itself that a donor complies with legislation in force in another state, in another jurisdiction.
The second difficulty with this approach is that it would simply serve no useful end. The noble Lord knows very well that the Republic of Ireland's legislation in this area does not ban the foreign funding of political parties. I make no comment about t hat as it is clearly a matter for the Irish state. But, in the absence of such a ban, any citizen of the Republic could accept a donation from the United States or elsewhere and then simply reroute it to a party in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord has argued that we should at least make an attempt to confine the foreign funding of parties in Northern Ireland to funds emanating from the South of Ireland, but this amendment patently fails to do that. If the amendment has no effect in practice, frankly it should not be made.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 relate to the time limit on any order made under subsection (1) of Clause 70. On Report the House accepted a government amendment to limit the life of such an order to four years. It is right and proper that an exemption order should be subject to regular review and we believe that once every four years or so is about right. These two amendments would require an annual review. I put it to the House that that is too frequent. We very much hope that the political climate in Northern Ireland will continue to improve year on year.
I believe that the impassioned plea made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is right. This process is not and never will be perfect, but we have to do all that we can to help it. This is not the same as saying that the political situation will have changed sufficiently one year over another to justify an annual review of a Clause 70 order. I invite the House to stick at four years, albeit with the possibility of an interim review should the climate change materially, as we all hope, in which case the order then in force could, if appropriate, be revoked.
Finally, Amendment No. 11 returns to the issue of foreign funds being used by a Northern Ireland party to meet the costs of a referendum campaign. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, continues to be unhappy about such a consequence of a Clause 70 order.

1127
If, as we propose, an order is made under Clause 70 to exempt Northern Ireland parties from the restrictions on the acceptance of donations, that exemption will apply for all purposes. It is not, and never has been, our intention to allow Northern Ireland parties to accept foreign donations to meet their general running costs or to meet the cost of election campaigning, but not to meet the cost of a referendum campaign. On what possible grounds can such a distinction be made? There is simply no case for this amendment.
The noble Lord is perfectly entitled to argue that there should be no special provisions whatsoever for Northern Ireland. It is up to your Lordship's House to decide whether to accept the noble Lord's case or to accept the Government's and the Neill committee's case. If your Lordship's House comes down in favour of Clause 70, the case for Amendment No. 11 simply evaporates. The fact that a Northern Ireland party may use foreign donations to fund a referendum campaign raises no new issues.
At each stage of this Bill we have heard the arguments for and against Clause 70. Sadly, there has been no meeting of minds at least between these Benches and those of the Official Opposition. The time has come to decide once and for all whether this clause should stand part of the Bill. I put it to the House that there are compelling arguments for these special provisions and I therefore invite the House to reject these amendments.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on the Minister's reply in reverse order. On foreign funding for referendums, he seems to be quite happy that that should go ahead and he seems to accept, in fact almost suggests, that the Government deliberately set out to allow that. To take a narrow aspect, if the Scottish National Party ever arrives at the stage—I hope that it will not—of forcing a referendum on an independent Scotland, it seems to me that there would be no justification for saying, "No, you cannot have foreign money"; whereas in a referendum on the future of Northern Ireland, we could say to one side of that argument, "You can have foreign money". The position is totally without logic and—dare I say it? — totally without integrity.
The third point, the limit of four years, is not the most important part of these amendments, but it seems to me that if the Government are to make progress on Northern Ireland and want to sweep away all these exemptions as soon as possible, which I understand is the Minister's position, they would be better reviewing the situation once every year rather than once every four years. However, that is the least important of the four amendments.
On the second point—essentially, of how we can check whether money that has come from a donor in the Republic has not originated in the United States—the same question could be asked in relation to Great Britain. How will we check that? The electoral commission will carry out some checking, as no doubt
1128
will political parties. But I fully accept that it would be wrong for the other political parties in Northern Ireland to know about large donors, wherever they are from, for reasons of which we are all aware.
However, I should have thought that, with all the co-operation we have with the Republic's government, it would not be too much to ask them to go a step further and help the electoral commission in any investigation it had to conduct in relation to a large donor in the South. I should have thought that that was a small price for the Republic of Ireland to pay in return for all that it has had from the United Kingdom Government over the past few years. So I do not believe the noble Lord made a case at all in that regard.
On the question of donations and keeping them confidential, perhaps if there had been a fourth stage of the Bill—thank goodness, there is not; that is one thing at least on which the Ministers agree with me—I might have knocked out the fact that we should tell the electoral commission and allow Northern Ireland parties not to report their donations of £5,000 to anyone. But it is an amazing proposition that we cannot trust the electoral commission with confidential information.
This has been a sad debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that I hope that his friends in the other place who voted with us on these issues in the Commons do not read in Hansard what he has said today. I do not believe the exaggerated nature of his speech, which was more or less that this would be a threat to the whole peace process, to be in the least bit justified. I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said—that Sinn Fein should be allowed to seek to raise money for legitimate political purposes. I have no problem with that. But why, in reality, should they be the only people who are allowed to raise money for legitimate political purposes outside these islands? The Labour Party is not allowed to and I do not believe for a moment that anything the Labour Party raised would not be used legitimately.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, because it is the only political party which operates both within the United Kingdom and in another country.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my exemption of the Republic of Ireland electors from the ban addresses the noble Lord's point. That is my original point about this being a series of bricks that builds up the position where I take on board the objections of noble Lords opposite.
With the exception of the two noble Lords I mentioned and the Minister, no noble Lord is in the least happy. I could repeat some of the points made. I shall not do so, apart from to say this. If the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, believes these amendments to be proper and sensible amendments to accept, it might be worth those noble Lords who intend meekly to obey the Government Whip thinking about it before they vote. I commend the amendment to the House.
4.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 148; Not-Contents, 167.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hogg, B.

Ackner, L.

Home, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Hooper, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Howe, E.

Ampthill, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Arran, E.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Ashcroft, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Astor, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Jopling, L.

Attlee, E.

Kimball, L.

Barber, L.

Kingsland, L.

Belstead, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Blackwell, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Blatch, B.

Liverpool, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Luke, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L.

Byford, B.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marsh, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Chadlington, L.

Monson, L.

Chilver, L.

Montrose, D.

Cockfield, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Coe, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Courtown, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Naseby, L.

Craigavon, V.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Cranborne, V.

Noakes, B.

Crathorne, L.

Northbourne, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Northbrook, L.

Cuckney, L.

Northesk, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Denham, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dundee, E.

Palumbo, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Patten, L.

Elles, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Elton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Enroll, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Feldman, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Fitt, L.

Plumb, L.

Fookes, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Freeman, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Quinton, L.

Geddes, L.

Rawlings, B.

Glentoran, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Goschen, V.

Reay, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rees, L.

Greenway, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Hanham, B.

Renton, L.

Haslam, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Higgins, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Seccombe, B.

1130

Selborne, E.

Tenby, V.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Thatcher, B.

Sharples, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Trumpington, B.

Vivian, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Slim, v.

Warnock, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Weatherill, L.

Stewartby, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Strange, B.

Wolfson, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Haskel, L.

Addington, L.

Haskins, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hayman, B.

Alli, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Amos, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Andrews, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hooson, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bach, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Barker, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.(Lord Chancellor)

Barnett, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jacobs, L.

Berkeley, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Billingham, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jeger, B.

Borrie, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bradshaw, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bragg, L.

Layard, L.

Bristol, Bp.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Burlison, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Longford, E.

Chandos, V.

McCarthy, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Clement-Jones, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

David, B.

McNally, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Maddock, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Desai, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dholakia, L.

Methuen, L.

Dixon, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Dubs, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ezra, L.

Mitchell, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Molloy, L.

Falkland, V.

Morgan, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Filkin, L.

Newby, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Nicol, B.

Gale, B.

Northover, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Peston, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Goudie, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grabiner, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Greaves, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hamwee, B.

Rennard, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Harrison, L.

Roper, L.

1131

Russell, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Thornton, B.

Sandberg, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Sawyer, L.

Tope, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Tordoff, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Tumberg, L.

Sewel, L.

Uddin, B.

Sharman, L.

Varley, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Shepherd, L.

Walmsley, B.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Warner, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Simon, V.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Whitaker, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Whitty, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Wigoder, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Wilkins, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Taverne, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Winston, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
  TAX RELIEF ON POLITICAL DONATIONS
  (" . After section 379 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (interpretation of sections 369 to 378) there shall be inserted—
  TAX RELIEF ON POLITICAL DONATIONS

    Tax relief on political donations.
    379AA.—(1) Tax relief shall be available to an individual ("the donor") in accordance with this section on qualifying political donations made by him of up to £500 in any year of assessment.
    (2) A donation is a qualifying political donation for the purposes of this section if it is made to a registered political party (other than a minor party) and—

    (a) it takes the form of the payment of a sum of money,

    (b) it is not subject to a condition as to repayment,

    (c) it is not conditional on or associated with, or part of an arrangement involving, the acquisition of property by the political party, its members or accounting units, otherwise than by way of gift, from the donor or a person connected with him, and

    (d) the donor is a registered elector.

    (3) For the purposes of this section a political party is an eligible political party if—

    (a) it is a registered party within the meaning of section 22 of this Act other than a minor party, and

    (b) at the last general election preceding the donation in question—

    (i) two members of that party were elected to the House of Commons, or

    (ii) one member of that party was elected to the House of Commons and not less than 150,000 votes were given to candidates who were members of that party.

    (4) If an individual makes a qualifying donation he shall be entitled, on making the payment, to deduct and retain out of it a sum equal to basic rate tax thereon.
    (5) Where a sum is deducted under subsection (4) above, the sum deducted shall be treated as income tax paid by the person to whom the payment is made.
    (6) Any person by whom a qualifying donation is received shall be entitled to recover from the Board, in accordance with regulations, an amount which by virtue of subsection (5) above is treated as income tax paid by him; and any amount so recovered shall be treated for the purposes of the Tax Acts in like manner as the qualifying political donation to which it relates.
    (7) The following provisions of the Taxes Management Act 1970, namely—

    (a) section 29(1)(c) (excessive relief) as it has effect apart from section 29(2) to (10) of that Act.

    (b) section 30 (tax paid in error, etc) apart from subsection (1B),

    (c) section 86 (interest), and

    (d) section 95 (incorrect return or accounts),

    shall apply in relation to an amount which is paid to any person by the Board as an amount recoverable in accordance with regulations made by virtue of subsection (6) above but to which that person is not entitled as if it were income tax which ought not to have been repaid and, where that amount was claimed by that person, as if it had been repaid as respects a chargeable period as a relief which was not due.
    (8) In the application of section 86 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 by virtue of section (7) above in relation to sums due and payable by virtue of an assessment made for the whole or part of a year of assessment ("the relevant year of assessment") under section 29(1)(c) or 30 of that Act, as applied by that subsection, the relevant date—

    (a)is 1st January in the relevant year of assessment in a case where the person falling within subsection (5) above has made a relevant interim claim; and

    (b) in any other case is the later of the following dates, that is to say—

    (i) 1st January in the relevant year of assessment; or

    (ii) the date of the making of the payment by the Board which gives rise to the assessment.

    (9) The Board may by regulations make provision—

    (a) for the purposes of any provision of this section which relates to any matter or thing to be specified by or done in accordance with regulations;

    (b) with respect to the furnishing of information by donors or recipients, including, in the case of recipients, the inspection of books, documents and other records on behalf of the Board; and

    (c) generally for giving effect to this section.

    (10) In this section—

    "financial year" in relation to any person, means a financial year of that person for the purposes of the relevant regulations;

    "interim claim" means an interim claim within the meaning of the relevant regulations;

    "relevant interim claim" means, in relation to an assessment made for a period coterminous with, or falling wholly within, a person's financial year, an interim claim made for a period falling wholly or partly within that financial year; and

    "the relevant regulations" means regulations made under subsection (9) above.

    (11) Section 839 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section to determine whether one person is connected with another."").
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the issue of tax relief, in respect of which the Government have decided to depart from the recommendations of the Neill committee. Chapter 8 of the Neill report deals with the question of allowing tax relief on donations to political parties in the same way that tax relief is given to charities.
    I could develop this argument at some length. I could even read out the recommendations of the Neill committee on this matter. If I did so, I believe that your Lordships would be convinced. However, that would take time. In addition, I know that government supporters tend to wear earmuffs so that they are unable to hear good arguments, and that they are allowed to remove the earmuffs only when the Whips think that the arguments are bad. I believe that the arguments are extremely good. I therefore hope that they are listening.
    The conclusion to which Neill came, on page 99 of the report, was:
    "Tax relief by deduction at source should be introduced, limited to the basic rate, on donations of up to £500 a year to 'eligible', registered political parties".
    I shall précis the argument. Having decided that donations of over £500 should be made public, and having decided that donations to British political parties should come only from people on the electoral register in this country, the Neill committee felt that the time had come to encourage small donors. In addition, concern was expressed about the involvement of people in the democratic process, a concern shared by all of us. I have previously said that political parties are about the most important voluntary organisations in the country, bar none, because they form the very basis of the political system. Without political parties, one cannot have democracy. They are, therefore, very important.
    We saw in last week's by-elections, with very poor turn-outs, a reduced interest in the political process. I believe that that interest extends to members of political parties. It is not easy to retain members. One way of encouraging people to donate to political parties may be to explain to them that their donations will be treated in the same way as their charitable donations. Interestingly, inheritance tax is already treated in that way, from which political parties doubtless also benefit a little.
    I want to make only one other point about the Neill committee. Reference was made in paragraph 6 of the report to evidence presented from Germany. In Germany, where a system of tax relief was introduced in 1974, the pattern of giving to political parties has changed in favour of many small donations and against large donations. I should have thought that the Government and the Opposition could agree on this. Is that not where we want to end up—with many more small donors to political parties? The German experience demonstrated that that was encouraged in relation to tax relief. Political parties know that there is an extra incentive to getting small donors. This is an important point. It would help the funding of political parties. It would perhaps help them to set up the bureaucracy needed by this Bill. A certain amount of money raised by political parties at the moment will be side-stepped into the setting up of procedures to carry out some of the burdens imposed by this Bill on the political parties. That seems to me a sensible way of helping.
    I am told that tax relief would cost the Government about £4 million. It would be a good way of filling the gap that the Neil committee contended would be left by donors ceasing to make large donations to political parties. I believe that it would also underline to the public the importance of our political parties and the importance of supporting them, both in terms of canvassing and donating the money that political parties need. I beg to move.
    Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment and I strongly support it. If a recent article in the House Magazine is correct, this Bill may well prove to be the noble Lord, Lord Mackay's, swan song on the Front Bench of his party. If that is correct, it will be a great loss to his party and, in view of his great skill in debate, to the whole House.
    Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
    Lord Goodhart: My Lords, everybody agrees that it would be preferable for political parties to have a large number of small donors rather than a small number of large donors. That is the direction that we all want to take. The requirement of disclosure of donations over £5,000, or, in some circumstances, over £1,000, may diminish the number of large donations. Probably within a few months, we shall see whether or not that is so. That requirement can be regarded as a stick but, in order to encourage smaller donations, we need also to provide a carrot. I agree with the Neill committee that the appropriate carrot is tax relief.
    We were impressed in particular by the example of Canada, where by coincidence a general election is being held today. It has an excellent system of public support for political parties through both tax relief and the partial funding of campaign expenditure. In Canada, a gift to a federal party qualifies for up to 500 dollars' tax credit on a donation of 1,150 dollars. There are similar reliefs on donations to parties at the provincial level. Those seem to work well and are popular.
    Our proposal would achieve the same result but by a different route. The Neill committee proposed a simple system similar to the well known gift aid system for charities, except that no credit would have been available to a taxpayer against the higher rate tax. The use of the gift aid method would have meant that the donation would have had no effect on PAYE and there would have been no need to inform employers or in any way publicise the fact that a gift had been made.
    A number of arguments have been made against tax relief. One made at an earlier stage of the Bill was that the money would be better spent on schools and hospitals. That argument was never strong, given that the estimated cost was about £4 million against government expenditure in the region of £400 billion. The tax relief would have been equivalent to £ 1 in every £100,000 of government spending.
    Other arguments put forward the view that it is unfair to those who, by making a donation to their party, cannot pass on the benefit of tax relief because their income is not high enough to bring them into the

    1135
    tax-paying bracket. There will be a few donors in that category; for instance, some students and some nonworking partners of people in work. However, I believe that the number of people in those categories who would make donations would be small. In any event, I do not understand why it is a serious argument against tax relief. If people give the same amount to a party and that amount is worth a little less to the party sometimes, that is bad luck for the party but no handicap to the donor.
    A more serious argument is that there is an imbalance between parties because some have more supporters who will be willing to give £500. However, there would undoubtedly be a substantial benefit to all parties. The Labour Party, in its evidence to the Neill committee, indicated that it had approximately 400,000 donors who gave an average of £20 each. That would enable it to recover about £2 million by way of tax relief.
    The arguments in favour seem to be stronger. I have already spoken about the carrot issue: the proposal is an important incentive to parties to go out and raise more money from smaller donors rather than to concentrate on the large donors. However, there is an argument which goes well beyond that. I believe that it sends an important signal to members of the public that donations to political parties are good. That is already clearly recognised in the case of charities. Tax relief has always been given on charitable donations through the covenant system. In recent years, it has become more widespread because tax relief used to be available on gift-aid gifts of £250 or more and is now available on gift-aid gifts of any amount. That tax relief is given in order to recognise that the state regards the making of charitable donations as good and in the public interest.
    Obviously, many people will not think it right to give their own money to political parties because they do not support any particular party. However, the proposal sends a necessary signal to the public that political parties are an essential part of the democratic system—that is clear and everyone agrees with it—and that people who make small donations to political parties in amounts which cannot influence anyone are serving the public interest and strengthening democracy in our country. That is why I believe that giving tax relief on donations of up to £500 is very much in the public interest.
    Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I support the amendment. I declare an interest as chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which produced the report underlying this legislation. At Second Reading I made the point I am now about to make. Apart from one other intervention, I have kept out of the debate on the Bill because I believe it to be a matter for your Lordships. The views of the committee have been made plain. However, I feel strongly about this issue.
    Allowing tax relief to donors of small sums not exceeding £500 is a signal that public support is encouraged and invited for political parties. We have
    1136
    seen lamentable election turn-outs. In the past week's by-elections we saw turn-outs of between 27 and 29 per cent. Turn-out at elections to the European Parliament has been as low as 15 per cent.
    The move, which is modest and will cost the Treasury little, will encourage people of relatively small means to contribute. The proposal is not one in favour of fat cats because the tax relief is on only £500. The arguments against it have appeared to me to be nothing other than arguments of expediency and convenience. The proposal is disliked by the Treasury which does not want to give up the sum. Under the old phrase, "Where there's a will, there's a way", there would not be the slightest difficulty about introducing the exemption and allowing it to operate when the Bill comes into force. I strongly support the amendment.
    Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I rise strongly to support the amendment and the arguments adduced by the noble Lord and others. I want to make only one additional point. A school of thought suggests that parties might be the recipients of straight subsidies from the state. I do not favour that argument; I believe that such a course should be avoided as far as possible. I therefore believe that if we encourage ordinary voters by giving a tax relief, we shall avoid going down that road. I strongly support the amendment on that ground, in addition to the others which have been put forward.
    Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I want to examine the contradictory arguments which have been put forward in relation to the recommendation and the proposal for state funding. There is a clear distinction between the current funding to political parties—for example, the Short money, the Cranborne money or a freepost, which relate to identified, specific purposes—and the proposal before us which is for general state funding and state aid. I believe that that is where the contradiction lies.
    The Select Committee on Home Affairs of another place identified the proposal for tax relief for donations as genuine state aid, and I believe that that is what we should debate. If the views of the Select Committee are taken as read—I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I have not heard anybody yet deny it—the case for state aid must be made out. Such a case was made out by the Liberal Democrats, who have always been open and honest about their support for state aid, only at the very early stages of the debate. That matter has not been addressed by the Conservative Benches; rather, it has been studiously avoided, presumably because it contradicts their view held consistently that direct state funding should be opposed. One of their arguments is that such funding would reduce the dependence of parties on their own activities and the distinction between them and the electorate.
    If the case for state funding is not made, I believe that the argument for this amendment has been inaccurately expressed. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, put forward a good argument, which we have not yet heard, in favour of direct state funding. If one is

    1137
    opposed to state funding, one has no option but to oppose the amendment. In making these observations, it is not that I do not believe that we should look for ways to enable smaller donations to be made and give a signal to the public that political parties are respectable and should be viewed as a very important part of our democratic society. That is not the issue. The issue before us is the amendment, the basis of which is state aid in its true form.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I strongly support the amendment. In view of the speech of the noble Baroness, surely there is a world of distinction between state funding which I have always understood meant subvention by the state to the parties, and what is called "state funding", which is this amendment, which, as I understand the term, is not. I am totally opposed to what I have always understood was state funding—I hope that it will never be introduced—and I entirely support this amendment which, to me, is not state funding at all.
    4.45 p.m.
    Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I support the amendment, although somewhat half-heartedly. During the many years—some may believe too many—that I have been in one or other House of Parliament I have lost affection and admiration for political party machines which have grown in size and power and have gone a long way towards forfeiture of public respect. I have said publicly that I regard political parties as rather sombre examples of nasty things of which there must be more than one.
    Having said that, I regard the amendment as a preferable alternative to anything in the way of state subsidies for political parties. If there were subventions I would be very worried that they would become so substantial that it would be very difficult to give a hearing to small and respectable voices in the community. One of the most regrettable features of post-war Parliaments has been the disappearance, save in your Lordships' House, of the independent Cross-Bencher. One of my fears is that reform of your Lordships' House may well have the effect of "ironing out" the Cross Benches. I do not know anyone who is wiser or better when he or she wears a party hat than when the individual is bareheaded.
    I regard with suspicion and fear any move to help political parties out of difficulties which are very much of their own making. The amendment that we are now debating at least has the merit that the support is influenced primarily by an individual. It is astonishing that over the years the power and influence of party machines through patronage and the Whips has been allowed to grow to the extent that it has. We should be very careful before we encourage that growth in any way.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I support the amendment. I believe that that is also the view of parties in Northern Ireland, with the exception of one which naturally takes the view that with a gun you do
    1138
    not need gift aid. I am not sure that the public are fully aware of the existing state aid to parties in the form of Short money, free postage at elections and so on. As one who was involved in the electoral process at the other end of the building, I believe that the beneficial effect of the amendment is that it would involve a far greater number of people, who would not regard this as state aid but who would believe that they were stakeholders (if I may use that term) in the party to which they have made a contribution.
    We all share the concern—our colleagues at the other end of the building feel more strongly about it than we do—about the steady erosion in the turn-out at elections, be they general elections, European elections or by-elections. We all welcome action, such at that proposed in the amendment, to arouse greater interest in democracy.
    Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, at Second Reading the Minister described one of the purposes of this Bill as being to revive involvement in our democracy. As my noble friend said, there has been a diminution in the roots of democracy and an increase in the power of the centre. That process can be reversed in two ways, which are not mutually exclusive: first, one can encourage local political involvement and commitment; secondly, one can encourage local economic involvement and commitment. I believe that we should do both as widely as possible.
    The amendment provides only a modest incentive for individuals to take an economic interest in the wellbeing of whatever political party they seek to support. To meet the needs of transparency, we must limit that support; and this amendment does so. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, no one can argue that £500 per head is a sum likely to lead to difficulty in that regard.
    On Report, the Minister referred to the dangers of the sum being increased. That argument did not convince me. The amendment will amend primary legislation. Therefore, any change to it will require further primary legislation. No Parliament can seek to bind its successors. The Bill can be no exception. But if a successor Parliament proposed to increase or decrease the sum before us, surely the contrary case would be fully ventilated.
    During the lengthy stages of the Bill noble Lords have talked about the value and importance of broadening the base of the funding of our political parties. This modest measure will significantly assist in that. I hope my noble friend will press strongly his amendment.
    Lord Marsh: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that in the future any opportunity for changes in the position will come before both Houses and be duly debated. I believe that that will be so. I believe also that every time it happens the limits will increase. The present situation is that none of the parties is really underfunded. They all mount large campaigns. What has happened is that the party machine is in many cases bigger than the politicians. I do not find that

    1139
    particularly attractive. In terms of principle it is highly undesirable. There is no difficulty in raising large sums of money. The problem—it is always the problem with money—is that every time people get it, they want to spend more than they have.
    Lord McNally: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Goodhart spoke from the Neill committee Benches. It is my responsibility to say that on this occasion the Liberal Democrats will be supporting the Opposition in their amendment.
    I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. Parties in a democracy are thoroughly healthy. It is just nostalgia to go back to some non-existent day when we were all independents. If there was a golden age perhaps it was one when every boy and girl born alive in this world was either a little Conservative or a little Liberal. I have got that one wrong, but noble Lords will know what I mean.
    Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I have no desire whatever to go back to that distant age, with or without the company of the noble Lord. What I am saying is that the political parties have grown too fat and obese. They need to change. I would not want to go back to anything. I hope the noble Lord will accept that.
    Lord McNally: My Lords, I thoroughly accept that. I remember the days when the Conservative agents were seen as the brigade of guards of political agents. That was when there was, perhaps, a disparity in funding between the two parties. I should also put on record that I have always admired the party agents. They are a very important part of the system.
    The debate today has echoed with sinners repenting, not least from the Conservative Benches. I hate to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, but this is state funding of political parties. If one is not willing to grit one's teeth and vote for it as such, then one had better vote with the Government.
    As the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and my noble friend Lord Goodhart know, I believe that the Neill committee missed an open goal by not going straight for state funding of political parties. It would have made our politics a great deal healthier. But as a second best this proposal has attractions, especially if it is carried with the other amendment—it is another conversion by the Conservative Party—which suggests an overall cap of £15 million. The real danger arises when parties are set these very large sums which will not be raised by jumble sales and Christmas fetes, but by big donors.
    What is attractive to us about the Bill is its pincer movement. On the one hand it caps expenditure so that parties do not have to go cap in hand to big donors. The amendment will bring in the other side of the pincer, a positive incentive to go and find individuals to participate in the political process and get tax relief for the parties. We support the amendment.
    1140
    To the Conservatives I only say that there is a totally politically incorrect story of a young lady offered first £1 million and then £1 for her services. At the £1 offer she said, "What kind of girl do you think I am?" and the answer is, "Well, we know what you are. We are now haggling about the price". If the Conservatives support this amendment, they are supporting state funding of political parties and we really are just haggling about the sum.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords. I have enjoyed this debate more than I thought I would. Not only has it given me a sense of déjà vu, it has also been a debate riddled with contradiction. It seems to me that it is true that two opposites can agree.
    I have listened to noble Lords from the two parties opposite. Although they disagree on where they come from, they agree on one thing; that is, they want tax relief. It is a question for those noble Lords on the Benches opposite who are concerned about direct state funding as to whether they can live with that and support the position of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay.
    The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, do not like state funding. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is only halfheartedly in support of it. He made a coruscating attack on the growth of the central bureaucracy of political parties. I found much to agree with in what the noble Lord said. That was echoed very wisely by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh.
    Where is the Conservative Party coming from? This is state funding by the back door, or, perhaps now the cat has been carefully let out of the bag by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and rather nicely let out of the bag by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, it is clear that tax relief is state funding. Tax relief is a state-funded subsidy to political parties. If that is the case, how is it that noble Lords on the Opposition Benches can so enthusiastically support this? It is worth quoting the Conservative Party's evidence to the Neill committee. It said:
    "We do not believe that a convincing case has been made for taxpayers' money to be directed towards the campaigning activities of political parties … Forcing taxpayers to contribute to the cost of Party political activities of which they do not approve would he a very significant step. It could only be justified if it were believed that it would otherwise be impossible for political parties to operate effectively".
    So is it the case that members of the Conservative Party have now come to the conclusion that their political life has reached such a strange and unfortunate pass that it is impossible for them to operate effectively as a political party? Is it because they are in a state of penury or is it that they have been converted by the full weight of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on the issue? I am intrigued to see whether I am right or wrong.
    Several good arguments have been raised in the debate in favour of tax relief. The encouragement of small donors is a very laudable point. But where was the compelling and telling evidence that, as a fruit of this particular move, there was going to be a mad rush of small donors to the Conservative Party, the Liberal

    1141
    Democrat Party, or, for that matter, the Labour Party? There was no compelling evidence given in that case. There was an argument made but no compelling evidence.
    We heard too that one of the arguments against the proposal—the schools and hospitals argument—was riddled with falsehood. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made that point. Yes, I take the point, and it is not an argument which I shall deploy against the proposal. But I make the following point because I think it is an interesting one. It is interesting to me that the Conservatives now place a premium on state funding by the back door while deciding as a party that they favour tax cuts. They put tax relief on political donations—the state funding of political parties—above the proper funding of public services, which their programme would commit the country to cutting.
    It is no doubt the case that tax relief as a form of gift aid for charities has been most successful in the past. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said—I may be misquoting him here—that it is like the state giving recognition to the important and valuable work of charities. That was certainly the case that was argued for gift aid tax relief by a succession of Conservative Party Chancellors. That is exactly what this is—it is gift aid to political parties. The Labour Party is opposed to that. We have been opposed to it in the past; we are opposed to it now; and we will no doubt be opposed to it in the future. The Tories need to be honest with us today and say that they accept that this is state funding for political parties. If they do not, I cannot understand the logic of their argument. Indeed, I have not understood the logic of their argument throughout our debates on the matter.
    5 p.m.
    Lord Jacobs: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he accept that there is general disapproval of large donors? For many years I have been a large donor to my political party. But we would welcome government encouragement to small donors. We are not in a privileged position. It is a position that we accept reluctantly. By bringing in support for small donors who give to political parties, the Government now have an opportunity to remove the undesirable effect of having a number of large donors in all our parties.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I happen to believe in the value of small donors. I have personal knowledge of how the Labour Party has tried to develop its funding base over many years. We encourage members of our party to increase the level of their support through small donations. We have done that reasonably effectively. It is for the political parties to do that. We collect many millions of votes in general and local elections. We have that contact with the electorate. It is for us to go out to sell the benefits of participation in political parties and to secure those extra small donations. I agree with the noble Lord that an over-reliance on a small number of large donors is
    1142
    less desirable in the body politic. No doubt noble Lords on the Opposition Benches will want to reflect carefully on that point.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, the Minister left us with the thought that he could not understand the logic of the Opposition's position. I must say that for most of the proceedings on the Bill the Opposition have been unable to understand the Minister's logic. Perhaps he joins us just for a moment in being perplexed; we have been perplexed for hours.
    I was interested in the Minister's arguments. When he goes back to the office perhaps he might think about sacking his researcher and his speech writer. They did not give him anything with which to address the main points in the amendment. The main points arc those made in the Neill committee report. If the Minister wants to find out about state funding and how that relates to tax relief, I suggest that his researcher invites him to read Chapters 7 and 8 of the Neill committee report. The noble Lord might try to address some of the arguments in those chapters. He might try to address some of the arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Neill and Lord Goodhart, both of whom sat on the committee. But the noble Lord simply refused to address those arguments. The noble Lord had his own tiny agenda and he was determined to pursue that.
    If the noble Lord's researcher had drawn the noble Lord's attention to the evidence given to the Neill committee by the Conservative Party, he would have seen what is stated on page 241:
    "Rather than call for state funding we would welcome the Committee's views about how more individuals could be encouraged to donate. We note that in some countries individuals are offered tax relief for political donations, elsewhere tax credits or matching grants are provided. We believe that the Committee should give serious consideration to the practicalities of these approaches in the context of the United Kingdom's voluntary system".
    Half-way through his speech the noble Lord said that we could not point to anywhere in the world where what we propose takes place. I pointed to Canada—not because the point was original to me but because it was made in the Neill committee's report. However, I had forgotten that the noble Lord's researcher had not pointed out to him that he ought to read the Neill committee's report before he talks about these matters. In evidence given on 22nd April my noble friend Lord Parkinson explained where the Conservative Party was coming from.
    The idea that what we propose is direct state funding—that was the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould—does not hold water. The noble Baroness quoted evidence given some years ago by the Conservative Party to a House of Commons Select Committee. I quote what the noble Baroness quoted—I wrote it down. She referred to the,
    "dependence of parties on their own activities".
    That is the whole point. State funding implies that the parties just sit back and the Government give them money. But tax relief implies that the political parties

    1143
    have to go out and persuade people to join and to give those donations of under £500; and on the back of that they will get tax relief on it. It is very dependent on the activities of the political parties. If a political party decides to sit back and do absolutely nothing, it will not get very much help in the way of tax relief. Therefore, I do not think that the noble Baroness's argument is sustainable.
    We have had an interesting debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his support and for his kind words. This is a slightly nostalgic day. I now look forward, perhaps for the last time, to leading a defeat of the Government in the Lobbies. I hope that that can be achieved by the Liberal Democrats sticking with what was said by their colleagues in another place. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
    5.7 p.m.
    On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
    Their Lordships divided: Contents, 199; Not-Contents, 136.

    Division No. 3

    CONTENTS

    Aberdare, L.

    Eccles of Moulton, B.

    Alexander of Weedon, L.

    Eden of Winton, L.

    Ampthill, L.

    Elles, B.

    Anelay of St Johns, B.

    Elliott of Morpeth, L.

    Arran, E.

    Elton. L.

    Ashcroft, L.

    Erroll, E.

    Astor, V.

    Ferrers, E.

    Astor of Hever, L.

    Fookes, B.

    Attlee, E.

    Gardner of Parkes, B.

    Barber, L.

    Geddes, L.

    Bell, L.

    Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

    Belstead, L.

    Glentoran, L.

    Blatch, B.

    Greenway, L.

    Brabazon of Tara, L.

    Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

    Bridgeman, V.

    Hanham, B.

    Brougham and Vaux, L.

    Hanson, L.

    Burnham, L.

    Hayhoe, L.

    Buscombe, B.

    Henley, L.

    Butterworth, L.

    Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

    Byford, B.

    Hogg, B.

    Campbell of Alloway, L.

    Hooper, B.

    Campbell of Croy, L.

    Howe, E.

    Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

    Howell of Guildford, L.

    Carnegy of Lour, B.

    Hunt of Wirral, L.

    Carr of Hadley, L.

    James of Holland Park, B.

    Chadlington, L.

    Jopling, L.

    Chalker of Wallasey, B.

    Kimball, L.

    Chilver, L.

    Kingsland, L.

    Colwyn, L.

    Lamont of Lerwick, L.

    Cope of Berkeley, L.

    Lane of Horsell, L.

    Craig of Radley, L.

    Lang of Monkton, L.

    Craigavon, V.

    Liverpool, E.

    Cranborne, V.

    Lucas, L.

    Crathorne, L.

    Luke, L.

    Crickhowell, L.

    Lyell, L.

    Darcy de Knayth, B.

    McColl of Dulwich, L.

    Denham, L.

    Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

    Dixon-Smith, L.

    Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

    1171

    Mackay of Clashfern, L.

    Rawlings, B.

    Marlesford, L.

    Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

    Marsh, L.

    Reay, L.

    Mayhew of Twysden, L.

    Rees, L.

    Miller of Hendon.B.

    Rees-Mogg, L.

    Molyneaux of Killead, L.

    Renton, L.

    Monro of Langholm, L.

    Roberts of Conwy, L.

    Monson, L. [Teller]

    Rotherwick, L.

    Montrose, D.

    St. John of Bletso, L.

    Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

    St John of Fawsley, L.

    Mowbray and Stourton, L.

    Sanderson of Bowden, L.

    Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

    Seccombe, B.

    Naseby, L.

    Sharples, B.

    Newton of Braintree, L.

    Shaw of Northstead, L.

    Northbrook, L.

    Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

    Northesk, E.

    Sterling of Plaistow, L.

    Norton of Louth, L.

    Taylor of Warwick, L.

    O'Cathain, B.

    Tebbit, L.

    Onslow of Woking, L.

    Thatcher, B.

    Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

    Trefgarne, L.

    Park of Monmouth, B.

    Trumpington, B.

    Perry of Southwark, B.

    Vivian, L.

    Peyton of Yeovil, L.

    Waddington, L.

    Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

    Wade of Chorlton, L.

    Platt of Writtle, B.

    Walker of Worcester, L.

    Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

    Warnock, B.

    Powell of Bayswater, L.

    Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller]

    Prentice, L.

    Wolfson, L.

    Quinton, L.

    Young, B.

    NOT-CONTENTS

    Acton, L.

    Eatwell, L.

    Addington, L.

    Elder, L.

    Ahmed, L.

    Evans of Parkside, L.

    Alli, L.

    Ezra, L.

    Amos, B.

    Falconer of Thoroton, L.

    Andrews, B.

    Falkland, V.

    Archer of Sandwell, L.

    Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

    Ashley of Stoke, L.

    Faulkner of Worcester, L.

    Ashton of Upholland, B.

    Filkin, L.

    Avebury, L.

    Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

    Bach, L.

    Gale, B.

    Barker, B.

    Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

    Barnett, L.

    Gladwin of Clee, L.

    Bassam of Brighton, L.

    Goldsmith, L.

    Berkeley, L.

    Goodhart, L.

    Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

    Gordon of Strathblane, L.

    Billingham, B.

    Goudie, B.

    Blackstone, B.

    Gould of Potternewton, B.

    Blease, L.

    Grabiner, L.

    Borrie, L.

    Graham of Edmonton, L.

    Bradshaw, L.

    Greaves, L.

    Bragg, L.

    Gregson, L.

    Brennan, L.

    Grenfell, L.

    Brett, L.

    Hamwee, B.

    Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

    Hardy of Wath, L.

    Burlison, L.

    Harris of Greenwich, L.

    Carlile of Berriew, L.

    Harris of Haringey, L.

    Carter, L. [Teller]

    Harris of Richmond, B.

    Chandos, V.

    Harrison, L.

    Clarke of Hampstead, L.

    Haskel, L.

    Clement-Jones, L.

    Hayman, B.

    Clinton-Davis, L.

    Hilton of Eggardon, B.

    Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

    Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

    Cohen of Pimlico, B.

    Hollis of Heigham, B.

    Crawley, B.

    Hooson, L.

    David, B.

    Howells of St. Davids, B.

    Davies of Coity, L.

    Hoyle, L.

    Davies of Oldham, L.

    Hughes of Woodside, L.

    Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

    Hunt of Chesterton, L.

    Desai, L.

    Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

    Dholakia, L.

    Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

    Dixon, L.

    Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

    Donoughue, L.

    Dubs, L.

    Jacobs, L.

    1172

    Janner ot Braunstone, L.

    Renwick of Clifton, L.

    Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

    Richard, L.

    Richardson of Callow, B.

    Jeger, B.

    Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

    Jenkins of Putney, L.

    Roper, L.

    Jordan, L.

    Russell, E.

    King of West Bromwich, L.

    Sainsbury of Turville, L.

    Kirkhill, L.

    Sawyer, L.

    Layard, L.

    Scotland of Asthal, B.

    Lea of Crondall, L.

    Scott of Needham Market, B.

    Linklater of Butterstone, B.

    Sewel, L.

    Lipsey, L.

    Sharman, L.

    Lockwood, B.

    Sharp of Guildford, B.

    Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

    Shepherd, L.

    McCarthy, L.

    Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

    Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

    Shutt of Greetland, L.

    McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

    Simon, V.

    Simon of Highbury, L.

    McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

    Smith of Clifton, L.

    MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

    Smith of Leigh, L.

    Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

    Stone of Blackheath, L.

    McNally, L.

    Strabolgi, L.

    Maddock, B.

    Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

    Mallalieu, B.

    Taverne, L.

    Mar and Kellie, E.

    Taylor of Blackburn, L.

    Massey of Darwen, B.

    Taylor of Gryfe, L.

    Merlyn-Rees, L.

    Thomas of Gresford, L.

    Methuen, L.

    Thomas of Walliswood, B.

    Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

    Thomson of Monifieth, L.

    Mitchell, L.

    Thornton, B.

    Molloy, L.

    Tomlinson, L.

    Morgan, L.

    Tope, L.

    Morris of Castle Morris, L.

    Tordoff, L.

    Morris of Manchester, L.

    Turnberg, L.

    Newby, L.

    Uddin, B.

    Varley, L.

    Nicol, B.

    Walker of Doncaster, L.

    Northover, B.

    Wallace of Saltaire, L.

    Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

    Walmsley, B.

    Peston, L.

    Warner, L.

    Plant of Highfield, L.

    Watson of Richmond, L.

    Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

    Whitaker, B.

    Prys-Davies, L.

    Whitty, L.

    Puttnam, L.

    Wigoder, L.

    Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

    Wilkins, B.

    Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

    Williams of Crosby, B.

    Rea, L.

    Williams of Mostyn, L.

    Redesdale, L.

    Winston, L.

    Rendell of Babergh, B.

    Woolmer of Leeds, L.

    Rennard, L.

    Young of Dartington, L.

    On Question, amendments agreed to.

    Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
    5.19 p.m.
    Clause 70 [Special provision for Northern Ireland parties]:
    [Amendments Nos. 6 to 12 not moved.]
    Clause 73 [Notional campaign expenditure]:
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 13
    Page 58, line 18, leave out ("less") and insert ("not more").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 76 [Restriction on payments in respect of campaign expenditure]:
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 14:
    Page 60, line 15, leave out ("less") and insert ("not more").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 86 [Notional controlled expenditure]:
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 15:
    Page 68, line 26, leave out ("less") and insert ("not more").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 91 [Restriction on payments in respect of controlled expenditure]:
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 16:
    Page 71, line 30, leave out ("less") and insert ("not more").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 101 [Referendums to which this Part applies]:
    Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 17:
    Page 78, line 37, after ("Parliament") insert ("or pursuant to resolutions of both Houses of Parliament on the advice of the constitutional committee of the House of Lords that certain provisions of the Bill substantially affect the constitution").
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17, which serves as a paving amendment to Amendment No. 18. With the leave of the House, I should like to speak to both amendments. The leave given on Report to withdraw Amendment No. 17 is acknowledged with gratitude and will not be misused today. The Official Report of 21st November, vol. 619, cols. 790 to 798, should be taken as read. Having explained the nature of the amendments, it is proposed to deal only with the objections raised on Report which went wide of the essential arguments, which did not seem to have been understood, and were not well conceived. Before coming to the objections, the only other matter is to acknowledge the origin of these amendments in Clause 3 of the Bill promoted by my noble friend Lord Cranborne.
    Amendment No. 17 eases the restraint in Clause 101(2)(a) which inhibits any referendum triggered by Parliament despite the government. It also asserts the freedom of both Houses, if so advised under extant rules of procedure, to resolve that a pre-legislative referendum be conducted as proposed in Amendment No. 18 on the provisions of a Bill which, according to the advice of the constitutional committee of this House, would substantially affect the constitution.
    As the provisions of Part VII of the Bill covering referendums are of generic application to all referendums which have to be held by or under an Act of Parliament, the Bill would have to be amended before enactment to afford a referendum as proposed. As regards the objections, the first was that there was a fundamental and principled objection to referendums. But referendums are already de facto a part of the unwritten constitution, as conceded by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
    It was also apparent from the debate on Report on these amendments and from the debate in Committee on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord,

    1147
    Lord Owen, that there is a very substantial body of well-informed opinion in favour of the principle derived from Clause 3 of the Bill promoted by my noble friend Lord Cranborne, as reflected in these amendments, albeit that, as yet, no trigger mechanism has been devised which has been found to be acceptable.
    As regards that matter, my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish expressed some sympathy with the search for an acceptable trigger mechanism, as he put it,
    "triggered by Parliament despite the government".—[Official Report, 21/11/00; co1.796.]
    I have now borrowed that concept to adopt as my own. My noble friend also rejected the mechanism proposed in these amendments, but gave no reasoned objection and suggested no alternative. However, he conceded that this was a problem which, "we shall have to address". Perhaps noble Lords may wish to address the problem today as the main justification for my tabling the amendment and taking up the time of the House.
    Assuredly, this matter was not addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, who appeared to confirm that it was by design that the referendum provisions of the Bill were of generic application and, by implication, that the advice of the constitutional committee or, indeed, its very existence, were more or less irrelevant to the implementation of the provisions of this Bill. However, with respect, as has happened again today, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, did not address the essence of the argument.
    The second objection took the form of the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, that the advice of the constitutional committee should precede the Bill rather than the resolution of both Houses under the amendments which advise either House and which each House would be at liberty to ignore. But that argument, which expresses a preference for pre-scrutiny of a Bill, with which I agree, goes nowhere near the principle of the argument in support of these amendments.
    Lastly, there was the argument that these amendments would not be acceptable to another place. But another place would have total freedom as regards whether to entertain these amendments, subject to the resolution of your Lordships' House. It is not understood why, on any reasoned approach, these amendments should not be acceptable, or whether it is for us in this House to pre-empt the question as regards whether they might be acceptable to another place. For this is but an enabling measure, a provision which will act as a safeguard to be put at the disposal of Parliament and at the disposal of another place. It would add a new dimension of comity which could take us a little further along the road of safeguarding the unwritten constitution from unwelcome erosion by statute, and would do so on a case-by-case basis, without derogation from the delaying power under the Parliament Acts.
    If another place were to resolve that a referendum should be held, it could impose conditions such as the form of the question to be put and the threshold and conduct of the referendum, which would be held by an independent body appointed by the Secretary of State rather than by the electoral commission. In neither House could the argument for or against a pre-legislative referendum be foreclosed upon, a matter which may well have been overlooked by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth.
    The scope of these amendments excludes Bills on which provision is being made for a referendum as well as interpretation or implementation of the Parliament Acts or any other enactments upon which it would be within the remit of the constitutional committee to advise this House, a remit which noble Lords may think could involve a reference by this House to consider and report on some acceptable trigger mechanism.
    5.30 p.m.
    Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for his persistence in refashioning amendment after amendment at every stage during the passage of the Bill. I thank him for persisting in promoting an idea which he perhaps over-flatteringly ascribes to Clause 3 of my parliamentary government Bill, to which your Lordships kindly gave a Second Reading in the summer of 1999 and which, for understandable reasons, did not proceed to its later stages.
    My noble friend has acknowledged that, like it or lump it, referendums are with us. I accept that my noble friends Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Norton of Louth deplore that fact. However, as the old admiral, Lord Charles Beresford, said to my maternal grandfather—I bowdlerise the quotation determinedly for your Lordships—if my aunt had been differently fashioned, she would have been my uncle! We are in a world in which referendums exist. We must address—as the Bill attempts to do, thoroughly unsatisfactorily—the rules for conducting them. Those rules ought to include a means for triggering them. I believe I am correct in saying—particularly if I understand my noble friend's reading of the Bill—that at present a referendum can only be triggered by the Government. The political complexion of a government does not matter, but in most cases in recent as well as ancient history the government of the day have commanded a majority in another place and the other place ultimately does what the government of the day decree; and in the end, thanks to the Parliament Acts, this House has to follow suit.
    In an age in which referendums are increasingly held on what are by common consent big issues, if they command a "Yes" vote they give rise to decisions that are irreversible. So it is curious, when the government of the day would not undertake a referendum of that kind unless they thought they could win it—and indeed wanted to win it—that the decision should be entirely at their discretion. If they thought that they could not win the referendum, theoretically they could push an irreversible measure on a big issue through

    1149
    both Houses of Parliament without reference to the electorate, which in practical terms might never be able to get another crack at the decision. It would be taken over the heads of the electorate, often by a government whose supporting political party might be divided as to the outcome.
    So we have to worry at this point. That is something that my noble friend has magnificently succeeded in doing during the passage of the Bill. Also, in the redrafted amendments that he has submitted, he has made an extremely interesting attempt—probably a successful one—to address the criticisms that were raised.
    At previous stages, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is not in his place, and other noble Lords asked how we define a big constitutional question. The noble Earl rightly said that it cannot be defined. However, I suspect that your Lordships would find it difficult to define an elephant, but that when you saw one, you could recognise it. Whether it was an elephant would often depend on the amount of political steam that had been raised behind any issue at a given time.
    There was another objection with which I did not wholly agree, but whose force I nevertheless recognise. In the present transitional state of this House, to suggest, as I originally did, that it should be the constitutional committee of this House alone which should decide whether a question should be submitted to a referendum, might be to incur the powerful disagreement of another place. As a result, however sensible the proposal, it would not be practical.
    The beauty of my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 is that it is open to the constitutional committee of this House to suggest that a question should be submitted to a referendum and, if another place disagrees, for exactly the same rules to apply as when the two Houses disagree in another context altogether. With his usual ingenuity, my noble friend has found an extremely attractive way round the question.
    I shall not detain the House any longer. My noble friend has performed a useful service for us. We have to consider how we can close what is presently an unclosed circle between Parliament and the electorate on the major issues of the day and when there is a big, irreversible question to be decided. In an age when we increasingly deplore the lack of involvement of the electorate as a whole in the great political questions of the day, the amendment seems to me at least sensible. It offers a way of addressing that lacuna, which has constantly been deplored during the passage of the Bill through this House. It would be curious if we did not at least take my noble friend's suggestion seriously. I would go so far as to suggest that your Lordships might consider supporting it. I have certainly not heard of a better suggestion during the course of the past few months.
    Lord Peston: My Lords, I, too, do not care much for referendums. However, I know that I am hopelessly out of date and it would be absurd for me to suggest that it is not a good path to go down. I believe in
    1150
    Parliament as the place to take decisions and convince the country. But that is an old man speaking, and I shall go no further on the point.
    If we are to have referendums, there is one point on which I am not clear after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. Is the problem that the Government want a referendum and perhaps they should not have it; or is it that the Government do not want a referendum and perhaps they should have it? I am not clear as to what drives the argument.
    Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I cannot speak for my noble friend; he is more than able to look after himself. My feeling is that it is the latter case, not the former, that presents the difficulty.
    Lord Peston: My Lords, as I understand it, the problem that we are asked to contemplate is that there is the need for a referendum and it is not going to take place. That slightly gets me off board as someone who does not like referendums. I am interested in regard to the question of the symmetry or asymmetry and I hope that my noble friend will reply on that point.
    Secondly, as someone who does not fully understand these matters, I am interested to know what would be the role of the constitutional committee of this House were it not to be connected with referendums. In what other way would it he of use? I find it hard to believe that in most Bills that come before this House—whether an elephant or not—major constitutional issues arise. If they do, I never seem to spot them. I am intrigued to know what this body would do. It would certainly help most noble Lords if my noble friend the Minister could clarify what the committee will contribute if it does not contribute in a matter of this kind.
    The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is right to have raised this issue. Although it is his decision, I believe it would be wrong to divide the House on this matter. What is required at this stage is clarification on a very interesting point.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is not alone—as, indeed, he would realise if he had listened to many of these debates—in having a suspicion of referendums. My suspicion is added to when it seems to me that we shall have only those referendums that the Government decide that they want us to have; that is very unfair. It is not symmetrical. If we continue to use referendums, there will at some time in the future be a reasonable and understandable demand for referendums to be held not just on issues on which the Government decide that they want us to have them, but also on issues on which they do not want them to be held. I realise that that is a difficult proposition for government to comprehend, but it is certainly the case. Moreover, I am not sure that that will be limited only to constitutional issues in the future. Therefore, I have some concerns that my noble friend's amendment may not really address the whole of the issue about who decides on referendums.

    1151
    I believe that we have made some satisfactory progress on the question to be asked in referendums, but we need at some stage to make progress on who actually decides to have referendums. At present, it is entirely a matter for the Government. I know that people will say that it is Parliament; but, in reality, the Government have such a majority in the other place that they could hold referendums every other month on any issue they wish. I believe that to be wrong in principle, so I do not agree with them. I also think that it would be wrong if the Government alone could trigger them. As I say, my noble friend's amendment does not seem to address that wider issue, but it is certainly worthy of debate; indeed, it is as worthy of debate as the other issues raised during the passage of the Bill.
    Lord Bach: My Lords, the Government also agree that the issue is worthy of debate. We are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for raising the issue and for his patience with the House on Tuesday of last week when his amendments were called very late in the evening. The noble Lord was good enough to move them then and, indeed, has been good enough to do so again today. We had a interesting debate last week and, if I may say so, an even more interesting debate this evening.
    The opposition put forward last time—not least by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, in a most interesting speech, to which reference has been made today—referred to noble Lords' distaste for referendums. Of course a number of noble Lords on all sides expressed their distaste for referendums. It is not the same as saying that there should never be any referendums, but it is probably the same as saying that there should not be very many of them. That is one of the issues about which those who say that they are not very keen on referendums must think and talk. The crucial issue is how often referendums will be used, and not just whether they are ever used.
    It was unfortunate that on Report these amendments did not receive the full debate that they merit. The Government's position remains approximately that which was set out late at night last Tuesday. We do not believe that these are issues upon which it is appropriate to legislate in the context of this Bill. That may be a view that is shared around the House. These are important issues, but perhaps not issues for this Bill. Why do I say that? The fact is that this legislation has sought, sometimes with more success than at others, to give effect to the recommendations of the Neill committee with regard to how referendums should fairly be conducted. The circumstances in which referendums are held, which, in some ways is the critical question, is an issue of an altogether different order and one that will certainly need to occupy more of your Lordships' time in due course. Indeed, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for, as he said, having raised the issue in the middle of last year.
    1152
    The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has pleaded the case for arrangements that safeguard our constitution. The idea that matters of profound constitutional importance should be put to a referendum is no longer a novelty. The Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords (the Wakeham commission) recommended the establishment of a sessional committee of this House to scrutinise public Bills in the light of their constitutional implications. We believe that to be a positive step.
    My noble friend Lord Peston asked about the nature of the job of the House of Lords' constitutional committee. I can give the House a quotation from the commission. It is a short quotation, but one which sums up what the commission had in mind. The task of such a committee would be to examine the constitutional implications of all public Bills coming before the House and,
    "to keep under review the operation of the 'constitution'".
    That last point seems to me at least to be fairly wide in scope. I very much doubt that the committee will feel particularly restricted when it comes into being.
    The noble Lord's amendment puts two and two together, but we are not convinced that making a statutory provision to the effect that the committee's advice on such matters should trigger Parliament's consideration of whether a referendum should be held would be desirable. We are not sure how far it would help such a committee in its work to know that each time it adjudicated on the implications of a Bill, its deliberations might be a prelude to a charged debate—because it would be charged—about the holding of a referendum.
    However, in one important sense, the proposal before the House is correct. The decision on whether a referendum should be held would be one for Parliament as a whole to make. On a case-by-case basis Parliament would decide whether a particular constitutional reform warranted endorsement in a referendum. But, to that extent, it is not clear that this proposal would add very much to the present constitutional position. As matters stand, it is already open to Parliament to decide that a particular Bill should be subject to a referendum and to legislate accordingly. It may be thought that it is better to do so by means of legislation rather than by means of a resolution.
    Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, pointed out on the previous occasion—and, indeed, as has been said again this evening—the chances of Parliament coming to such a decision other than at the instigation of the government of the day are probably, in practice, slight. But we do not see anything in the noble Lord's proposals to make that chance very much greater, as the support of both Houses of Parliament is needed before a referendum can take place.
    I turn now to the other aspects of the proposals—
    5.45 p.m.
    Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful. I do not wish to detain either the noble Lord or the House for very long. However, in the light of what he

    1153
    has just said, will the noble Lord accept that the very fact of incorporating in the statute the opinion of the constitutional committee of this House would provide something of a hurdle for the Government and would, therefore, force them to take such matters more seriously than would otherwise be the case?
    Lord Bach: My Lords, I would not go as far as that, but it would be something of a hurdle. But how much of a hurdle it would prove to be is a matter of doubt. Perhaps I may refer again to the important speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, on Report. I, too, like other noble Lords, have had the advantage of reading the Hansard report of the debate. I hope that this will in some way explain why I believe that there is some doubt about how high a hurdle it would turn out to be. The noble Lord said:
    "The other problem I mention at this stage and draw to the attention of my noble friend is that the House of Commons is likely to find the provision unacceptable, as it provides that resolutions have to follow advice from a committee of this House. For the reasons that have been advanced I do not doubt that the committee will be highly qualified to comment on the matter. But that is not at issue. It is a committee of one House that would trigger resolutions of both Houses".—[Official Report, 21/11/00; cols. 795–96.]
    He mentioned that specifically—
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very much obliged. I wonder whether I can help on this because we are going slightly off track. The question is not bow high is the hurdle. It will not be very high when it starts. The whole concept is to develop a new dimension of comity—an enabling provision. Obviously my drafting would not be right; that is clear. I am not competent to draft this sort of provision. It would have to be drafted in consultation and there would need to be a willingness on the part of both Houses to recognise that something had to be done about the constitution. My noble friend did not quite understand what I was getting at.
    Lord Bach: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord is right to say that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, did not understand what he was getting at. However, in my experience the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is learned in these matters and normally understands these issues rather better than I.
    Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, as my name has been mentioned I had better speak to prove that I am present. My noble friend says that I misstate his position. I point out that that was based on a misstatement of what I said on Report; therefore, it is a misstatement based on a misstatement. I hope that I may help the noble Lord in one respect as I think that there is a point here which relates to what my noble friend Lord Cranborne said, particularly with regard to recognising an elephant when you see one.
    Under my noble friend's amendment, the constitutional committee would merely give advice on whether a matter substantially affects the constitution. It would not necessarily give advice on whether a referendum should be held. That, I think, serves not to
    1154
    strengthen but to undermine the position of my noble friend. Merely to say that something substantially affects the constitution could include a number of issues on which no one would feel a referendum was necessary. Therefore, it would be easy for the Government to say that they do not think that this is something on which a referendum is necessary. As there would be several issues on which there would be general agreement that matters of that kind should not be put to a referendum, I do not think that the amendment would create a substantial hurdle.
    Lord Bach: My Lords, I talk of other aspects of these—
    Lord Peston: My Lords, I know that my noble friend wants to get a move on, as does everyone else, but before he does so I refer to an earlier question that I expressed badly. I merely asked whether the constitutional committee could—this follows the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth—say that this is an important matter for the constitution and that it thinks that the Government ought to consider holding a referendum. Would it be within the committee's powers to say that, or would it be ultra vires? That was my question. Could the committee at least recommend a referendum? Is the constitutional committee permitted to do that?
    Lord Bach: My Lords, that is a much more difficult question than the first one that I thought the noble Lord had asked me. I do not know whether that would be beyond the committee's powers but I suspect that the constitutional committee will be a strong committee and will take a strong line. However, I am looking to the future.
    I turn briefly to the other aspects of these amendments. We do not understand why the noble Lord considers that an independent body other than the electoral commission should administer a referendum held under these provisions. In the Bill, whatever its faults, we have gone to considerable lengths to secure the independence of the new electoral commission from the government of the day. The noble Lord's amendment appears to intend that the independent body which he has in mind would be appointed by the Secretary of State.
    The debate about the proper place of referendums in our constitutional arrangements will run and run and rightly so. However, the Government do not think that matters of this order should be harnessed to proposals set out in the Bill. I do not believe that the noble Lord thinks so either. However, we and the House are grateful to him for having raised in this short debate matters of considerable importance, to which the House will no doubt return in future.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I shall deal with one or two questions. No, it was not the concept that the constitutional committee should have the remit to recommend a referendum; its remit would be merely to advise on whether provisions in a

    1155
    Bill substantially affected the constitution. As to the hurdle, I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth still does not have it right, but I shall not pursue that on this occasion.
    I take the point that this Bill, from a government point of view, is not the right vehicle for this amendment. But from anyone else's point of view, when you look at Clause 101 and you see that it is a generic application, and that it inhibits a referendum other than at the behest of government and inhibits Parliament, one is bound to put an amendment such as this down at all events at the very least to draw attention to the situation. That has certainly been done. As my noble friend Lord Cranborne said—I am most grateful to him for his help and support—this is something that we do have to worry about. It is something that we shall have to consider—it will not go away—as it is an important de facto part of our unwritten constitution.
    I am not so sure that my attempt is sufficiently successful to be, so to speak, the end of the road and for me to seek to divide your Lordships' House and to take a formal opinion. I should prefer, if I may, again saying how much indebted I am to all noble Lords who have contributed, to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I may well wish to come back to this matter on the gracious Speech. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
    Clause 112 [Notional referendum expenses]:
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 19:
    Page 86, line 5, leave out ("less") and insert ("not more").
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 114 [Restriction on payments in respect of referendum expenses]:
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 20:
    Page 86, line 43, leave out ("less") and insert ("not more").
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 125 [Restriction on publication etc. of promotional material by central and local government etc.]:
    Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke moved Amendment No. 21:
    Page 93, line 19, at end insert ("; or
    (c) any institution of the European Union").

    The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 21 and 44 are two modest but, I believe, necessary amendments. If they are put on the face of the Bill, as I hope noble Lords will accept that they should be, they will simply ensure that the EU institutions will not be tempted to interfere in a referendum—whether or not that concerns the euro—during the referendum period. I believe that that is not unreasonable.
    Similar amendments were moved in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, dismissed the fear that there was any need for this kind of amendment. He said:
    "My view and the Government's view is that it would be entirely counter-productive for the commission to become embroiled in a referendum campaign on this issue".—[Official Report, 24/10/00; col. 195.]
    He later stated:
    "I do not believe that the European Commission wishes in any way, shape or form to become involved in any attempt to slant the debate in this country".—[Official Report, 24/10/00; col. 200.]
    The Minister must have been working terribly hard on his brief over the past few years as over the past years and months we have all been subjected to a constant bombardment of lectures from members of the Commission and other Eurocrats on the dangers that we face if we miss the various trains, planes, boats and bicycles that are so dear to EU image-makers.
    I give one or two examples that support the need for my amendment. The Commission—it is one of the prime movers—supports the European Movement with money. The European Movement supports Britain in Europe. They are bed fellows and share the same offices. That is a good way to transfer money direct from the Commission to Britain in Europe. Britain in Europe is likely to be one of the major players in any referendum on the euro. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is a supporter of Britain in Europe. Perhaps he may care to clarify whether he is still a member of its council. The Commission also supports 24 Euro-info centres in the United Kingdom. These are funded in part by the Commission, in part by the Government and in part by other business interests. One of the activities of these Eurocentres is to distribute literature for the Association for the Monetary Union of Europe, a strongly pro-euro campaigning group.
    The EU Trade Union Information Bulletin informs that it is supported by DG X—the trades union division of the Commission. I am afraid that that bulletin is unashamed propaganda. It claims that the euro will,
    "reduce interest rates and mortgages and increase competition, reduce prices and create unemployment".
    In other words, they are the usual fairy tales.
    The contention that we do not need to have any safeguard in the Bill against interference by the European Commission or any other of the European institutions does not hold water. The Minister said in effect, "Don't worry, the Commission will be too clever or too wise to interfere". The Minister and some noble Lords may believe that but does the Commission? In order to be certain that the Commission and other institutions will not interfere, the safest move would be to put the provision on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
    6 p.m.
    Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. It has been the theme of critics of the Bill that the Government, quite rightly, have

    1157
    powerful opinions about which they are endeavouring to persuade the British public. A perception could grow that, despite the Government's natural desire to appear to conduct referendums under rules which are perceived to be and are fair, their opinions are driving them so strongly that they are blind to the fact that that is no longer so. There is more than a suspicion that the conditions under which two previous pre-legislative referendums on devolution in Scotland and Wales were held were rigged by the Government. This Bill is an opportunity to ensure that the Government are seen to make it more difficult to rig referendums.
    My noble friend's amendment has a narrow application. But we know that very large sums of taxpayers' money, whatever their opinions, are paid through the EU budget into making propaganda on behalf of the European Union. If there were a universal consensus about the European Union and the desirability of a number of its activities and aspirations that might just be acceptable. But we are talking about probably the most important and most contentious political issue of the day. We know that the institutions of the European Union have a well-financed propaganda campaign, as my noble friend made clear. Large sums of taxpayers' money are poured into various lobbying groups. They may be groups employed directly by the European Union, like Mr Martin's organisation not far from this very building. Alternatively, those funds may be directed into supporting various campaigning groups, particularly in this country, of the kind to which my noble friend referred.
    If the Government are to avoid reinforcing the impression that they are not averse to rigging the rules on referendums in their favour, they would be wise to make one little nod in the sceptics' directions—I do not use that term in the European sense but as regards sceptics of the Government's own intentions—by looking favourably on my noble friend's suggestion.
    Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and concur with the previous speaker. It would be in the Government's own interest to consider the amendment favourably. After all, we are being told by the Prime Minister and others that there is no intention of having a European superstate. What could better convince people that we shall not have a European superstate than to make it illegal for what some term to be the European superstate to intervene directly or indirectly in referendums in this country? There is no doubt that the European Commission finances the European Movement in many ways. Indeed, until 1994 our own Government were subsidising and making contributions to the European Movement. That fact was elicited by questions that I asked. It was no small sum—£320,000. Since the Government make it clear that no government agencies in this country should be permitted to intervene unfairly or on one side of any argument, that should surely be extended to what is becoming increasingly the government of Europe in Brussels.
    1158
    If the Government want to make the European Union more acceptable to the people of this country, it would be in their interest to accept this modest amendment which would do no harm to the Bill.
    Viscount Astor: My Lords, in principle we support the amendment. It seems somewhat bizarre that in a referendum campaign no Minister of the Crown, government department, local authority or any body funded mainly from public funds is allowed to take part, whereas the Commission may do so. It would seem sensible to put the issue beyond doubt. Presumably the Government would not want interference in this way. It would be dangerous to tilt the argument.
    Amendment No. 44 concerns donations. It seems a sensible amendment. I shall listen to what the Minister says. During the passage of the Bill, we have had debates about donations. We have been accused of seeking to have, for example, different rules for English companies than for foreign companies. Our argument did not prevail. However, this amendment makes the rules the same for everyone. There seems some sense in it.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have been round this part of the course several times. As I have said before, this is specifically not a Bill to make provision for the holding of a referendum on the euro. We do not want to add extraneous provisions designed with that referendum alone in mind. If a referendum on a particular issue warrants special rules, they can be provided for in the separate legislation that is needed to enable that referendum to be held.
    Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend says that this is only about the euro.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord misheard me. I said specifically that the Bill is not about a referendum on the euro.
    Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I was going to say that a government could have a change of heart and there could be a referendum on, for example, the EU charter of fundamental rights. The euro is not the only issue. A number of other issues connected with the European Union or in which the European Union might be interested could also be involved.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes of course, my Lords. Specific measures would have to be taken to deal with such an eventuality. I have developed that point on other occasions—rather successfully, I thought—arid I reiterate it this evening.
    Amendment No. 21 would apply the restrictions on the publication of promotional material set out in Clause 125 to European Union institutions. As a result, the European Commission would be prevented from publishing promotional material about the euro in the 28 days before the date of the poll.

    1159
    As I have previously made clear, any decision to join the euro will be for the British people alone. It would be wholly counter-productive for the Commission to become embroiled in a referendum campaign on the issue.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, my noble friend says that the Bill is not about the euro. All right, let us put the euro aside. If the Government felt that an issue such as whether qualified majority voting should apply to taxation across the board were so important that a referendum should be held on it, such a referendum would come within the Bill. Would it not be right to forbid the institutions of the Union to finance one side?
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, clearly that has to be a matter for the Commission. I shall come to that.
    The Commission knows that it would be wholly counter-productive for it to promote one side, as does the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. In some ways, given his perspective on the issue, he might want the Commission to seek to get involved, because that would strengthen his line of argument, but I do not believe that it would want to do so. The commissioners are rational and sensible people who realise that the decision on such matters is for the people of our country.
    Lord Marsh: My Lords, the European Union has an entire infrastructure in this country specifically designed to intervene—as some would see it—on just such an issue.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware that the European Union has an infrastructure, but I am sure that most of its work is directed towards explaining the institutions of the European Union. Given that successive governments have ensured that we are party to the European Union and have signed up to participation, it is logical that the Commission should continue its informational role.
    The red herring of the Commission being involved in the Danish referendum has been much raised in the debate. In fact, it did not seek to engage in the debate in Denmark. The example of the Danish referendum ought to lay any lingering fears on the subject to rest.
    Some realism is required on the Commission's intentions. That should go hand in hand with realism about what such prohibition could achieve. An explicit ban on referendum expenditure or the publication of referendum material by the institutions of the European Union would beg the question of how such a ban could be enforced. The territorial application of the Bill is confined to the United Kingdom. It could not bite on expenditure or the publication of material on the Continent. That argument has been deployed from the Conservative Front Bench on other aspects of the Bill. Given the provisions of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, the
    1160
    jurisdiction of our courts in relation to a breach of the provisions of this part of the Bill by an institution of the European Community would be doubtful.
    6.15 p.m.
    Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope that I have misunderstood the Minister. I wonder whether he could confirm what he has said. Is he saying that even if we wanted to stop the institutions of the European Union undertaking propaganda activities within the boundaries of this country, we could not do so because of the immunities that we have given them?
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is the point that I have been making. I shall happily repeat it, or perhaps the noble Viscount—less happily from his point of view—can read it in Hansard. Those immunities have been given to the European institutions in various protocols in the past. Indeed, the noble Viscount was party to the government that provided those immunities.
    The purpose of Amendment No. 44 is to prevent a permitted participant accepting a donation made by or on behalf of an institution of the European Union. The amendment is unnecessary for the simple reason that an institution of the European Union does not constitute a "permissible donor" as defined in Clause 54. The amendments have no place in a generic referendums Bill. I once again urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
    Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he tell us first on what subject he envisages having a referendum if not on the euro? Secondly will he answer my question about whether he is on the council of the Britain in Europe movement?
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot predict from the Dispatch Box what issues may be the subject of any future referendum. Any Minister who did so would be very foolish.
    I have never attended a meeting of the council of Britain in Europe. I thought that I had resigned from that body. If I have not done so, I shall make sure that I do so pretty sharply.
    Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, in response to my noble friend Lord Cranborne, he said that certain immunities had been conveyed. As that may come as a shock to some of us, will he undertake to put in the Library a memorandum confirming exactly where we have given such immunity to the European Union? I am sure that that would not be very difficult and would help the debate.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not an expert on such matters, but I think that the decision was made on matters relating to the single market.
    Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this short debate, which has made the Government's position untenable.

    1161
    They have said that the issues do not need to be specified in the Bill but have given no serious argument why not. They have simply said that the European commissioners would behave themselves and would not interfere. That is putting hope over experience.
    I am tempted to divide the House, but I know that your Lordships are anxious to get on, so I reluctantly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Marsh Lord Marsh moved Amendment No. 22:
    Page 93, line 29, at end insert—

    ("(3A) Subject to subsection (3B), no material to which this section applies shall be distributed or displayed to the public free of charge during the referendum period by or on behalf of—

    (a) any Minister of the Crown, government department or local authority;

    (b) any other person or body whose expenses are defrayed wholly or mainly out of public funds or by any local authority; or

    (c) the Post Office;

    unless such material—

    (d) is factual and impartial; and

    (e) has been circulated to permitted participants at least seven days before it is published.

    (3B) Subsection (3A) does not apply to—

    (a) material made available to persons in response to specific requests for information or to persons seeking access to it; or

    (b) material published on web-sites.").

    The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is connected with the general issue raised by the previous amendment. I should make it clear that I have been involved with Business for Sterling since its inception and am president of its council. Having said that, one day I should be interested to hear privately why the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, left the council of Britain in Europe. I can think of many reasons why I would have done so, but that is his personal grief.
    This amendment clearly has a relationship with the euro and the single currency because they will almost certainly be the subject of the next referendum. I believe, however, that it raises fundamental issues which go much wider than that. We have to recognise that over the years there will be other referendums. I cannot believe that there will not now that we have embarked upon that course. I believe that basically this amendment goes to the guts of the extent to which taxpayers' money and the full machinery of government may properly be used to influence the outcome of a referendum. It does not matter what the subject is; it so happens that the next one is likely to concern the single currency.
    The argument is clearly set out in the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life:
    "We believe it is perfectly appropriate for the government of the day to state its views and for members of the Government to campaign vigorously during referendum campaigns, just as they do during general election campaigns. But we also believe that, just as in general election campaigns, neither taxpayers' money nor the permanent government machine—civil servants, official cars, the Government Information Service, and so forth—should be used to promote the interests of the Government side of the
    1162
    argument. In other words, referendum campaigns should be treated for these purposes in every way as though they were general election campaigns".
    That is the issue. It is not a case of whether one does or does not join the single currency, or whether one likes or does not like the European Union. It is a question of the use of public moneys on such occasions.
    The Government's view, which, as we would expect, the noble Lord spelt out clearly last time this matter was debated, was that that was simply not possible. They believe that the issues are so complicated that no one can tell the difference between party political propaganda and a civil service document. The noble Lord gave as an example the passage through Parliament of a Bill which would make possible provision for the referendum. He suggested that even the Explanatory Notes could be controversial.
    With the greatest respect, I suspect that over the years most senior Ministers and senior civil servants have had long discussions and arguments about the dividing line between legitimate public expenditure and political activity which is clearly at the taxpayers' expense. They are two different things and, as the proverbial elephant (which seems to be making its presence felt in this debate) shows, you can always tell it when you see it. The position is similar to that of managers who deal with senior executives' expense claims. It is difficult to describe the exact point at which a claim becomes unacceptable, but the manager always knows when it is and the executive always knows when it is. I believe that the same analogy can apply in this case.
    If one says that it cannot be done, that assumes that our Parliament is not sophisticated enough to accept the fact that, whichever party is in power, the Government have a right and a duty to govern whether or not a referendum or a general election is in process. I do not believe that any of the parties would have any sympathy if, having complained about the political activities of the Government, they were then to turn this into a political argy-bargy.
    Many of us considered that, if a difficulty arose which appeared to be insuperable, the way round it would be to favour no limits on expenditure. Perhaps I may take as an example the euro. I suspect that the campaigns for both sides of that argument will not be short of money. However, the Government have rejected that and chosen a course which in my view is indefensible.
    Briefly, in the six-month run-up to the poll, the political parties will be limited to expenditure of between £0.5 million and £5 million. But the Government will have no limit on the amount of public money that they can spend in support of their party's policy. That is the problem. The Government should not pretend that there is a dividing line between the Government and the Government's political party. They are one and the same, and in my view it is wrong when they use public moneys for a party aim.
    Between £0.5 million and £5 million will be available for the parties involved. However, there will be no limit on the amount of public money that the Government

    1163
    can spend in support of their party's policy up to 28 days before the poll. But the parties outside the Government are to be limited to a period of six months. That involves two totally different sets of rules and is based on the argument that we could not conceivably draw a distinction between public expenditure used for party ends and the proper activity of a political party.
    Of course, there are strong arguments in favour of what other people will see as the blatant misuse of taxpayers' money for party benefits. President Mugabe would have no problem with that. He would wonder what the debate was about. After all, that is one of the perks of being in office. However, that is not how we have traditionally done things in this country. Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, for whom I have great respect, would probably argue that Singapore would never have achieved the success that it has if it had adopted our Westminster traditions. When it comes to public expenditure, there is a rigid distinction between party and government.
    As I said at the beginning, I believe that this is an issue of fundamental principle and importance. I do not believe that it is confined to a single party. It has ramifications which go much wider than that. As referendums develop, what is now seen as a disputed process will become accepted and improved upon. In that connection, I am told that Article 10 of the convention on human rights includes,
    "the right … to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority".
    It is public knowledge that Business for Sterling has taken legal advice on this issue. The advice that I have seen is that, although the Act permits even-handed regulation of referendums, controls which give an advantage to one side are open to challenge. If a solution exists through the courts, we shall pursue it because I do not believe that the issue should simply be allowed to die.
    I can understand why any Opposition may well believe that, when it takes up the reins of government, this may turn out to be a useful piece of legislation. I believe that that would be false and this is a very dangerous precedent which should be resisted. The provisions in the Bill introduce a new and highly undesirable development in the use of public money for political purposes. The Bill as drafted legitimises a gross abuse of the freedom of future governments to access public funds for party political uses. We may be able to test the matter in the courts or discuss it further. I do not believe that it is enough simply to say that this is an argument about the Eurosceptics. It is an argument about the British constitution and how we run public affairs. I beg to move.
    Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain why he believes that it is legitimate for governments to publish material on websites that is not factual or impartial? The noble Lord did not deal with the proposed subsection (3)(b) in the amendment and I am rather mystified by it.
    6.30 p.m.
    Lord Marsh: My Lords, I felt some sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who has undergone very long hours on this subject, as have other Members of the House. Therefore, I tried to keep my speech as simple as possible.
    The reason for those exemptions is precisely because we believe that you cannot stop a government carrying out their activities. If they have a website, that gives government information. I give an example. It is not legitimate to send out 800,000 letters to British businessmen, 75 per cent of whom do not trade outside the country in any event, trying to persuade them that they should be supporters of a single currency.
    So, yes, Ministers will make speeches which will receive publicity. Ministers will no doubt issue White Papers which will happen to appear in the course of the events. Those things will happen. The idea that Ministers cannot express their governmental views and carry out their governmental jobs is nonsense.
    Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. Anyone who has been a Minister anywhere near the centre of government in the run-up to a general election will know how assiduously civil servants very often attempt the impossible: to differentiate between what is a party political point in the way of information and what is legitimate information of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has been trying to define for the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
    We know how difficult that is. Indeed, it has been one of the more difficult tasks which the Government have had to address during the course of the passage of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish in particular has acknowledged that the Government have not only a right but a duty to give factual information.
    Equally, I am sure that the Government would acknowledge that in the run-up to a general election campaign, over the years, it has been thought to be self-evidently right that government Ministers should try to wear two hats: the hat of a government Minister and the hat of a party politician. We know how difficult that is, but we know also how the convention has grown up in the run-up to general election campaigns—and there are many noble Lords all round this House who have experienced this, as I have—that that attempt is made and, to a surprising extent, it is successfully made. Difficult judgments are drawn in the run-up to a general election campaign as well as during the campaign itself because it is acknowledged that, by convention, we must be extra careful in the run-up to a general election campaign, even though the rules are not explicit. It is part of belonging to the unwritten constitutional club which still works and to which I know the Government still subscribe, at least in that respect.
    If that is true of a general election campaign, should it not be true also of a referendum campaign? In many ways it should be easier in relation to a referendum campaign which, by definition, addresses a much

    1165
    simpler set of questions. If I had my way it would only ever address one question because we should be talking only about post-legislative referendums in which case it should be asked whether the people want the legislation and want it implemented—yes or no. That should overcome all the difficulties of definition which have so bedevilled the passage of this Bill.
    But let us not become side-tracked. Here we have a much simpler definition than we should have if we were facing a general election campaign with the whole gamut of policy issues which are raised under those circumstances. So it does not seem to me to be more difficult under those circumstances; it seems to me to be simpler. If it is simpler, I argue also that it is more important because, almost by definition, the very substantial issues on which the country will be asked to decide in referendums are quite likely to be even more important than the issues of a general election campaign. Whether or not we join the euro seems a matter of huge importance whichever view one takes. What makes it all the more important is that whatever may be the theory, if we were to answer "yes" to that question, to all intents and purposes it would be a "yes" which is irreversible.
    The same is true of the referendum question in relation to devolution for Scotland and Wales, particularly for Scotland. However much the referendum was rigged at the time, I do not believe that anyone would argue that the people of Scotland would not have voted "yes" under any circumstances. They clearly would have done. Nevertheless, it is irreversible. This is a matter of transcendental importance which will endure beyond the next general election and the election after that.
    Therefore, is it not all the more important that referendums of the kind we are discussing should be seen to be conducted fairly, without unfair practices, by a government than it is in relation to general elections for which practices are already in place? It seems to me so obvious that that is right that I am surprised that it even needs discussing, although experience of the passage of this Bill has proved to us that it does.
    The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, made the most telling point of all when he referred to bringing the matter into the courts. We know that one of the agreeable aspects of our present electoral practices is that, more or less all the time, they produce a definite and unquestioned result. We do not have to undergo the agonies which the United States is undergoing at present. Why is that? It is because over the years we have developed electoral law and practice which may not be perfect but which is universally accepted as being sensible.
    Again, there are many in your Lordships' House who have had to endure their own counts while waiting to see whether or not they have been elected to another place. Those noble Lords will know the practice of scrutinising votes as to whether they are valid or not. We know who has the authority to decide on those matters and we accept that authority.
    1166
    As soon as it looks as though the rules are being skewed in one direction or another, that certainty and the stability which flows from it are undermined. I earnestly beseech the Government to think again not only in relation to this amendment but also in relation to many other provisions of this Bill. By undermining that confidence, they will be undermining the stability of our system altogether. That is why this amendment, and others like it, which we have endeavoured to draw to the Government's attention during the passage of the Bill, are so important.
    Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to deal with one serious defect in this amendment. The Neill commit tee was extremely anxious that umbrella groups should be formed and, to encourage them, recommended that they should be entitled to a free mailshot. That recommendation was accepted by the Government and is now dealt with in Clause 110.
    The effect of including the Post Office in the proposed subsection (3)(a) in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, would make it impossible to provide a free mailshot for umbrella groups since the material to be distributed would plainly fall within Clause 125(1). That being so, it seems to me that that is a serious defect. I wonder whether it is a matter which the noble Lord has considered.
    Lord Marsh: My Lords, that issue has been raised. The problem regarding the Post Office has received very wide publicity. It is a public body embarking on a propaganda campaign of its own. That is not comparable with a government issuing a free postage system to all the parties which will have different views and circulating those views as a post office. It is the job of the Post Office to deliver letters; it is not the job of the Post Office to campaign for political parties.
    Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this will stop the Post Office from doing that because the Post Office will be distributing material free of charge, even if it comes from someone else.
    Lord Marsh: My Lords, "to distribute" can be taken as physically pushing material through letterboxes, with which we all agree, or being responsible for other people who push it through letterboxes.
    Viscount Astor: My Lords, all participants in a referendum would want a clear result that is accepted by all who have participated so that the issue is not subject to endless further debate or question. The Government have introduced Clause 104 which enables the question to be looked at and it promotes fairness, which we welcome. That will help the conduct of referendums in the future.
    In regard to spending, this Bill is slanted in favour of the Government in relation to referendums and it is slanted in favour of outside parties, as we heard earlier, effecting a referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has raised an issue of principle which is important. It

    1167
    must be in the Government's interest to remove all doubt about the conduct of referendums so that all sides appreciate and understand the situation.
    My noble friend Lord Cranborne talked about elections and how the system works in the Civil Service. In elections the system works well. There is a clear divide between what is political propaganda—the words that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, used—and what comprise Civil Service documents. Part of the reason that it works is that the Civil Service knows that its political masters may change shortly, so civil servants are on their best behaviour. However, in referendums the situation is rather different as they know that they will have the same political masters afterwards. It is not for me to cast any aspersions on the Civil Service, but looking at what has been produced in the life of this Government, I believe that the only things that have not been political propaganda have been the statistical reports. The only thing that was not propaganda, for example, in the magazine promoted by the Government on women was the date. As far as I am concerned, the whole of that magazine was propaganda.
    In looking at the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, I was concerned about who would define the words "factual and impartial". I agree with him that when you come across it, you can recognise it. It is the "heffalump" argument: you cannot describe one but when you see one you recognise it. It would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, could say how that phrase would be defined. The amendment raises issues of great importance and we shall listen carefully to the Minister on this subject.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on this amendment we return to the role of government during a referendum campaign. Having listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has said, he is obviously fearful of the scales in a referendum on the euro being weighed against the "No" campaign by a deluge of government misinformation, as he puts it. On Report he referred to the fact that,
    "the Government have already spent more than £15 million on 'information', including a direct mailshot to 800,000 businesses".—[Official Report, 22/11/00; col. 895.]
    He repeated that this evening. I remind the noble Lord that the Government's communication campaign on the euro is not aimed at promoting the euro, but at ensuring that UK small and medium-sized enterprises are aware of the implications of the single currency and have the information that they need to prepare. No doubt, if we were to revert to the groat we would do exactly the same in the interests of ensuring that small, large and medium-sized enterprises knew what the reintroduction of the groat may involve.
    Lord Marsh: My Lords, before the Minister goes on too much about the euro, I cut what I said as short as I could, but I did test the patience of the House by spending some time saying quite specifically that I thought that this went far wider than simply a campaign on the euro.
    6.45 p.m.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it seemed to me that the primary interest of the noble Lord was in promoting the position of Business for Sterling. It seems that this whole debate is overshadowed by the interest—some may say the obsession—that some Members of your Lordships' House have about a referendum at some future point on the euro.
    It is worth putting on the record and pointing out to the noble Lord the longstanding conventions governing the work of the Government Information Service. In presenting government policy and providing publicity and advertising material during a referendum period, these conventions require of the GIS that its activities are relevant to government responsibilities; objective and explanatory, not tendentious or polemical; not open to misrepresentation as being party political; and conducted in an economic and appropriate way, having regard to the need to be able to justify the costs as expenditure of public funds.
    No doubt all governments seek to ensure that those fundamental principles and rules are carefully adhered to. No doubt previous Conservative governments adhered precisely to that when explaining the implications of the single European market; no doubt they provided the same level of support so that businesses could well understand what the single market meant to them.
    Of course, there will always be debates about whether material can be wholly factual and impartial. That is why the Neill committee recommended that the government of the day in future referendums should, as a government, remain neutral and should not distribute at public expense literature, even purportedly "factual" literature, setting out or otherwise promoting their case. The 28-day purdah period provided for in Clause 125 is our response to that recommendation.
    I remind the House of what the Neill committee has made of that response. In its comments on the White Paper and draft Bill, the Committee said:
    "We welcome your proposals on the part which should be played by the government in referendum campaigns, and your recognition of the importance of ensuring that there is a period immediately prior to a referendum in which, as you say, 'the government of the day … stands aside and the campaigning is left to the political parties and other organisations'".
    That message was reinforced by one of the members of the Neill committee, John MacGregor, at Second Reading in another place when he said:
    "I am glad that the Bill includes the 28-day moratorium, which meets our point".—[Official Report. Commons, 10/1/00: col. 67.]
    So, Clause 125, as it stands, fully addresses the recommendation of the Neil] committee and as such there is no case for this amendment.
    The noble Lord strayed from his amendment to raise the issue of the referendum spending limits. As there were no amendments down on this matter for Third Reading, I had rather hoped that the issue had been settled once and for all, but I see from the press

    1169
    that Business for Sterling, of which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is a member, is threatening to challenge this part of the Bill under the Human Rights Act.
    The Government are satisfied that the referendum spending limits are entirely compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. In the context of elections, in the Bowman judgment the European Court of Human Rights accepted that a restriction on the amount that could be spent during a campaign is not in itself a breach of Article 10 of the convention. The court recognised that there may be a conflict between the right to freedom of expression and the need to ensure free expression of the opinion of the people and that it may be necessary in a period preceding a poll to place certain restrictions on freedom of expression.
    In support of the spending limits, for which we have previously argued, I refer the noble Lord also to a passage in a judgment by the Canadian Supreme Court in the case of Libman v. Quebec 1997.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I had not actually noticed an amendment about spending limits. I thought we had resolved that matter. So why is the Minister addressing the issue of spending limits? I thought I had been defeated on that.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is right, but I was seeking to address the issue of inequity between the "No" and the "Yes" campaigns.
    Lord Marsh: My Lords, I would be grateful if the Minister would take no notice of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and continue. He is actually saving us a fortune!
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am most grateful for that amusing intervention.
    The court noted that:
    "In its egalitarian aspect the Act [was] intended to prevent the referendum debate being dominated by the most affluent members of society. At the same time, the Act [promoted] an informed vote by ensuring that some points of view are not buried by others. This highly laudable objective, intended to ensure fairness of the referendum on a question of public interest, [was] of pressing and substantial importance in a democratic society".
    Both the European Court and the Canadian Supreme Court acknowledged the need for spending limits.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he is surely aware of the enormous difference between the European Convention on Human Rights and the Canadian charter. He cannot quote cases on the Canadian charter as though they are related to the same wording as the convention.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course; I take the point of my noble friend. But there is a bearing on this issue in trying to develop a general point.
    1170
    The European Court and the Canadian Supreme Court acknowledged the need for spending limits. We believe that the limits set out in the Bill are fair and equitable and will stand up to scrutiny in any court. We do not believe that this amendment is appropriate in the way in which it is argued. Therefore I invite the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, to withdraw Amendment No. 22.
    Lord Marsh: My Lords, first, I thank all those who took part in this debate. The Minister raised some interesting subjects. I could not resist rising because, with the greatest respect to some other Members of his Front Bench, lawyers' fees are colossal and the cases produced by his department are greatly appreciated.
    But my basic argument remains; that is, that this is an issue of principle. It is a fundamental issue and, since so many Members of your Lordships' Chamber have stayed behind, we should test the opinion of the House.
    6.51 p.m.
    On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
    Their Lordships divided: Contents, 134; Not-Con tents, 184.
    7.2 p.m.
    Clause 134 [Meaning of "election expenses"]:
    Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 23:
    Page 101, line 49, leave out ("less") and insert ("not more").
    Clause 162 [Interpretation: exempt trust donations]:
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 24:
    Page 125, line 23, leave out (", other than one falling within subsection (5)").
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the question of trusts. The original drafting of the Bill prohibited donations from all trusts, whether blind trusts or not. The Government recognised that that would be wrong and that the

    1173
    original wording of the Bill did not reflect the views of the Neill committee. These amendments were therefore tabled. However, I believe that there are some serious, and almost certainly unintended, defects in the amendments on exempt trusts, which came into the Bill on Report and are now in Clause 162.
    The chosen cut-off date of 27th July 1999 is the date on which the White Paper was published. That date is used for the establishment of exempt trusts which do not need to prove that the property was placed in trust by a permissible donor. However, what would be the position in respect of a trust established between that date and the commencement date of Part IV? Would such a trust, established perfectly legitimately by a permissible donor, fall within the definition in Clause 162(2) or (3)? If not, would a party therefore be prohibited from accepting any donation from such a trust? I cannot believe that this is the intention of the drafting. It is a complicated matter. I have therefore written to the Minister requesting a definitive reply.
    The drafting of Clause 162(2)(b) and (c) is also problematic. This prevents a pre-27th July 1999 trust (to which I shall refer as an old trust) to which after that date any property has been added, or which has had its terms varied, from donating to a party. Given that these amendments were tabled only two weeks ago, I do not believe that that is fair or just. Perfectly legitimate open trusts established before July 1999 may well have had their terms varied, or property added to them, after that time.
    Paragraph 3.34 of the White Paper makes reference only to prohibiting donations from blind trusts. Therefore, it cannot have been expected by any trustee or person wanting to donate to or establish an open trust after the publication of the White Paper that any variation of terms or further donations that they may have made to any open trust would render that trust unable to make donations to political parties.
    In addition, the Government have said that the provisions preventing donations from old trusts to which property has been transferred after 27th July 1999 are necessary to stop such trusts being used to channel impermissible donations in the future. But what is wrong with allowing a permissible donor to continue to put money into an old trust that he may have established either between July 1999 and today or in the future? That is especially true of donations made to old trusts by permissible donors that may have been made between July 1999 and the present. While a permissible donor may now realise that continuing to donate to an old trust would render the trust unable to donate, and could therefore perhaps set up a new trust, this would not have been the case until the Government tabled their amendments two weeks ago. Therefore, things done by permissible donors and trustees before they were aware of the government amendments tabled last week could mean that perfectly legitimate open trusts were nullified.
    To remedy the situation, I have tabled a number of amendments to Clause 162(2) to change the cut-off dates in respect of the creation of old trusts, the transfer of property to them and the variation of their
    1174
    terms. They propose that the cut-off dates in each of these cases should be changed either to the date on which the Bill receives Royal Assent, or the date on which the clause comes into force. While the latter would be preferable, our view is that the former is the least that should be done.
    Finally, as I indicated at Report stage, it seems preferable that Clause 162(5) should be taken out altogether. It prohibits donations from any trust, whether old or new, where a trustee exercises any discretion in making the donation. I believe that this would have almost exactly the same effect as the original wording of the Bill; it would prohibit donations from any trust. As we have pointed out, trustees may have a discretion as to whether to give capital, rather than interest, to beneficiaries. That would be a discretion. They would not be allowed to donate.
    In all trusts a degree of discretion is given to trustees. A trust may have been established in very broad terms for the benefit of the conservative cause, the socialist cause or the liberal cause. Even if trusts were set up to benefit the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or the Liberal Party, the trustees may have a discretion as to whether or not the money should be donated centrally, to local constituencies, or even regionally. Provided trustees comply with the terms of trust deeds and provided the source of donations to the trust is declared, as required under the provisions of the Bill, in the case of all trusts, or the source of permissible donors in the case of new trusts, I do not understand why donations from such discretionary trusts should be prohibited; nor do I believe that that is the intention of the Government or of the Neill committee. However, that is the effect of the drafting.
    This is a complex matter. I wrote to the Minister on Friday, outlining my reasons for tabling the amendment. I hope that he and his experts have had an opportunity to consider the matter with a view to ensuring that the Bill represents the intentions of the Neill committee and those of the Government, so that donations from open trusts, which are legitimately set up, will continue to flow to political parties. I beg to move.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, with his customary efficiency, the noble Lord has outlined a number of arguments. I shall try to answer some of the points. If I do not answer them as thoroughly as he would like, I hope that they can be dealt with in later correspondence.
    At Report stage, we amended the Bill to allow donations to be received from trusts in certain circumstances, if they were established prior to the date of the publication of the White Paper for this Bill. This concession can be found in Clause 162(2). It was designed to cater for only one circumstance—that of a trust set up so long ago that it would now be difficult, or perhaps impossible, to establish with certainty that the person who had donated money to the trust was a permissible donor. The concession was not designed to allow an old trust to be used as a mere shell for a new

    1175
    set of transactions which would not comply with the regular conditions for donations from trusts as set out in Clause 162(3).
    Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 would alter the whole scope of Clause 162(2) so that instead of making special consideration for old trusts it would make special provisions for ones established after Royal Assent or the coming into force of this clause. Old trusts would then have to comply with subsection (3). We doubt whether that was the noble Lord's intention in tabling the amendments. In any event, it would destroy the purpose of subsection (2) and others in the House would clearly be opposed to that.
    If the proposed amendments were made, first, it would be possible for a donation to come from a trust established by a person who was not a permissible donor. That is inherent in subsection (2) as it stands. Secondly, it would be possible for the trust to be a discretionary trust; that is, one which allows the trustee to choose who should be the recipient. Thirdly, it would be possible for the trust to have been varied after proposals for legislation in this area were published on 27th July 1999. Fourthly, it would be possible for money to have been transferred to the trust after that date. Again, there would be no requirement that the money must have come from a permissible donor. Nor would there be any limit on how large the transfer might have been compared with the money that was originally put into the trust. The result of Amendment No. 29 would have been to allow additional funds to have been put into an old trust, or to be put into it in the future, without any limit of time, provided that the additional funds came from a permissible donor.
    The Government were persuaded to allow a limited exemption for old trusts and we want to be as reasonable as possible about it. We have moved a long way since the draft Bill published with the White Paper, but I cannot commend to the House a set of arrangements which would simply open the door to a wholesale evasion of the requirements which we are now setting for the future. Indeed, if the amendments were made, we would no longer feel able to commend subsection (2) to Parliament.
    We do not believe that a case has been adequately made out on this issue and we are not certain of the trusts which the noble Lord has in mind. However, we shall of course pay close attention to the points that the noble Lord raised in his recent correspondence on this technical matter. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I believe that he should do so and that we have the balance about right in regard to trusts.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall not labour the point because I had hoped that we could agree and that would have been that. The other place will have to examine the issue when it sees the amendments that we put into the Bill on Report. I shall read with care the points that the Minister made and any letter he decides to send to me after he has read what he said. The situation could be worrying because
    1176
    some trusts which thought they were acting properly could be faced with the imposition of retrospective legislation as a result of changes made at the Report stage. I shall leave it at that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 25 to 32 not moved.]
    7.15 p.m.
    Schedule 1 [The Electoral Commission]:
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 33:
    Page 131, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
    ("(2) A person may not be appointed—

    (a) as chief executive of the Commission if he is a person who (by virtue of section 3(4)(a) to (d)) may not be appointed as an Electoral Commissioner; or

    (b) as a member of the staff of the Commission if he is a person who (by virtue of section 3(4)(b) to (d)) may not be appointed as an Electoral Commissioner.").

    The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee and Report stages we had many debates about the staff of the electoral commission and how political they could be. The Government and I disagreed on a number of occasions but have now concluded that a chief executive should not be a member of a political party. I still have reservations about any of the staff being members of a political party and wonder whether the Government, having accepted my argument about the chief executive, believe that I am right about all the staff.
    My amendment proposes that the chief executive cannot be a member of a political party and the Government's amendment does the same. By the nature of things, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will tell me that my amendment is not properly drafted and that his is. Whichever is the case, I am grateful that my argument has been heard in that regard. I beg to move.
    Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord's arguments have been heard. His amendment carried forward the debate we had in Committee and on Report about the qualification and disqualification for being a commissioner or a member of the staff of the commission. The effect of the amendment is that a person cannot be appointed as chief executive of the commission if he is a member of a political party.
    We had our doubts about that because of the concern that the right to be a member of a party should not be abridged unless absolutely necessary. However, we now all agree because we believe that there is not sufficient reason to refuse the amendment. It seems right that the chief executive of the commission, like the commissioners, should not be associated with any party.
    The noble Lord anticipated my reply. We tabled our Amendment No. 34 for simple technical drafting reasons. We believe that it has the same effect as that intended in the Opposition's amendment.

    1177
    The Government's Amendment No. 35 is a consequential amendment. If it is right to require the chief executive to resign any membership of a party upon appointment, it must also be right to require him or her not to resume or take up membership of a party after appointment. Amendment No. 35 is designed to plug that small gap. We believe that although views on both sides have ebbed and flowed during the long course of the Bill in this House, we have the double advantage of consensus and of getting the Bill right on this small issue. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 34 and 35:
    Page 131, line 32, leave out ("as chief executive or") and insert—

    ("(a) as chief executive of the Commission if he is a person who (by virtue of section 3(4)(a) to (d)) may not be appointed as an Electoral Commissioner, or

    (b) as any").

    Page 131, line 40, after ("terminate") insert—

    ("(a) if he is their chief executive, on the occurrence of such an event as is mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 3(3), and

    (b) in any other case.").

    Schedule 7 [Control of donations to individuals and members associations]:
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 36 to 38:

    Page 159, line 2, leave out ("less") and insert ("not more").

    Page 164, line 17, leave out ("not less") and insert ("more").

    Page 164, line 45, leave out ("less") and insert ("not more").

    Schedule 9 [Limits on campaign expenditure]:
    Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots moved Amendment No. 39:
    Page 169, line 17, leave out ("£30,000") and insert ("£20,000").
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to the discussion which we had in extenso during the Committee and Report stages. I am afraid that I and, I believe, other noble Lords did not find the Minister's reply convincing. As a result, I gave notice that I should raise the issue again at Third Reading.
    At the heart of the Bill a number of balances are to be struck. There is the important balance between transparency and local democracy. There is the equally important balance between the funding needs of a party nationally and those of a local association. I do not believe that we yet have that aspect of the Bill entirely right.
    First, even during "peacetime"—the period between elections—the burden of bureaucracy which we intend to apply to political parties and local associations is huge. I point out to those noble Lords who doubt that, that the Bill and its schedules which we received in Committee ran to 180 pages and it is now 243 pages. We have therefore increased it by one-third. That
    1178
    burden on local associations, some of which are weak, may well be the straw which breaks the camel's back. That in turn will mean that national headquarters must take a much closer interest in the operation of local associations, thus increasing the trend towards centralisation. That will not help to revive local democratic activity—quite the reverse.
    Secondly, during election campaigns the trend towards a presidential style of campaigning will accelerate. As part of the reawakening of interest in our democracy, I should like national political parties to be forced to consider how to enthuse, involve and include their local activists, not merely to find further ways to reach past, or bypass, them by focusing on massive spending on the media, posters, direct mail and other forms of communication.
    The amendment seeks to give an incentive for the development of local democracy by restricting the level of national spending that can be undertaken during general election campaigns. Under my amendment national spending will be restricted to £20,000 per constituency contested, not £30,000 as presently proposed. If every constituency was contested, total spending centrally would be about £13 million, not £19 million as proposed.
    Some may believe that that figure is too restrictive to undertake an effective national election campaign. However, before one reaches that conclusion one should not overlook two additional sources of permissible finance. First, each constituency will in addition be able to spend its normal allowance, which is about £8,500. If every constituency is contested, that will amount to a further £5.6 million. Secondly, there is a further allowance for centralised expenditure under Part I of Schedule 8 which lists exempted items. It is not easy to calculate that amount of expenditure, but included in those items of permitted expenditure are the costs of staff and their accommodation. That expenditure may well amount to a further £3 million or £4 million. Even under my amendment, if a party contests each and every constituency it can spend £13 million, plus £5.6 million at constituency level, plus a further £4 million of exempted expenditure, making £22.6 million in all. Surely, that is enough; and it is a larger figure than Neill recommended.
    There is disquiet about the level of expenditure at general elections. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, has spoken eloquently about this, and I suspect that he will contribute to the debate later. One of the reasons for the whole Bill is the level of expenditure and the funding of general elections. I am concerned about the damage that we are probably doing, almost certainly inadvertently, to local democracy and our democratic institutions. My amendment seeks to revive local democracy by giving it more prominent ranking in the priorities of campaigning and campaign expenditure. Unamended, the Bill will permit a party to spend up to £29.6 million. Of that, only £5.6 million (less than one fifth) can be spent locally. If my amendment is accepted, total expenditure will be limited to £22.6 million, of which £5.6 million (one quarter) can be spent locally. Surely, that proportion which parties must spend locally is not unreasonable. I believe that

    1179
    £22.6 million is a perfectly adequate total for a national party to spend to run an election campaign. One quarter of that amount is the right balance for local expenditure, and by those means we shall significantly enhance local democracy. I beg to move.
    Lord Rennard: My Lords, we consider again tonight one of the most important election rules that we can possibly introduce. For the first time there is to be a limit on spending by national party organisations. I believe that such reform is long overdue and essential if we are to clean up our political system, reduce the power of the millionaire interests and give power back to voters. We need to curb the trend for millions of pounds to count for more than millions of votes. But the question now is: what is the appropriate limit, and how should it be set before the electoral commission may examine the issue?
    I believe that consensus is the best approach. In evidence to the Neill committee, the Labour Party said that,
    "those who compete for political office should have a fair opportunity of doing so and should not be placed at a disadvantage by inadequate financial resources relative to others".
    In its document Transparency, Participation, Equality, the Labour Party argued for a national limit of £15 million. The Liberal Democrats have also consistently argued here and in another place for the same limit. In another place that limit was strongly supported by Mr Martin Linton who is a recognised expert in the field of party funding. He argued that 70 per cent of Members of another place belonged to parties which then supported a limit of £15 million.
    In spite of that, in Committee in your Lordships' House the Government said that for the moment they would stand by the £20 million limit set out in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that he was,
    "in the peculiar position of barking against my own party on this occasion".—[Official Report, 18/10/00; col. 1098.]
    More significantly perhaps, he also said at col. 1099:
    "If presented with a fresh consensus in favour of a lower figure, we would be prepared to reconsider the matter, but it is not one to be pursued on a unilateral still less a partisan basis".
    There is now a fresh consensus on a lower figure and the Government should not pursue the £20 million limit on a purely unilateral basis. During consideration of the Bill we have removed from the calculation of total expenditure some important items, including utility bills, headquarters and staff costs and legal services. In part, that has led to a new Conservative position which has brought the Opposition into line with both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats.
    At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, proposed a national limit of exactly £15 million, while the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, argued for a very slightly lower limit. The Government would, therefore, be isolated if they sought to adhere to the limit of £20 million. I remind the Minister that he said that this matter should not be pursued on a unilateral still less a partisan basis. In
    1180
    future the electoral commission can review the limit and increase it if there is a new consensus, but for the moment the limit should be set at a lower level for which there is much greater consensus. It would be open to the Government to increase the limit on constituency spending, if they wished to do so, to make the total available nationally and locally consistent with the figure in the Neill report. That would help to address the imbalance between constituency and national spending. Let us have a national limit of about £15 million on which there is far greater consensus.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have been round this particular course before. When I tried to persuade the Minister to accept a limit of £15 million instead of £20 million I failed fairly comprehensively. I am interested that my noble friend now returns to the matter but looks at it from the constituency upwards. I much prefer to look at it from the national limit already set downwards.
    I am concerned by what the Government intend to do if there is to be an election in May. When will they tell the world at what level total expenditure is to be set? Obviously, it cannot be the whole £20 million because the period will be far shorter than 365 days. I am concerned that it should not be front-loaded. I seek an assurance from the Government that they will talk to the political parties so that they will know as soon as possible the figure that has been arrived at in conversations, I hope by consensus. It would be wrong if, following the new year, two or three months elapsed before the political parties had any idea of what they might be permitted to spend in an election to be held in May. I do not know how the Government will deal with that without committing themselves to a May election. But, frankly, they will have to do it because it is their Bill and they have wished this ludicrous situation on themselves as well as the other political parties. The people who run the Labour Party will want to know, as will the rest of us, how much they will be allowed to spend between whenever the Bill is enacted and the next election. I hope that the Minister will address that point in his answer.
    7.30 p.m.
    Lord McNally: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question. At the moment the Labour Party is festooning towns with this "Thank you" campaign. Will that be in its general election expenditure?
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in Scotland we have an expression about coming up the Clyde in a banana boat. The noble Lord has been doing that. I am not joining him. I can assure him that that will not be part of the Labour Party's expenditure for the next election. That is probably why the Government are doing it—because the race will not start until the Bill has been enacted and the announcement about the money has been made. So I think they are trying to jump the gun. It perhaps shows that all the pious stuff we have heard from them about

    1181
    funding political parties and controlling general election expenditure is not quite as accurate as they would like us to believe.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we return again to the level of the limit on campaign expenditure. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said that he was not convinced by what I had said at an earlier stage on this matter. I was not entirely convinced. I was not entirely convinced because as I saw it there was something of a volte face from noble Lords on the Opposition Benches.
    I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has joined us because it was the noble Lord who advised us in Committee that we should stick with what was in the Bill. The noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches were suggesting a lower limit. On Report we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, an argument for reducing the limit by one-quarter. The noble Lord said that the position had changed because the list of qualifying expenses in Schedule 8 had been pared back to make it more manageable for the parties. That is indeed the case. But the noble Lord, Lord Cope, knew that when he spoke so enthusiastically of the £20 million limit. It would be very nice to know exactly where the Opposition now stand and exactly what lies behind their sudden change of heart. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is sitting very comfortably next to the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, who I suppose gave some admiring glances during his peroration. I am not sure why that was the case. Perhaps it is because he is the party treasurer and is concerned about the quantum of money that might be available for a forthcoming general election.
    The case is this: a responsible government cannot chop and change their policy in the way that has been suggested by some—
    Noble Lords: Oh!
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hear mirth from those in a sedentary position, but a responsible government—this is an entirely responsible government—do not chop and change their policy. I do not wish to hide the fact that the Labour Party argued in its evidence to the Neill committee for a £15 million limit. But it falls to the Government, and not to the Labour Party, to respond to and implement the Neill report. That is exactly what we are seeking to do. We have consistently taken the view that once the matter had been carefully considered by an independent advisory body, the proper course was to accept its recommendation. That is exactly what we have done.
    The level of the limit should be altered only after full consideration by another independent body; namely, the electoral commission. Before coming to a view, there should be full consultation with other registered parties, not just the big three. We should remember that separate limits apply in each of the four parts of the United Kingdom. I put it to the House that it would be presumptuous of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties, which are well
    1182
    represented here, to decide such matters without reference to the nationalist parties in Scotland and in Wales and to the nationalist and Unionist parties in Northern Ireland. I wonder how much consultation with those parties noble Lords opposite have undertaken in arriving at the view that they have in preparing for this particular amendment.
    Nor can we simply change the figure in paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 9 on its own. The limits in paragraphs 3(3) and (4) of that Schedule and the third party limits in paragraph 3 of Schedule 10 are all linked to the £30,000 "allowance". If one changes that figure, one has to change the others. The Neill committee set the expenditure limits for elections to the European Parliament and devolved legislatures by reference to the £20 million for a parliamentary general election. We need to consider whether there should be a pro rata reduction in those other limits. These are considerations to be carefully made, not made late in the day when a Bill is reaching its concluding stages.
    So, whatever the merits of the amendments, we should not be changing course in this way, at this late stage and without full and proper justification, and full consideration of, and consultation over, the other related matters. The right way forward—the only way forward—is to apply the £20 million limit, or an appropriate proportion of it, to the next general election. We should then ask the electoral commission properly to review the matter. If then there is a new consensus in favour of a lower limit, which is endorsed by the commission, it would be open to the Home Secretary to vary all the relevant sums by means of an order under Clause 155.
    The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, asked a fair question about the transitional limit. That transitional limit must be in place by 16th February 2001 when Part V comes into force. We shall be very carefully consulting during December with regard to what that limit might be. That is the proper course of action for us to follow. We shall fulfil that responsibility.
    We have a late, half-baked and poorly thought-through amendment which does not do the job that it is designed to do. The amendment still puzzles me. Why is it that the Conservatives—some of them at least—seek to change their position on this many months after the Bill has been published and after many debates on these matters when just a matter of 10 days ago they had a clear policy position and statement of intent in this regard? I am puzzled by that. Perhaps it relates to funding within the Conservative Party; I know not. The proper course for the noble Lord to take is to withdraw his amendment and put his case to the electoral commission in due course.
    Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, the Minister has not taken us much further than on Report. We engaged in some political knockabout on the premise that if one is short of arguments, one should engage in some political banter. That is fair enough. I am not sure that as a very new Member of the House it is in order for me to say this, but I think

    1183
    that it is a little unfair to talk about my noble friend Lord Ashcroft who has not made a maiden speech yet and therefore cannot respond.
    The Minister's substantive arguments came down to two. First, he suggested that there should be a review after the general election, which does not answer the point I was trying to make at all. Secondly, consequential amendments would be required if the amendment were accepted. The amendment is nothing to do with the detail he is talking about; it is about restoring a balance. It is not about any individual political party seeking to gain or lose a funding advantage; it is about a vote for decentralisation, for the small battalions and for local democracy. I propose to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
    7.38 p.m.
    On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 39) shall be agreed to?
    Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 134.

    Division No. 4

    CONTENTS

    Addington, L.

    Montrose, D.

    Ashcroft, L.

    Newby, L.

    Avebury, L.

    Northover, B.

    Barker, B.

    Norton of Louth, L.

    Bell, L.

    Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

    Blatch, B.

    Perry of Southwark, B.

    Bradshaw, L.

    Phillips of Sudbury, L.

    Campbell of Alloway, L.

    Redesdale, L.

    Carlile of Berriew, L.

    Rees-Mogg, L.

    Clement-Jones, L.

    Rennard, L. [Teller]

    Dholakia, L.

    Renton of Mount Harry, L.

    Elton, L.

    Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

    Ezra, L.

    Roper, L.

    Falkland, V.

    Russell, E.

    Goodhart, L.

    St John of Fawsley, L.

    Greaves, L.

    Sandberg, L.

    Hamwee, B.

    Scott of Needham Market, B.

    Harris of Greenwich, L.

    Sharman, L.

    Harris of Richmond, B.

    Sharp of Guildford, B.

    Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L. [Teller]

    Shutt of Greetland, L.

    Smith of Clifton, L.

    Hooson, L.

    Taverne, L.

    Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

    Taylor of Warwick, L.

    Thomas of Gresford, L.

    Jacobs, L.

    Thomas of Walliswood, B.

    Kingsland, L.

    Thomson of Monifieth, L.

    Linklater of Butterstone, B.

    Tope, L.

    McNally, L.

    Tordoff, L.

    Maddock, B.

    Walmsley, B.

    Mar and Kellie, E.

    Warnock, B.

    Methuen, L.

    Watson of Richmond, L.

    Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

    Wigoder, L.

    Miller of Hendon, B.

    Williams of Crosby, B.

    NOT-CONTENTS

    Acton, L.

    Ashton of Upholland, B.

    Ahmed, L.

    Bach, L.

    Alli, L.

    Barnett, L.

    Amos, B.

    Bassam of Brighton, L.

    Andrews, B.

    Berkeley, L.

    Archer of Sandwell, L.

    Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

    Ashley of Stoke, L.

    Billingham, B.

    1184

    Blackstone, B.

    Jeger, B.

    Blease, L.

    Jenkins of Putney, L.

    Borrie, L.

    Jordan, L.

    Bragg, L.

    King of West Bromwich, L.

    Brennan, L.

    Kirkhill, L.

    Brett, L.

    Layard, L.

    Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

    Lea of Crondall, L.

    Burlison, L.

    Lipsey, L.

    Carter, L. [Teller]

    Lockwood, B.

    Chandos, V.

    Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

    Clarke of Hampstead, L.

    McCarthy, L.

    Clinton-Davis, L.

    Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

    Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

    McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

    Cohen of Pimlico, B.

    Colville of Culross, V.

    McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

    Craig of Radley, L.

    MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

    Crawley, B.

    Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

    David, B.

    Mallalieu, B.

    Davies of Coity, L.

    Marsh, L.

    Davies of Oldham, L.

    Massey of Darwen, B.

    Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

    Mitchell, L.

    Desai, L.

    Molloy, L.

    Dixon, L.

    Morgan, L.

    Donoughue, L.

    Morris of Manchester, L.

    Dubs, L.

    Nicol, B.

    Eatwell, L.

    Peston, L.

    Elder, L.

    Plant of Highfield, L.

    Evans of Parkside, L.

    Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

    Falconer of Thoroton, L.

    Prys-Davies, L.

    Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

    Puttnam, L.

    Fanlkner of Worcester, L.

    Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

    Filkin, L.

    Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

    Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

    Randall of Babergh, B.

    Richard, L.

    Gale, B.

    Richardson of Calow, B.

    Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

    Sainsbury of Turville, L.

    Gladwin of Clee, L.

    Sawyer, L.

    Goldsmith, L.

    Scotland of Asthal, B.

    Gordon of Strathblane, L.

    Sewel, L.

    Goudie, B.

    Shepherd, L.

    Gould of Potternewton, B.

    Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

    Grabiner, L.

    Simon, V.

    Graham of Edmonton, L.

    Smith of Leigh, L.

    Gregson, L.

    Stoddart of Swindon, L.

    Grenfell, L.

    Stone of Blackheath, L.

    Hardy of Wath, L.

    Strabolgi, L.

    Harris of Haringey, L.

    Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

    Harrison, L.

    Taylor of Gryfe, L.

    Haskel, L.

    Thornton, B.

    Hayman, B.

    Tomlinson, L.

    Hilton of Eggardon, B.

    Turnberg, L.

    Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

    Varley, L.

    Hollis of Heigham, B.

    Walker of Doncaster, L.

    Howells of St. Davids, B.

    Warner, L.

    Hoyle, L.

    Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

    Hunt of Chesterton, L.

    Whitaker, B.

    Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

    Whitty, L.

    Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

    Wilkins, B.

    Williams of Mostyn, L.

    Janner of Braunstone, L.

    Winston, L.

    Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

    Woolmer of Leeds, L.

    Young of Dartington, L.

    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    7.49 p.m.
    [Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
    Schedule 11 [Control of donations to recognised third parties]:
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 41 and 42:
    Page 185, line 14, leave out ("less") and insert ("not more")
    Page 187, line 48, leave out ("not less") and insert ("more").
    Schedule 15 [Control of donations to permitted participants]:
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 43:
    Page 196, line 45, leave out ("less") and insert ("not more").
    [Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 45 to 47:

    Page 198, line 22, leave out ("not less") and insert ("more").

    Page 199, line 20, leave out ("not less") and insert ("more").

    Page 199, line 23, leave out ("not less") and insert ("more").

    Schedule 16 [Control of donations to candidates: New Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983]:
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 48:
    Page 202, line 50, leave out ("less") and insert ("not more").
    Schedule 19 [Control of political donations by companies: new Part XA of Companies Act 1985]:
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 49:
    Page 218, line 44, at end insert—

    ("(8) For the purposes of this Part—

    (a) a company does not need to be authorised as mentioned in section 347C(1) or section 347D(2) or (3), and

    (b) a subsidiary undertaking does not need to be authorised as mentioned in section 347E(2),

    in connection with any EU political expenditure in relation to which an exemption is conferred on the company or (as the case may be) subsidiary undertaking by virtue of an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.

    (9) The restrictions imposed by sections 347C(1), 347D(2) and (3) and 347E(2) accordingly have effect subject to subsection (8); and, where a resolution is passed for the purposes of any of those provisions, any amount of EU political expenditure in relation to which, by virtue of subsection (8), no authorisation is needed shall accordingly not count towards the sum specified in the resolution.

    (10) An order under subsection (8) may confer an exemption for the purposes of that subsection in relation to—

    (a) companies or subsidiary undertakings of any description or category specified in the order, or

    (b) expenditure of any description or category so specified (whether framed by reference to goods, services or other matters in respect of which such expenditure is incurred or otherwise),

    or both

    (11) An order shall not be made under subsection (8) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by each House of Parliament.").

    The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Report the House was told that it was the Government's intention to table an amendment for debate at Third Reading to provide that the definition of "political expenditure" would not apply to business activities such as journalism. The definition of "EU political expenditure", as amended at Report, covers any expenditure incurred by companies in respect of activities which could reasonably be regarded as intended to affect public support for a political party or organisation or to influence voters in a referendum. The definition has been widely drawn to ensure that it
    1186
    cannot easily be evaded. We believe, for example, that companies should be required toseek shareholder authorisation for political expenditure in relation to a national or regional referendum.
    As was mentioned on Report, the Government are conscious that some companies carry on business activities which may, by their very nature, involve the publication or dissemination of material which seeks to influence the views of members of the public. Journalism is an obvious example. It is not our intention that carrying on activities such as the publication of newspapers should be considered as incurring "political expenditure" and we wish to exclude such activities from the definition of political expenditure under Part IX of the Bill. We believe, however, that it would be unwise to risk the rigidity which would result from putting such an exemption in primary legislation at a time when the modes of delivery of news and comment are developing and changing fast, and that it is important to maintain a level playing field for all the relevant forms of media. The amendment would therefore confer a power on the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument enabling him to exempt certain categories of company or expenditure from the requirements for the obtaining of approval resolutions in relation to the incurring of political expenditure. The order-making power would be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses.
    I should like to emphasise that the power does not extend to donations to political parties and organisations. Companies which may enjoy the benefits of the exemption will therefore remain subject to control in respect of donations. I beg to move.
    7.50 p.m.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so, I shall say a few words, mostly of thanks and congratulation.
    I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for the constructive part he has played in this legislation. As I understand it, this is his swansong—and a very fine one it is too. He has been witty and amusing, and even more amusing and even more witty in equal measure. He has kept the House greatly entertained through one of the most complex pieces of legislation that I have ever had the pleasure of being a party to. We have gone from zero to total regulation of political parties in one Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, mastered the points of opposition to it very well indeed.
    I should also like to pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Rennard, Lord McNally and Lord Goodhart, for the roles that they have played. I thank my noble friend Lady Gould for her promptings and encouragement, and for her interest in a complicated Bill which has lasted an inordinately long time. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, ably played his role in support of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay.
    The Bill will bring a sea change to the regulation of political parties in our country. It will go a long way to cleaning up the political party act. It brings in the

    1187
    thoroughly new and welcome innovation of the electoral commission—a big change which will improve the quality and the culture of party political work. It will help political parties in the future and go a long way towards restoring the credibility of many of our political institutions.
    I shall not detain your Lordships' House further. The Bill has been with us for many months and we have had many long debates, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, wittily reminded us at an earlier stage of our deliberations. I am grateful for the support and encouragement I have had, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who has been unstinting in his efforts. As ever, his promptings have been very helpful. The officials have played their parts, as has, latterly, the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I would be remiss if I did not mention the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, who, on one occasion, stood in famously for the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, to assist the Opposition Front Bench.
    I have enjoyed the Bill. It will make a great difference to our politics. For all of those reasons, I wish it well. I commend the Bill to the House.
    Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
    Lord McNally: My Lords, it is customary at golf championships to allow the last putt to go to the retiring champion and it is with a real sense of sadness that I say farewell to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. I make only one point from which others may care to draw conclusions. Since being in the House, I have had two sparring partners. One is now the Attorney-General. The other, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, goes on to manage Scotland or whatever is his preferment; I have not yet had an opportunity to consult the House Magazine. He will be sadly missed by the Conservative Front Bench.
    I am extremely grateful for the support that I have received— 100 per cent from my noble friend Lord Rennard and 85 per cent from my noble friend Lord Goodhart. On these Benches we are grateful for both the stamina shown by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, during the passage of a Bill of great length and complexity, and for the help that he has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. Again, he has been rewarded by promotion during the passage of the Bill. I tell you fellows: stick around me and it works.
    A final point worth making is that the Bill was in part a response to accusations of sleaze in our political system. However, on whichever side of the House we sit and whatever parties we represent, we know that— whatever misdemeanours have gone before—our political system is carried forward by thousands and thousands of individual volunteers who carry out their work with absolute probity and dedication. My one concern in seeing the Bill go forward is that in some of its detail we may have imposed severe burdens on people at constituency level whose whole commitment to politics has been blameless and exemplary. I hope and trust that they will be able to deal with those rigours.
    1188
    We wish the Bill well—as we do the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, in whatever new personality he comes before us.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is a bit like listening to your own obituary but, none the less, I am grateful to noble Lords for what they have said. I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Astor and my noble friend Lord Northesk, who acted as Whip and kept me on the right lines. I also wish to thank my noble friend Lord Cope, who stood in for me on a day when I had to go to Scotland on a sad mission. I shall almost bundle in that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for not taking a vow of silence and for giving us many words of wisdom on what the Neill committee thought.
    The Bill contains major issues which were by and large agreed. But it has taken a long time to get to the stage of Bill do now pass. The reason for that has been the detail in the Bill and the fact that a lot of the devil was in the detail. Like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, my regret is that I think we have imposed too many regulations on the constituency parties which are the very bedrock of our democracy and which consist largely of volunteers. I hope that I am wrong about that, but I fear that I am not. I appreciate that the Government have accepted a great many amendments or have taken on board several points that were made and then returned with government amendments. We are all grateful for that.
    Noble Lords will see the amount of work that has been done on the Bill when they see the Commons consideration of amendments. I believe that that consideration will form about as large a document as the Bill is today. That is a tribute to the efforts of Members of your Lordships' House in struggling with the Bill, as well as a tribute to the Ministers who, after a little—it has to be said—initial teasing, have listened to the arguments and have addressed themselves to the reality of political activity on the ground.
    I shall not embarrass anyone on the Benches opposite by enrolling them into the general acknowledgements, but I believe that when the Labour Party machine came to read the Bill in detail, my arguments suddenly began to hit home.
    In conclusion, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have been kind in their thanks. I suspect that I shall miss this kind of debate and deliberation. However, I hope that, at least, this Bill will not prove to be so difficult for constituency parties that they decide to check up on who led the debates on it and allowed it to pass, so that I then join a rogue's gallery.
    On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
8 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The page and line numbers refer to Bill 60 as first printed for the Commons.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  1 Clause 1, page I, line 9, leave out from ("a") to end of line 21 on page 2 and insert ("public authority in carrying out any functions of the authority to do any act which constitutes discrimination.
  (2) In this section "public authority"—

  (a) includes any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature; but

  (b) does not include any person mentioned in subsection (3).

  (3) The persons mentioned in this subsection are—

  (a) either House of Parliament;

  (b) a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament;

  (c) the Security Service;

  (d) the Secret Intelligence Service;

  (e) the Government Communications Headquarters; and

  (f) any unit or part of a unit of any of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown which is for the time being required by the Secretary of State to assist the Government Communications Headquarters in carrying out its functions.

  (4) In relation to a particular act, a person is not a public authority by virtue only of subsection (2)(a) if the nature of the act is private.
  (5) This section is subject to sections 19BA to 19D.
  (6) Nothing in this section makes unlawful any act of discrimination which—

  (a) is made unlawful by virtue of any other provision of this Act; or

  (b) would be so made but for any provision made by or under this Act.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT

    Exceptions or further exceptions from section I9B for judicial and legislative acts etc.
    19BA.—(1) Section 19B does not apply to—

    (a) any judicial act (whether done by a court, tribunal or other person); or

    (b) any act done on the instructions, or on behalf, of a person acting in a judicial capacity.

    (2) Section 19B does not apply to any act of, or relating to, making, confirming or approving any enactment or Order in Council or any instrument made by a Minister of the Crown under an enactment.
    (3) Section 19B does not apply to any act of, or relating to, making or approving arrangements, or imposing requirements or conditions, of a kind falling within section 41.
    (4) Section 19B does not apply to any act of, or relating to, imposing a requirement, or giving an express authorisation, of a kind mentioned in section 19C(3) in relation to the carrying out of immigration and nationality functions.
    (5) In this section—

    "immigration and nationality functions" has the meaning given in section 19C; and

    "Minister of the Crown" includes the National Assembly for Wales and a member of the Scottish Executive.").

    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in
    1190
    their Amendment No. 1. These amendments are consequential on discussions and deliberations held many months ago in your Lordships' House. I do not intend to take noble Lords through the meaning and significance of each individual amendment, except to say that on this occasion I am delighted with the amendments that have been considered by the Commons in their deliberations. They give effect to the agreements that were struck in your Lordships' House and they take forward considerably this important piece of legislation. They improve its quality and widen its remit. Furthermore, they give effect to many of the aspirations that have been expressed across the political divide for a modern, well-structured and well-organised body of legislation which will outlaw discrimination and tackle racism at its core.
    We could spend a long time going over the detail, but I do not think that our time would be well spent in that regard. However, I should like to pay tribute to all those noble Lords who have played their part in our earlier discussions on the Bill. I thank in particular my noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his sterling work. In all fairness I should compliment the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, on his role in helping us to improve the quality of the legislation. We achieved a high degree of unanimity on the moves that were necessary to improve the Bill. After all, it is the first piece of legislation in this area for well over 20 years and thus is long overdue.
    We all welcome the Bill and look forward to the practical implementation of its provisions. They should make a dramatic change to the way in which good race relations are practised in our country and they will help to tackle evils such as racist xenophobia and the violent and occasionally vicious racism that we see on our streets and in our communities.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I welcome all the government amendments to the Bill, not only those in this grouping, but also the amendments in the later groupings. As the Minister has rightly pointed out, they follow substantially arguments deliberated during our debates at earlier stages of the Bill.
    Since we last saw the legislation, it has been completely rewritten. Some 21 pages of government amendments have been added to a Bill which is itself only 14 pages long. That indicates the scope of the rewrite. The Government have come to believe, I suggest substantially as a result of the debates held in your Lordships' House, that the instructions given to the draftsmen at the beginning of the Bill were mistaken. They have now been improved immensely.
    Lord Dholakia: My Lords, first, perhaps I may thank the Minister from this side of the House for his comments on the Bill. I should like to thank also the Official Opposition for their help in trying to get the

    1191
    Bill to this stage. As the Minister rightly pointed out, this is the first major piece of race relations legislation since 1976 and is thus greatly welcome.
    If we cast our minds back a little, we shall recall that a major recommendation of the Macpherson report was to look again at the provisions of the Bill which gave immunity to certain agencies in this country. With the co-operation of all sides in this House, I am delighted to say that we have been able to introduce the clause on indirect discrimination, which is to apply literally to all those bodies that had earlier been excluded. We wish the Bill every success and hope that it will foster confidence in the minorities for whom this legislation is so important.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  2 Clause 1, page 2, line 45, after ("1999") insert ("but excluding sections 28A to 28K of the Immigration Act 1971 so far as they relate to offences under Part III of that Act").
  3 Page 3, line 10, at end insert—

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS

    Monitoring of exception in relation to immigration and nationality cases.
    19CC.—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a person who is not a member of his staff to act as a monitor.
    (2) Before appointing any such person, the Secretary of State shall consult the Commission.
    (3) The person so appointed shall monitor, in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine—

    (a) the likely effect on the operation of the exception in section 19C of any relevant authorisation relating to the carrying out of immigration and nationality functions which has been given by a Minister of the Crown acting personally; and

    (b) the operation of that exception in relation to acts which have been done by a person acting in accordance with such an authorisation.

    (4) The monitor shall make an annual report on the discharge of his functions to the Secretary of State.
    (5) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any report made to him under subsection (4) before each House of Parliament.
    (6) The Secretary of State shall pay to the monitor such fees and allowances (if any) as he may determine.
    (7) In this section "immigration and nationality functions- and "relevant authorisation" have the meanings given to them in section 19C.").
    4 Page 3, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert—

    Exceptions from section 19B for decisions not to prosecute etc.
    19D. Section 19B does not apply to—

    (a) a decision not to institute criminal proceedings and, where such a decision has been made, any act done for the purpose of enabling the decision whether to institute criminal proceedings to be made;

    (b) where criminal proceedings are not continued as a result of a decision not to continue them, the decision and, where such a decision has been made—

    (i) any act done for the purpose of enabling the decision whether to continue the proceedings to be made; and

    (ii) any act done for the purpose of securing that the proceedings are not continued.").

    5 Page 3, leave out lines 15 and 16.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 5.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 5.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  6 After Clause I insert the following new Clause—
  SPECIFIED AUTHORITIES: GENERAL STATUTORY DUTY
  (" .—(1) For section 71 of the 1976 Act (local authorities: general statutory duty) there is substituted—
  SPECIFIED AUTHORITIES: GENERAL STATUTORY DUTY

    Specified authorities: general statutory duty.
    71.—(1) Every body or other person specified in Schedule 1 A or of a description falling within that Schedule shall, in carrying out its functions, have due regard to the need—

    (a) to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and

    (b) to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups.

    (2) The Secretary of State may by order impose, on such persons falling within Schedule 1A as he considers appropriate, such duties as he considers appropriate for the purpose of ensuring the better performance by those persons of their duties under subsection (1).
    (3) An order under subsection (2)—

    (a) may be made in relation to a particular person falling within Schedule 1A, any description of persons falling within that Schedule or every person falling within that Schedule;

    (b) may make different provision for different purposes.

    (4) Before making an order under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall consult the Commission.
    (5) The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 1A; but no such order may extend the application of this section unless the Secretary of State considers that the extension relates to a person who exercises functions of a public nature.
    (6) An order under subsection (2) or (5) may contain such incidental, supplementary or consequential provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate (including provision amending or repealing provision made by or under this Act or any other enactment).
    (7) This section is subject to section 71A and 71B and is without prejudice to the obligation of any person to comply with any other provision of this Act.

    General statutory duty: special cases.
    71A.—(1) In relation to the carrying out of immigration and nationality functions (within the meaning of section 19C(1)), section 71(1)(b) has effect with the omission of the words "equality of opportunity and".
    (2) Where an entry in Schedule 1A is limited to a person in a particular capacity, section 71(1) does not apply to that person in any other capacity.
    (3) Where an entry in Schedule 1A is limited to particular functions of a person, section 71(1) does not apply to that person in relation to any other functions.

    General statutory duty: Scotland and Wales.
    71B.—(1) For the purposes of the Scotland Act 1998, subsections (2) to (4) of section 71 (and sections 71(6) and 74 so far as they apply to the power conferred by subsection (2) of section 71) shall be taken to be pre-commencement enactments within the meaning of that Act.
    (2) Before making an order under section 71(2) in relation to functions exercisable in relation to Wales by a person who is not a Welsh public authority, the Secretary of State shall consult the National Assembly for Wales.
    (3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under section 71(2) in relation to functions of a Welsh public authority except with the consent of the National Assembly for Wales.
    (4) In this section "Welsh public authority" means any person whose functions are exercisable only in relation to Wales and includes the National Assembly for Wales.

    General statutory duty: codes of practice.
    71C.—(1) The Commission may issue codes of practice containing such practical guidance as the Commission think fit in relation to the performance by persons of duties imposed on them by virtue of subsections (1) and (2) of section 71.
    (2) When the Commission propose to issue a code of practice under this section, they—

    (a) shall prepare and publish a draft of the code;

    (b) shall consider any representations made to them about the draft; and

    (c) may modify the draft accordingly.

    (3) In the course of preparing any draft code of practice under this section the Commission shall consult such organisations or bodies as appear to the Commission to be appropriate having regard to the content of the draft code.
    (4) If the Commission determine to proceed with a draft code of practice, they shall transmit the draft to the Secretary of State who shall consult the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales.
    (5) After consulting the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales, the Secretary of State shall—

    (a) if he approves of the draft code, lay it before both Houses of Parliament; and

    (b) if he does not approve of it, publish details of his reasons for withholding approval.

    (6) If, within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which a copy of a draft code of practice is laid before each House of Parliament, or, if such copies are laid on different days, with the later of the two days, either House so resolves, no further proceedings shall be taken on the draft code of practice, but without prejudice to the laying before Parliament of a new draft.
    (7) In reckoning the period of forty days referred to in subsection (6), no account shall be taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
    (8) If no such resolution is passed as is referred to in subsection (6), the Commission shall issue the code in the form of the draft and the code shall come into effect on such day as the Secretary of State may, after consulting the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales, by order appoint.
    (9) Without prejudice to section 74(3), an order under subsection (8) may contain such transitional provisions or savings as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the code of practice thereby brought into operation.
    (10) The Commission may revoke, or from time to time revise, the whole or any part of a code of practice issued under this section; and, where they revise the whole or any part of such a code, they shall issue the revised code, and subsections (2) to (9) shall apply (with appropriate modifications) to such a revised code as they apply to the first issue of a code.
    (11) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a code of practice shall not of itself render that person liable to any proceedings; but any code of practice issued under
    1194
    this section shall be admissible in evidence in any legal proceedings, and if any provision of such a code appears to the court or tribunal concerned to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings it shall be taken into account in determining that question.
    (12) Without prejudice to subsection (1), a code of practice issued under this section may include such practical guidance as the Commission think fit as to what steps it is reasonably practicable for persons to take for the purpose of preventing their staff from doing in the course of their duties acts made unlawful by this Act.

    General statutory duty: compliance notices.
    71D.—(1) If the Commission are satisfied that a person has failed to comply with, or is failing to comply with, any duty imposed by an order under section 71(2), the Commission may serve on that person a notice ("a compliance notice").
    (2) A compliance notice shall require the person concerned—

    (a) to comply with the duty concerned; and

    (b) to inform the Commission, within 28 days of the date on which the notice is served, of the steps that the person has taken, or is taking, to comply with the duty.

    (3) A compliance notice may also require the person concerned to furnish the Commission with such other written information as may be reasonably required by the notice in order to verify that the duty has been complied with.
    (4) The notice may specify—

    (a) the time (no later than three months from the date on which the notice is served) at which any information is to be furnished to the Commission,

    (b) the manner and form in which any such information is to be so furnished.

    (5) A compliance notice shall not require a person to furnish information which the person could not be compelled to furnish in evidence in civil proceedings before the High Court or the Court of Session.

    Enforcement of compliance notices.
    71E.—(1) The Commission may apply to a designated county court or, in Scotland, a sheriff court for an order requiring a person falling within Schedule 1A to furnish any information required by a compliance notice if—

    (a) the person fails to furnish the information to the Commission in accordance with the notice; or

    (b) the Commission have reasonable cause to believe that the person does not intend to furnish the information.

    (2) If the Commission consider that a person has not, within three months of the date on which a compliance notice was served on that person, complied with any requirement of the notice for that person to comply with a duty imposed by an order under section 71(2), the Commission may apply to a designated county court or, in Scotland, a sheriff court for an order requiring the person to comply with the requirement of the notice.
    (3) If the court is satisfied that the application is well-founded, it may grant the order in the terms applied for or in more limited terms.
    (4) The sanctions in section 71D and this section shall be the only sanctions for breach of any duty imposed by an order under section 71(2), but without prejudice to the enforcement under section 57 or otherwise of any other provision of this Act (where the breach is also a contravention of that provision)."
    (5) Schedule (Bodies and other persons subject to general statutory duty) (which inserts Schedule 1A into the 1976 Act) is to have effect.").
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.

  AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 6
  6A Line 25, at end of inserted section 71(4) insert ("and the persons in respect of which the order is to be made").
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I beg to move, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 6, Amendment No. 6A. I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 6B.
  These amendments make two small suggestions to further improve the Bill. They concern the power of the Secretary of State to impose on the authorities to whom the Bill applies duties that he considers appropriate. The first amendment suggests that, before making an order, he should consult not only the commission—as is required under the terms of the Bill—but also the authority in respect of whom the order is to be made. That may be a government department, a local authority, a group of local authorities and so forth.
  The second amendment proposes that, when the Secretary of State lays down duties of this kind, which can be important and sweeping in their nature—the Home Office has already indicated as much when discussing how these powers are to be used—they should be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in Parliament rather than the negative procedure, which is currently provided for in the Bill.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 6A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 6, be agreed to.—(Lord Cope of Berkeley.)
  Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, makes an interesting suggestion. It would go some way towards satisfying this side of the House if the Minister would indicate whether the person affected by the order will be consulted and whether discussions will be held with that individual before an order is issued. We believe that it would be right for adequate consultation to take place with the person to whom it applies.
  It will also be important, as a prerequisite of the process, effectively to ensure, before an order is made, appropriate proportionate and adequate discussion, so that part of the process in terms of consultation would go a long way in terms of implementing the order when it is issued.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for tabling the amendment.
  Amendment No. 6A to Commons Amendment No. 6 would require the Secretary of State, when considering making an order under subsection (2) of Section 71 to impose specific duties to promote race equality, to consult those persons to whom those specific duties would apply.
  Noble Lords will recall the commitment that I gave to this House on Report regarding the duty to promote race equality. I explained that the Government were
  1196
  already committed, in their equality statement of 30th November 1999, to placing the promotion of equality by public authorities on a statutory footing.
  I said that we would,
  "reinforce that commitment by bringing forward a government amendment … to enshrine the principle on the face of the Bill as a positive duty, leaving room for consultation on how exactly the duty will operate in practice and how it will be enforced"".— [Official Report, 27/1/00; col. 1673.]
  I emphasised the importance of these two issues to the Government.
  Given that commitment to the House, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would expect me to be able to say that I see merit in his proposed amendment—and I do. It would require the Government to consult, as we have made clear we wish to do.
  However, given that that is the Government's clear intention and, in particular, the late stage at which we now find ourselves with the Bill, sadly, the Government cannot accept this amendment despite its merits. I hope that the House will accept the Government's firm assurances that we will proceed as we have always said we would, in public consultation. With that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will feel able to withdraw his amendment. We are with the noble Lord in the spirit of the amendment. Because we are at such a late stage with the Bill, we do not feel that we can take that extra step at this point, but we are fully committed to the consultation that the amendment anticipates.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, given what the Minister has said about the spirit of my Amendment No. 6A, I shall not press it further. I am not sure that I can take the silence in relation to Amendment No. 6B to indicate consent—perhaps not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 6A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 6, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 6B not moved.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  7 Clause 2, page 3, line 27, leave out ("or refused").
  8 Page 3, line 28 at end insert—
  ("(3A) Subsection (4) also applies to—

  (a) any recommendation made by a Minister of the Crown or government department in relation to a conferment by the Crown of a dignity or honour; and

  (b) any approval given by such a Minister or department in relation to any such conferment.").

  9Page 3, line 29, leave out from ("giving") to end of line 36 and insert ("the approval, and in making the arrangements for determining who should be recommended or approved, the Minister of the Crown or government department shall not do an act which would be unlawful under section 4 if the recommendation or approval were an offer of employment and the Crown were the employer for the purposes of this Act.

  (5) Subsections (3) to (4) do not apply in relation to the making of negative recommendations.

  1197
  (5A) Subsection (5C) applies to—

  (a) any negative recommendation made by a Minister of the Crown or government department, or any refusal to make a recommendation by such a Minister or department, in relation to an appointment to an office or post where section 4 does not apply in relation to the appointment, and

  (b) any approval refused by such a Minister or department in relation to any such appointment.

  (5B) Subsection (5C) also applies to—

  (a) any negative recommendation made by a Minister of the Crown or government department, or any refusal to make a recommendation by such a Minister or department, in relation to a conferment by the Crown of a dignity or honour; and

  (b) any approval refused by such a Minister or department in relation to any such conferment.

  (5C) In making a negative recommendation or in refusing to make a recommendation or give an approval, and in making the arrangements for determining whether to make such a recommendation or refusal, the Minister of the Crown or government department shall not do an act which would be unlawful under section 4 if the recommendation or refusal were a refusal to offer the person concerned employment and the Crown were the employer for the purposes of this Act.
  (5D) Subsection (5E) applies in relation to any appointment to an office or post where section 4 does not apply and—

  (a) the appointment is made by a Minister of the Crown or government department, or

  (b) the office or post is an office or post in relation to which a Minister of the Crown or government department has made a recommendation (other than a negative recommendation) or given an approval.

  (5E) A Minister of the Crown or government department shall not do an act in connection with—

  (a) the terms of the appointment;

  (b) access for the person appointed to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits, facilities or services; or

  (c) the termination of the appointment, or subjecting the person appointed to any other detriment;

  which would be unlawful under section 4 if the Crown were the employer for the purposes of this Act.").
  10 Page 3, line 39, after ("(4)") insert (", subsection (5C) or, in relation to an appointment falling within subsection (5D)(b), subsection (5E)").
  11 Page 3, line 43, at end insert—
  ("() The sanctions provided by virtue of the operation of section 53(2) to (4) in relation to this section shall be the only sanctions under this Act in relation to appointments, conferments and other acts to which this section applies.").
  12 Page 3, line 45, leave out from first ("to") to end of line 46 and insert ("refusal include references to deliberate omission;").
  13 Page 4, line 3, after ("and") insert ("any part of").
  14 Page 4, line 3, at end insert ("and
  () references to Ministers of the Crown and government departments so far as they relate to the making of a recommendation or a refusal to make a recommendation, or the giving or refusal of an approval, in relation to a conferment of a peerage for life under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 include references to any body established by a Minister of the Crown to make such a recommendation to the Prime Minister or to determine whether to give such an approval.").
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 to 14.
  1198
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 to 14.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  15 Clause 3, page 5, line 30, after second ("officer") insert ("or other person").
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  16 Clause 4, page 6, line 15, leave out ("or").
  17 Page 6, line 20, after ("conduct;") insert ("or
  (c) any investigation which is conducted by a person in carrying out functions to which section 19B applies and which in the circumstances may lead to a decision by that person to make a report to the procurator fiscal for the purpose of enabling him to determine whether criminal proceedings should be instituted;").
  18 Page 6, leave out lines 26 to 45 and insert—

  ("(4C) Subsection (4D) applies where a party to proceedings under subsection (1) which have arisen by virtue of section 19B has applied for a stay or sist of those proceedings on the grounds of prejudice to—

  (a) particular criminal proceedings;

  (b) a criminal investigation; or

  (c) a decision to institute criminal proceedings.

  (4D) The court shall grant the stay or sist unless it is satisfied that the continuance of the proceedings under subsection (1) would not result in the prejudice alleged."").

  19 Page 7, line 8, at end insert ("or would reveal the reasons behind a decision not to institute, or a decision not to continue, criminal proceedings").
  20 Clause 5, page 7, leave out lines 16 to 29 and insert—
  (""(7) This section has effect subject to section 57A."
  () After section 57 of that Act there is inserted—

  COMMONS AMENDMENT

    Claims under section 19B in immigration cases.
    57A.—(1) No proceedings may be brought by a claimant under section 57(1) in respect of an immigration claim if—

    (a) the act to which the claim relates was done in the taking by an immigration authority of a relevant decision and the question whether that act was unlawful by virtue of section 19B has been or could be raised in proceedings on an appeal which is pending, or could be brought, under the 1997 Act or Part IV of the 1999 Act; or

    (b) it has been decided in relevant immigration proceedings that that act was not unlawful by virtue of that section.

    (2) For the purposes of this section an immigration claim is a claim that a person—

    (a) has committed a relevant act of discrimination against the claimant which is unlawful by virtue of section 19B; or

    (b) is by virtue of section 32 or 33 to be treated as having committed such an act of discrimination against the claimant.

    (3) Where it has been decided in relevant immigration proceedings that an Act to which an immigration claim relates was unlawful by virtue of section 19B, any court hearing that claim under section 57 shall treat that act as an act which is unlawful by virtue of section 19B for the purposes of the proceedings before it.
    (4) No relevant decision of an immigration authority involving an act to which an immigration claim relates and no relevant decision of an immigration appellate body in relation to such a decision shall be subject to challenge or otherwise affected by virtue of a decision of a court hearing the immigration claim under section 57.
    (5) In this section—

    "the Immigration Acts" has the same meaning as in the 1999 Act;

    "immigration appellate body" means an adjudicator appointed for the purposes of the 1999 Act, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, the Court of Appeal, the Court of Session or the House of Lords;

    "immigration authority" means an authority within the meaning of section 65 of the 1999 Act (human rights and racial discrimination cases);

    "immigration claim" has the meaning given by subsection (2) above;

    "pending" has the same meaning as in the 1997 Act or, as the case may be, Part IV of the 1999 Act;

    "relevant act of discrimination" means an act of discrimination done by an immigration authority in taking any relevant decision;

    "relevant decision" means—

    (a) in relation to an immigration authority, any decision under the Immigration Acts relating to the entitlement of the claimant to enter or remain in the United Kingdom; and

    (b) in relation to an immigration appellate body, any decision on an appeal under the 1997 Act or Part IV of the 1999 Act in relation to a decision falling within paragraph (a);

    "relevant immigration proceedings" means proceedings on an appeal under the 1997 Act or Part IV of the 1999 Act;

    "the 1997 Act" means the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997;

    "the 1999 Act" means the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

    and, for the purposes of subsection (1)(a), any power to grant leave to appeal out of time shall be disregarded." ").
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 20.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 20.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  21 Clause 9, page 9,1ine 5, leave out ("Schedules 1") and insert ("Schedules (Bodies and other persons subject to general statutory duty)").
  22 Page 9, line 10, after ("such") insert ("transitory,").
  23 Page 9, line 11, at end insert—
  ("() Transitory provision made in exercise of the power conferred by subsection (3)(b) may, in particular, include provision made in consequence of any provision of any other Act passed before, or in the same session as, this Act not having come into force.").
  24 Page 9, line 11, at end insert—
  ("() No amendment by this Act of an enactment shall be taken, for the purposes of the Scotland Act 1998, to be a pre-commencement enactment within the meaning of that Act unless the amendment so provides.").
  25 Page 9, line 12, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
  ("() Any amendment or repeal by this Act of an enactment has the same extent as the enactment amended or repealed.").
  26 Page 9, line 14, leave out subsection (5).
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 to 26.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 to 26.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  27 Schedule 1, page 10, line 2, leave out Schedule 1.
  28 After Schedule 1, insert the following new Schedule—

  SCHEDULE BODIES AND OTHER PERSONS SUBJECT TO GENERAL STATUTORY DUTY
  The following Schedule is inserted into the 1976 Act after Schedule 1—
  SCHEDULE 1A BODIES AND OTHER PERSONS SUBJECT TO GENERAL STATUTORY DUTY

    Ministers of the Crown and government departments
    1.—(1) A Minister of the Crown or government department.
    (2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not include the Security Service, the Intelligence Service or the Government Communications Headquarters.

    Scottish Administration
    2.—(1) An office-holder in the Scottish Administration within the meaning given by section 126(7)(a) of the Scotland Act 1998.
    (2) Members of the staff of the Scottish Administration within the meaning given by section 126(7)(b) of that Act.

    National Assembly for Wales
    3.—(1) The National Assembly for Wales.
    (2) An Assembly subsidiary as defined by section 99(4) of the Government of Wales Act 1998.

    Armed forces
    4. Any of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown.

    National Health Service: England and Wales
    5. A Health Authority established under section 8 of the National Health Service Act 1977.
    6. A special health authority established under section 11 of that Act.
    7. A primary care trust established under section 16A of that Act.
    8. A National Health Service trust established under section 5 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

    National Health Service: Scotland
    9. A Health Board constituted under section 2 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.
    10. A Special Health Board constituted under section 2 of that Act.
    11. A National Health Service Trust established under section 12A of that Act.

    Local government
    12. A local authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1972, namely—

    (a) in England, a county council, a London borough council, a district council or a parish council;

    (b) in Wales, a county council, a county borough council or a community council.

    13. A council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.
    14. A community council established under section 51 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
    15. The Greater London Authority.
    16. The Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority or port health authority.
    17. The Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple or the Under-Treasurer of the Middle Temple, in his capacity as a local authority.
    18. The Council of the Isles of Scilly.
    19. A parish meeting constituted under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1972.
    20. Any charter trustees constituted under section 246 of that Act.
    21. A fire authority constituted by a combination scheme under section 5 or 6 of the Fire Services Act 1947.
    22. A waste disposal authority established by virtue of an order under section 10(1) of the Local Government Act 1985.
    23. A water or sewerage authority constituted under section 62 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.
    24. A port health authority constituted by an order under section 2 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.
    25. A licensing planning committee constituted under section 119 of the Licensing Act 1964.
    26. A licensing board constituted under section 1 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.
    27. An internal drainage board which is continued in being by virtue of section 1 of the Land Drainage Act 1991.
    28. A probation committee constituted under section 3 of the Probation Service Act 1993.
    29. A joint authority established under Part IV of the Local Government Act 1985 (fire services, civil defence and transport).
    30. A joint board within the meaning of section 235(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
    31. The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.
    32. A body corporate established pursuant to an order under section 67 of the Local Government Act 1985 (transfer of functions to successors of residuary bodies, etc.).
    33. A body corporate established pursuant to an order under section 22 of the Local Government Act 1992 (residuary bodies).
    34. The Broads Authority established by section 1 of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988.
    35. A joint committee constituted in accordance with section 102(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.
    36. A joint board which is continued in being by virtue of section 263(l) of that Act.
    37. A joint authority established under section 21 of the Local Government Act 1992.
    38. A Passenger Transport Executive for a passenger transport area within the meaning of Part II of the Transport Act 1968.
    39. Transport for London.
    40. The London Development Agency.
    41. A regional development agency established under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (other than the London Development Agency).
    42. Scottish Enterprise and Highland and Islands Enterprise, established under the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990.
    43. A National Park authority established by an order under section 63 of the Environment Act 1995.
    44. A joint planning board constituted for an area in Wales outside a National Park by an order under section 2(1B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
    45. A magistrates' courts committee established under section 27 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.

    Other educational bodies
    46. Governing bodies of—

    (a) educational establishments maintained by local education authorities;

    (b) institutions within the further education sector (within the meaning of section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992); or

    (c) institutions within the higher education sector (within the meaning of section 91(5) of the Act of 1992).

    47. The managers of a grant-aided school (within the meaning of section 135 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980).
    48. The managers of a central institution (within the meaning of section 135 of the Act of 1980).
    49. The board of management of a self-governing school (within the meaning of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989).
    50. The board of management of a college of further education (within the meaning of section 36(1) of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992).
    51. The governing body of an institution within the higher education sector (within the meaning of Part II of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992).

    Other housing bodies
    52. The Housing Corporation.
    53. Scottish Homes.
    54. A housing action trust established under Part III of the Housing Act 1988.

    Police
    55. A police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1996.
    56. A police authority established under section 2 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967.
    57. The Metropolitan Police Authority established under section 5B of the Police Act 1996.
    58. The Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a police authority.
    59. The Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
    60. The Service Authority for the National Crime Squad." ").
    29 Schedule 2, page 13, line 3, at end insert—
    (". In section 17 of the 1976 Act (prohibition on discrimination by certain education bodies), in the Table—

    (a) in paragraph 7 for "73(c) or (d)" there is substituted "73(d)"; and

    (b) after paragraph 7 there is inserted—

    "7AA. A grant-aided school, within the meaning of section 135 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.

    The managers of the school."

    30 Page 13, line 3, at end insert—
    (". In section 27(1) of the 1976 Act (extent of Part III) for "19" there is substituted "18D".").31
    31 Page 13, line 4, leave out ("the 1976 Act (extent of Part III)") and insert ("that Act").
    32 Page 13, line 10, leave out ("section 65") and insert ("the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 or Part IV").
    33 Page 13, line 15, after ("76(4)") insert ("or (5C) or by virtue of section 76(5D)(b) and (5E)").
    34 Page 13, line 15, at end insert—
    (". In section 57(5) of that Act (claims under Part III in relation to certain educational bodies)—

    (a) for the words "section 19(1)" there is substituted "subsection (5A)"; and

    (b) the words from "and" to the end of the subsection are omitted.

    . After section 57(5) of that Act there is inserted—
    "(5A) This subsection applies to—

    (a) local education authorities in England and Wales;

    (b) education authorities in Scotland; and

    (c) any body which is a responsible body in relation to an establishment falling within paragraph 3, 3B or 7B of the table in section 17." ").

    35 Page 13, line 15, at end insert—
    (". In section 59(1)(b) of that Act (appeal against non-discrimination notice) after "the court" there is inserted "(ignoring section 57A)".").
    36 Page 13, line 15, at end insert—
    (". In section 62(1) of that Act (persistent discrimination) after "or" at the end of paragraph (b) there is inserted—
    "(ba) a finding under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 or Part IV of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 that he has done an act which was unlawful by virtue of section 19B; or"").

    37 Page 13, line 15, at end insert—
    (". After section 65(6) of that Act (help for aggrieved persons in obtaining information etc.), there is added—
    "(7) This section does not apply in relation to any proceedings under—

    (a) the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997; or

    (b) Part IV of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999." ").

    38 Page 13, line 15, at end insert—
    (". After section 66(7) of that Act (assistance by Commission) there is added—

    "(8) This section (except for subsection (4)) applies to proceedings or prospective proceedings under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 or Part IV of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 so far as they relate to acts which may be unlawful by virtue of section 19B as it applies to proceedings or prospective proceedings under this Act.

    (9) In this section as it applies by virtue of subsection (8) "rules and regulations" means—

    (a) in relation to proceedings under the Act of 1997, rules under section 5 or 8 of that Act;

    (b) in relation to proceedings under Part IV of the Act of 1999, rules under paragraph 3 or 4 of Schedule 4 to that Act.".").

    39 Page 13, line 15, at end insert—
    (". After section 67(3) of that Act (extension of jurisdiction of county courts and sheriff courts) there is inserted—
    "(3A) A designated county court or a sheriff court shall have jurisdiction to entertain proceedings under this Act with respect to an act done outside the United Kingdom where section 19B applies in relation to such an act by virtue of section 27(1A)." ").
    40 Page 13, line 15, at end insert—
    (". In section 68(2) of that Act (period within which proceedings to be brought), at the beginning there is inserted "Subject to subsection (2A)".
    . After section 68(2) of that Act, there is inserted—
    "(2A) In relation to an immigration claim within the meaning of section 57A, the period of six months mentioned in subsection (2)(a) begins on the expiry of the period during which, by virtue of section 57A(1)(a), no proceedings may be brought under section 57(1) in respect of the claim."").
    41 Page 13, line 15, at end insert—
    (". In section 69(2) of that Act (evidence), after "Act" there is inserted "or any enactment mentioned in section 19C(5)".").
    42 Page 13, line 18, leave out ("75(1)") and insert ("75(2)").
    43 Page 13, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert—
    (""(2A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection (2B).
    (2B) Sections 19B to 19D, sections 71 to 71E (including Schedule 1A) and section 76 bind the Crown; and the other provisions of this Act so far as they relate to those provisions shall be construed accordingly (including, in particular, references to employment in Part IV).".").
    44 Page 13, line 22, after ("Act") insert ("—

    (a) for "and (2)" there is substituted "to (2B)"; and

    (b)").

    45 Page 13, line 28, at end insert—

    ("() proceedings on dealing summarily with a charge under the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955 or on summary trial under the Naval Discipline Act 1957;

    ()proceedings before a summary appeal court constituted under any of those Acts;").

    46 Page 13, line 29, leave out from ("under") to ("or") in line 31 and insert ("any of those Acts").
    47 Page 13, line 34, at end insert—

    Local Government Act 1988 (c.9)
    . In section 18(1) of the Local Government Act 1988 (race relations matters)—

    (a) for the words from "71" to "regard to" there is substituted "71(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 and any duty imposed by an order under section 71(2) of that Act (duties relating to the"; and

    (b) for "local authority" there is substituted "public authority to which section 17 above applies".

    . In section 18(2) of that Act—

    (a) for "local authority" there is substituted "public authority to which that section applies"; and

    (b) for "71" there is substituted "71(1) or any duty imposed by an order under the said section 71(2)".

    . Section 18(7A) of that Act is omitted.").
    48 Page 13, line 34, at end insert—

    Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (c.68)
    . In section 2A(1) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (jurisdiction: human rights), after "appealable decision," there is inserted "racially discriminated against him or".
    . In section 2A(2) of that Act, after "this section," there is inserted "—

    (a) an authority racially discriminates against a person if he acts, or fails to act, in relation to that other person in a way which is unlawful by virtue of section 19B of the Race Relations Act 1976; and

    (b)".

    . In section 2A(3) of that Act, after "the proceedings," there is inserted "racially discriminated against the appellant or".
    . In section 2A(5) of that Act—
    (a) after "concerned" there is inserted "—

    "(a) racially discriminated against the appellant; or

    (b)"; and

    (b) for "that ground" there is substituted "the ground in question".
    . In the side note to section 2A of that Act, after "Jurisdiction:" there is inserted "racial discrimination and".").
    49 Page 13, line 34, at end insert—
    (". In section 5 of that Act (procedure in relation to jurisdiction under section 2 of that Act etc.)—

    (a) in subsection (1)(a) after "2" there is inserted "or 2A";

    (b) in subsection (1)(b) for "that section" there is substituted "section 2 or 2A above"; and

    (c) in subsection (2) after "2" there is inserted "or 2A".").

    50 Page 13, line 34, at end insert—
    (". In Schedule 2 to that Act (appeals: supplementary)—

    (a) in paragraph 4 after "2" there is inserted "or 2A"; and

    (b) in paragraphs 6 and 7 after "2" there is inserted "and2A".").

    51 Page 13, line 34, at end insert—

    School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c.31)
    . In paragraph 8(b) of Schedule 4 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (school organisation committees to have regard to certain obligations owed by local education authorities and governing bodies under the Race Relations Act 1976) after "Part III" there shall be inserted "or section 71".
    . In paragraph 6(b) of Schedule 5 to the Act of 1998 (adjudicators to have regard to certain obligations owed by local education authorities and governing bodies under the Race Relations Act 1976) after "Part III" there shall be inserted "or section 71".").
    52 Page 13, line 38, leave out ("him") and insert ("the appellant").
    53 Page 13, line 45, at end insert—
    (". In section 72(2)(a) of that Act (miscellaneous limitations on rights of appeal), after "rights" there is inserted "or racially discriminated against him".").
    54 Page 13, line 45, at end insert—
    (". In section 73(2) of that Act (limitation on further appeals), after "a claim that" there is inserted "in taking a decision, a decision-maker racially discriminated against the appellant or that".
    . In section 74(7) of that Act (duty to disclose grounds for appeal etc.), after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
    "(aa) if he claims that he was racially discriminated against, include notice of that claim;".
    . In section 76(3)(a) of that Act (result of failure to give statement of additional grounds for appeal), for "breached the applicant's" there is substituted "racially discriminated against the applicant or breached his".").
    55 Page 13, line 45, at end insert—
    (". In Schedule 4 to that Act (appeals), in paragraph 9(2) for the words "that the claim is one to which this paragraph applies" there is substituted "with the opinion expressed in the Secretary of State's certificate".
    . In that Schedule to that Act, after paragraph 9 there is inserted—

    Racial discrimination
    9A.—(1) This paragraph applies to an appeal under Part IV of this Act by a person who claims that he has been racially discriminated against, if the Secretary of State has certified that, in his opinion, the claim is manifestly unfounded.
    (2) If, on an appeal to which this paragraph applies, the adjudicator agrees with the opinion expressed in the Secretary of State's certificate, paragraph 22 does not confer on the appellant any right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal." ").

    56 Schedule 3, page 14, line 4, column 3, at end insert—

    ("Section 19. Section 19ZA.

    In section 57(5), the words from "and" to the end of the subsection Section 58(6).

    In section 68, subsection (2)(b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it and, in subsection (3), the words "or, as the case may be, eight" and "or (b)".")

    57 Page 14, line 8, at end insert—

    ("1980 c. 44.

    Education (Scotland) Act 1980.

    In Schedule 4, paragraph 14.")

    58 Page 14, line 8, at end insert—

    ("1985 c. 51.

    Local Government Act 1985.

    In Schedule 13, paragraph 13(h).

    In Schedule 14, paragraph 54.

    1985 c. 69.

    Housing Associations Act 1985.

    Section 75(5).

    1988 c. 4.

    Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988.

    In Schedule 6, paragraph 16.

    1988 c. 9.

    Local Government Act 1988.

    Section 18(7 A).

    1988 c. 40.

    Education Reform Act 1988.

    In Schedule 12, paragraphs 19 and 79.

    1988 c. 43.

    Housing (Scotland) Act 1988.

    Section 2(11).

    1988 c. 50.

    Housing Act 1988.

    Sections 56 and 63(5).

    1989 c. 39.

    Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989.

    In Schedule 10, paragraph 6(3).

    1992 c. 13.

    Further and Higher Education Act 1992.

    In Schedule 8, paragraph 88.

    1992 c. 37.

    Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992.

    In Schedule 9, paragraph 5(4).

    1994 c. 19.

    Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.

    In Schedule 13, paragraph 20(g).

    1994 c. 29.

    Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994.

    In Schedule 4, paragraph 51.

    1994 c. 30.

    Education Act 1994.

    In Schedule 2, paragraph 6(4).

    1994 c. 39.

    Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.

    In Schedule 13, paragraph 108.

    1995 c. 25.

    Environment Act 1995.

    In Schedule 8, paragraph 8(4).

    In Schedule 10, paragraph 15(2).")

    59 Page 14, line 9, column 3, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraphs 1(2)(1) and").

    60 Page 14, line 9, at end insert—

    ("1996 c. 56.

    Education Act 1996.

    In Schedule 37, paragraph 42 and, in paragraph 117(4), paragraph (b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it.")

    61 Page 14, line 10, column 3, leave out ("paragraph 35") and insert ("paragraphs 35 and 36").62

    62 Page 14, line 10, at end insert—

    ("1998 c. 38.

    Government of Wales Act 1998.

    In Schedule 16, paragraph 30.")

    63 Page 14, line 12, column 3, at end insert—

    ("1999 c. 29.

    Greater London Authority Act 1999.

    Section 391.")

    64 Page 14, line 12, column 3, at end insert—

    ("2000 c. 21.

    Learning and Skills Act 2000.

    In Schedule 9, paragraph 10.")

    Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 to 64.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 to 64.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport Bill
8.16 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons be now considered.—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport Bill
  COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS
  [The page and line refer to HL Bill 64 as first printed for the Lords.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  27 Clause 40, page 27, line 5, at end insert
  ("() No direction to make a transfer scheme shall be given under subsection (1) before the first Session of the next Parliament after that in which this Act is passed.")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  27A Because the effect of the amendment would be to delay unjustifiably the setting up of a public-private partnership in respect of air traffic services.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  28 Clause 41, page 27, line 25, at end insert
  ("() No approval of a transfer scheme shall be made under subsection (2) before the first Session of the next Parliament after that in which this Act is passed.")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  28A Because the effect of the amendment would be to delay unjustifiably the setting up of a public-private partnership in respect of air traffic services.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  Clause 42, page 27, line 38, at end insert
  29 ("() No transfer scheme shall be made under subsection (2) before the first Session of the next Parliament after that in which this Act is passed.")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  29A Because the effect of the amendment would be to delay unjustifiably the setting up of a public-private partnership in respect of air traffic services.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 27A, 28A and 29A.
  These amendments relate to the deferral of the introduction of the NATS public-private partnership. When the amendments were moved in this House I argued strongly against them, and I am gratified that the Commons endorsed the Government's view.
  The purpose of these three amendments is to ensure that no transfer schemes are made or approved before the first Session of the Parliament following that in which this Bill receives Royal Assent.
  Transfer schemes involve the transfer of assets, rights and liabilities to relevant parties in readiness for the NATS public-private partnership. The partnership cannot be set up until these transfers have been effected. The amendments therefore have the effect of delaying the public-private partnership until the next Parliament—in other words, until after the next general election. They would also have the effect of preventing the separation of the operation of air traffic

  1209
  services from their regulation. That is completely at variance with the views of this House, and with those held in another place. The separation of operations from regulation is a key instrument of progress that will enhance the safety regime for air navigation services. It would be very counter-productive to delay that key objective for the sake of political manoeuvring.
  I am sure that it will come as no surprise to noble Lords that the Government do not think that this delaying tactic is acceptable. We do not see the need for any further delay in proceeding with the establishment of the PPP. Our proposals have been given ample publicity. Indeed, before the last election the Prime Minister said in his message to the nation in the 1997 party manifesto:
  "We will search out at every turn new ways and new ideas to tackle the new issues … how to put the public and private sector together in partnership to give us the infrastructure and transport system we need".
  In February 1997, Mrs Margaret Beckett said that NATS was not ruled out as a candidate for the public-private partnership. In April 1997, just before the general election, the Chancellor said that he would consider partial privatisation of NATS, and the Prime Minister confirmed, during the course of a very public pre-election debate, that he would not rule out its sale. That was followed by a public consultation on our White Paper after we had announced the proposal for the partial sale of NATS in June 1998. A Statement was made following that consultation and there has also been a Select Committee inquiry. Therefore, there has been ample time for public scrutiny of the policy, and of its detail.
  In addition, it has, of course, been necessary to introduce legislation to enable the partial sale of NATS to take place. There have been thorough debates on this Bill's provisions, both in this House and in another place. This in itself has enabled the Government's proposals to be subject to detailed scrutiny. The Government have listened to representations made to them, both in this House and in another place, and introduced amendments, where appropriate, to meet the concerns expressed. Most recently, we moved amendments on Report to make safety the number one priority under Part I of the Bill, which were warmly welcomed by all three main parties in your Lordships' House.
  We have also introduced amendments that reaffirm the Government's commitment to the two-centre strategy, based on Swanwick and Prestwick in Scotland. We have also listened to concerns about pensions arrangements for NATS staff. The Government will explain more about that when we come to the debate on the pensions amendments.
  Moreover, the aviation industry is not largely opposed to the PPP, as some might have us believe. The airlines, through BATA, have expressed concern that a delay in the PPP will have the effect of delaying much needed investment in NATS. They are also satisfied that safety will not be jeopardised by the PPP—otherwise they, who bear primary responsibility for their passengers, would not be supporting the
  1210
  proposal. I am sure noble Lords will seriously consider the views of those airlines, which play such a crucial role in safety matters.
  I turn now to the main purposes of the PPP. The proposals that we set out for NATS have been carefully crafted to meet the needs of that company and the national interest. What we are setting up here is a well-balanced, genuine partnership between the public and private sector, so as to secure the best from both. It is not ideologically driven; it is simply the right thing to do. It will set up a new company, bringing in private sector financing for crucial safety systems, and project management expertise, to deliver those systems on time and to budget. But these elements will be added to the operational excellence that we see today in NATS. They will all sit in a company that will pay proper attention to the views and interests of all stakeholders through a stakeholder council—a company with government-appointed partnership directors, who will help to assure the delivery of a strategy for the future of the company which the Government will agree with the successful strategic partner when the PPP is put into place. The new NATS will be a company whose staff will have a significant stake in its effective operation through their shareholdings.
  There is also an urgent need for investment in NATS, and for the injection of new project management skills. Important investment decisions need to be made now in respect of major projects, and the ability of a strategic partner to make a meaningful contribution to these may be lost if the PPP is delayed. There have already been delays in introducing new technology at the Swanwick centre, and there is a pressing need for the contribution from the strategic partner, both at that centre and at the New Scottish Centre at Prestwick (the NSC).
  NATS has an excellent record on safety but would benefit from a strengthening of its capabilities in respect of the introduction of new technology. A delay in the introduction of the PPP, which these amendments would cause, could jeopardise the prospects for both Swanwick and Prestwick.
  Moreover, further delay and uncertainty will not be helpful to NATS or its staff. They have had to live with uncertainty for far too long. The previous administration started questioning the future of NATS some years ago, and announced their intention to privatise. We have tried to put a stop to this uncertainty by making an early announcement concerning the PPP. To add further delay at this stage would be unfair to NATS staff, and could jeopardise the urgent need to step up the recruitment of more air traffic controllers—
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will give way. Can he tell the House whether any discussions have taken place between any government Minister and the members of the staff—the air traffic controllers?
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we have had a number of discussions, going back many months, with the staff unions and with lay members from the NATS staff.
  During the earlier stages of this Transport Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, divided the House in pursuit of the privatisation of NATS and was defeated. On Report, the noble Lord quoted a precedent for delaying the implementation of transfer provisions. In 1982, during the Telecommunications Bill, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that neither the transfer of assets and obligations to the new company, nor the issue of shares to the public, would take place before the next general election.
  However, there is a major difference between the British Telecom case and NATS. The former was a flotation in which the Government were selling off their interest in the business in its entirety (albeit in two stages). In the case of the PPP, the Government are only disposing of a proportion of their interest in NATS, and will be retaining a stake to ensure that the public interest remains protected. In fact, there will be a legislative requirement on the Government to secure parliamentary approval of the sale of any government shares.
  Those are the practical issues. However, the amendments also raise constitutional matters that have wide-ranging implications. I am sure that your Lordships will agree, on consideration, that it would be wholly inappropriate for provisions to be put on the face of a Bill preventing the Government from implementing certain of the provisions of that Bill until the next Parliament. It is for the government of the day to determine the speed at which they can implement their legislation. The House has approved the policies in the Bill by giving the Bill a Second Reading, and these delay amendments are an attempt to undermine at a very late stage the decision of the House on that occasion. Were these amendments to remain on the face of the Bill, we would be straying into very dubious territory in constitutional terms.
  This House has, over the years, fulfilled its duty admirably as a body that revises, and subjects to detailed scrutiny, Bills that are referred to it from another place. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that we have made a very worthwhile contribution to the Transport Bill by virtue of the amendments that were introduced by this House. It would be most unfortunate if we were to sully those achievements by upholding amendments that seek to dictate to the Government when their legislation can or cannot be implemented. That is not part of our role, but it is precisely what Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 would achieve.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered 27A, 28A and 29A.—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON NO. 27A
  27B Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 27 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 27A, leave out "not".
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 28B and 29B. The gist of all of these amendments is to say that the House should insist on its amendments that were passed on Report. The Minister made a great deal of the constitutional point. In fact, I heard him say on a radio programme this morning that it was a "constitutional outrage" that we should even consider asking the Commons to take another look at the matter.
  As we all know, since the House of Lords Act the relationship between this House and the other place has inevitably been destabilised. The relationship has changed, as composition of the House changed. This was recognised by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House in her now famous doctrine. The noble Baroness declared that this new House would be more legitimate and that it would speak with more authority. She also promised that your Lordships' decision, if taken—as the decision on this issue so far has been—by Peers of, as she put it,
  "a range of political and independent opinions".
  would carry more weight with the Government. Should the voice of this House not be afforded some weight on this subject, as the noble Baroness promised?
  I do not argue, nor do my noble friends, that the Salisbury doctrine has wholly passed its time. The unelected House should not try to block a manifesto item on which the elected majority in another House has insisted. But this is not such an item. We are not seeking to block the implementation of this proposal, but merely to defer it for a few months.
  There is nothing in the amendment to prevent the Government going ahead with all the preparation necessary to implement their proposals. All we suggest with these amendments is that the actual transfer schemes be delayed until after the next election so that the proposal can be put into the manifesto and put before the public. As I said on Report, this is exactly what we did with the BT privatisation proposals in 1982. The Minister says that this is not a privatisation but a public/private partnership. But the Bill allows under Clause 48 for the Crown shareholding to drop to 25 per cent. Furthermore, subsection (10) of that clause provides that,
  "The Secretary of State may by order amend or repeal this section".
  In other words, the whole business could be sold. That sounds to me very similar to the British Telecom privatisation back in the 80s.
  We are not taking that action in the teeth of a manifesto commitment widely proclaimed and deeply held. We are taking it in the face of a proposal that was explicitly condemned by the Labour Party before the

  1213
  previous general election, and on the opposition to which many Members of another place were elected. The Government in another place may be entitled to insist on our respecting their manifesto commitments. But are not we in this new and, we are told, more legitimate House, entitled equally to tell the Government that they should wait for a mandate before enacting something completely the reverse of a public promise they have given to the electorate? That is all we are asking tonight: that they should wait a little and ask the public for endorsement of this policy.
  I am reminded forcefully of the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on a recent analogous occasion. He was speaking on the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill in your Lordships' House on 28th September. Your Lordships will recall that in that Bill the Government sought to restrict the right to jury trial—something the Government had flatly opposed before the election. The noble and learned Lord said at col. 987 of Hansard:
  "There is no reason at all, no constitutional convention which bars a vote against this Bill with approval of the amendment tonight".
  This is not a manifesto commitment; on the contrary, on 27th February 1997 less than two months before the election, the Home Secretary made absolutely plain his opposition to this proposal. It was with his words ringing in its ears that the Labour Party went into the general election.
  Equally were not the famous words of Mr Andrew Smith, now Chief Secretary but then Labour's transport spokesman, at the 1996 Labour Party conference,
  "Our air is not for sale",
  equally ringing in the ears of the electorate in 1997, or the words of Mr Keith Bradley, another shadow transport spokesman, in a letter of 5th February 1997, when he stated,
  "I would like to confirm that the Labour Party are completely opposed to the privatisation of NATS and under a Labour Government they will remain in the public sector"?
  One cannot get much clearer than that. But was not this proposal also absent from the manifesto and has not this been a reversal of policy on a well publicised issue equally as striking as that on jury trial?
  The Minister quotes accurately from what the Leader of his party said in the foreword to the manifesto. So what does one do? One then turns to the relevant pages in the manifesto which deal with transport. And what does one find? Lo and behold it states clearly with regard to London Underground:
  "Labour plans a new public/private partnership to improve the Underground".
  The manifesto further advocates with regard to buses,
  "partnerships between local councils and bus operators".
  With regard to roads, the manifesto refers to,
  "using public/private partnerships to improve road maintenance"
  and so on. That is all clear, until one gets to the aviation section of the manifesto which states:
  "The guiding objectives of our aviation strategy will be fair competition, safety and environmental standards".
  1214
  There is not a word in the manifesto about a public/private partnership for National Air Traffic Services. Therefore, I am led to believe that the general public, or at least that part of it that reads manifestos, would be entitled to assume that the famous words,
  "Our air is not for sale",
  still hold good.
  The noble Lord referred to investment and to the letter from the British Air Transport Association which I have seen today. Of course we understand the need of the industry for new investment, but after three and a half years in office why is this suddenly so urgent? Swanwick progresses, whether or not the PPP goes through, and so can the new Scottish centre. Is it not better to have a delay of only a few months to get this PPP the endorsement from the electorate that it needs? Would it be outrageous to suggest that after last week's public finance figures, which showed the public sector net borrowings standing at a surplus of £11 billion, the Treasury might allow NATS the limited freedom to borrow, if only temporarily—the same freedom as the Post Office now has permanently? So, too, do regional airports. Immediate and urgent privatisation is not the policy of these businesses, why should it be necessarily so for NATS?
  There is not a shred of justification for the other place bulldozing the voice of this House on this matter. Far from there being a mandate or even there being absence of a mandate, there is the absolute opposite of a mandate. In such a case as this I argue that what I might call the "Simon of Glaisdale doctrine" should apply, just as it did on the proposed restriction of jury trial. Your Lordships not only have the right to ask the Government to seek an honest mandate from the electorate for a policy they previously promised to oppose; some might consider that this House would be in dereliction of its constitutional duty if it did not do so. For all those reasons I believe that another place should have the opportunity to re-examine these amendments. I beg to move.
  Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 27A, leave out "not".—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
  8.30 p.m.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. First, I want to set out our position as it now stands. During earlier stages of the Bill we on these Benches did our best to persuade the Government to substitute a not-for-profit trust for the PPP option for NATS.
  The advantages of going for the option of a not-for-profit trust are clear. The public interest in NATS will be preserved, and a true partnership with stakeholder and employee interests would be assured. The Government would avoid the burden of the required investment falling on the public sector borrowing requirement. The not-for-profit trust would nevertheless be able to borrow at near government

  1215
  rates, thus contributing to a reduction of NATS' costs. The temptation to skimp on safety to satisfy shareholders, to which Gerald Corbett has referred in respect of Railtrack, would be avoided. This would protect the "safety ethos" element identified by many Labour Members in discussions in this House as a major worry with the PPP option.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am sure that, like almost everyone else, the noble Baroness will have seen the letter in today's Times from the chairmen of British Airways, British Midland and Virgin in which they stated,
  "If safety was at risk, we would be leading the criticism of the PPP proposal; but it is not"?
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, all those companies have an interest in purchasing their share of NATS, so they would say that, wouldn't they?
  The main exemplar of the not-for-profit trust option, NavCanada, has proved capable of stretching its wings to co-operate with Russia in research which it is hoped will lead to non-stop polar routes between North America and South-East Asia. Thus a not-for-profit trust is capable of being entrepreneurial and of expanding its business—a major government ambition for NATS.
  Moreover, while we understand that the failure of NATS to control the project at Swanwick and to bring it in on time and at budget is a matter of concern to the Government, as it is to all other Members of this House, it is no argument that the private sector is always better at such management to show that the public sector is sometimes deficient. There have been many prominent scandals when introducing new technology in the private sector as well.
  The fact that we are tonight again supporting the Conservative amendment to delay the implementation of a NATS/PPP proposal does not mean that we have abandoned our hope that the Government will change their mind. On the contrary, we hope that the Government will use the opportunity provided by the six-month delay to rethink their project. At present, rumours are rife all over the place that they may try to do just that. Our belief is that the not-for-profits trust was never considered by the Government because they had already committed themselves to the PPP option, perhaps at the behest of the Chancellor. The option deserves serious consideration.
  Secondly, we reject suggestions, as did the noble Lord in introducing his amendment, that defeating the Government tonight would be in some sense outrageous or disgraceful. This matter is no game but a matter of great significance where the Government have apparently pitted themselves against their own spokespeople before taking office, against the professionals—pilots and controllers—against the transport Select Committee in the House of Commons, which also endorsed the option for a not-for-profits trust, against large numbers of Labour MPs who are still trying to convince their own Government to change their mind, and against the
  1216
  public who in various polls have shown their opposition to a PPP by majorities ranging from more than 60 per cent to nearly 80 per cent. That level of opposition to the Government's plans is in itself a justification of continued pressure from this House on the Government to change their mind.
  Thirdly, I wish to state quite clearly that comments from Ministers suggesting that the Bill might be lost are absurd. The fate of the Bill is in the hands of the Government, not of the Opposition. The Government could accept tonight's amendment. That would secure the passage of the Bill with a delay of about six months in the implementation of Part I. Perhaps, since they claim to be so supportive of the PPP for NATS, Ministers should recommend going to the country at the next election with a PPP for NATS in the manifesto. That would leave the remainder of the Bill unimpaired.
  We hope that the Government will concede. Politically speaking, there could hardly be a worse time to be gung-ho for the privatisation of an essential transport aid. We have Railtrack in chaos, and increasing dispute about the PPP for the London Underground. What a time to launch yet another extremely controversial and potentially dangerous scheme upon the public. We hope that even at this late stage the Government will have the courage to change their mind and to get off the hook of dogged devotion to an inappropriate solution for NATS on which they have impaled themselves for too long.
  8.45 p.m.
  Baroness Jeger: My Lords, as probably the oldest old lady who has ever been chairman of the Labour Party, perhaps I may say that we always believed that we had to put what we had in mind in the manifesto. One of the most unacceptable factors is that this proposal was not in the manifesto. Moreover, we had balloons stating, "Our air is not for sale". Members of trade unions have said that we do not want a Railtrack in the sky. In view of the recent happenings on the railways we should take that on board.
  It is necessary to gain acceptance for the policy from the people who work in this area. One of my noble friends referred to a letter in The Times. Anyone can get a letter in The Times; even I have had a letter in The Times. However, another letter suggested that the workers' views were not being taken into consideration. However, I am taking them into consideration in my humble way. I have received many letters, as I am sure others have, which do not come from those fat chaps writing letters to The Times but from members of the trade unions and the pilots and those who support the chaps doing the work. I am so old: I love to remember all that the Battle of Britain meant to us. One of my friends said to me, "You're just still keen on pilots"!
  I do not often speak against my own party. But I honestly think that we are wrong. We are being inconsiderate to the pilots and others who undertake

  1217
  this work, and their trade unions. I am disgusted that my party seems to be taking no notice of their opinions because private money is more important.
  Baroness Hogg: My Lords, I am very honoured to follow the noble Baroness. This seems to be an evening for friendly fire. I most reluctantly oppose the amendment put forward by my noble friend. My reluctance should be evidenced by the fact that in five years' membership of this House I have never been moved to vote against my friends; and at earlier stages of the Bill I supported these Benches on the issue. But we are up against the buffers now on the Bill and have to consider what is on offer. I believe that with this amendment we are in danger of losing sight of the wood for the trees.
  My opposition to the amendment has nothing to do with what seemed to me the utter nonsense uttered this morning by the Minister on constitutional outrage. It is not a constitutioal outrage to be considering voting on the amendment. Frankly, in view of a number of things that the Government have done, I do not think that the Minister would know a constitutional outrage if it hit him on the nose.
  I am also getting sick and tired of hearing government Ministers bellyache about the remaining hereditary element in this House. If the Government do not believe that the elected hereditaries who remain in the House have the right to speak and vote on their considered views, they should have had the guts to vote them out of this Chamber. As they have not done so, they should respect the constitutional position. It is an outrage to say that they are not entitled to vote. However, I do not think that we on this side have a constitutional duty to stop the Labour Party changing its mind, particularly if I approve of the direction in which it is going. It is those considered views on which I should like to reflect briefly.
  There are elements on both sides of the Chamber who try to pretend that what is being discussed is not privatisation. The opposition to this part of the Bill seems to be coming from two directions. On the one hand, there are those who want less privatisation than is being proposed; and they are trotting out some of the arguments we heard at the very beginning about safety, as though private companies such as chemical plants and airlines throughout the economy were not dealing with safety issues day in and day out. We have also heard about national security, as if we did not have emergency powers to deal with those issues across a wide range of essential services and utilities.
  On the other side we hear that this privatisation does not go far enough. That is the point at which the contradictions in the opposition to the Bill begin to lose me. Privatising a natural monopoly in the form of a network, which NATS is, raises all kinds of difficult issues. I have worked on a number of different models in the UK and other countries, although I hasten to assure the House that I have not worked on this model. The issue can be approached in a variety of ways and I do not argue for a moment that the Government have chosen the single, ideal model. I think that the
  1218
  partnership model has some advantages in this situation, but there are other ways to bring in private involvement.
  However, what is sticking in my gut—this is my fundamental point—is that the involvement of the private sector has been fought for by the Conservatives for 20 years. We have fought to spread the understanding that the involvement of private enterprise in state activities is a plus. Privatisation, contracting out and public/private partnerships are different manifestations of an idea, put forward by the Conservatives, that has truly changed the world. It is changing economies from south-east Asia to eastern Europe.
  Most remarkably, those ideas have even penetrated the understanding of the Labour Party. The Bill is the clearest evidence that, albeit imperfectly, the Labour Party has been converted to the idea. I find the Liberals' continued opposition the clearest possible evidence of their unreconstructed corporatism. I cannot bring myself to support that attitude against the Government. I am not keen to ride on Liberal prejudices just to cause the Government short-term embarrassment. That would not redound to the Conservatives' credit in the long term.
  What will happen? We can see that some parts of the Labour Party will be only too glad to be shot of the issue. The Government will tell NATS that they are unable to go forward with their brave and difficult plan because the Tories have turned tail on privatisation. Because it is important to show that some of us have not done so and to avoid NATS being left in limbo with its future uncertain, I find myself, very reluctantly, obliged to oppose my party.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I abstained when the issue was first discussed, but I shall vote for the Government tonight. I shall explain why.
  The Conservative Party has been less than frank with the House. The real reason why the Conservatives want to delay is to work out what they are going to say about the privatisation of NATS. That is what they want, but they dare not say it, because it is unpopular with the electorate. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has argued that we should delay a few months. What is the likelihood of persuading the air traffic controllers that that is a good idea?
  I do not believe that the Government can win on the issue, but I support the rest of the Bill, because I believe in the principles adumbrated in it. However, the Government will not win on NATS unless my noble friend the Minister argues a little more forcefully than he has done tonight. He was unable to tell us the outcome of the discussions between Ministers and the air traffic controllers. He told us that there have been discussions—I am glad about that—but what was the result? The Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists—the union represented by my noble friend Lord Brett—had a long discussion on the issue and came out against the semi-privatisation of NATS.
  My view, as a former aviation Minister, is that our air traffic control compares with anything in the world. I believe it to be a good system. The onus of

  1219
  proving otherwise falls on my noble friend the Minister. He does not argue that NATS is insufficient, but that it does not have the money, does not have the right sort of money or does not put its money in the right direction. That is not the fault of NATS, but the fault of the Government, as my noble friend well knows. NATS has performed well over the years and there is no reason to interfere with it. The Government can do much better than propose its disestablishment.
  However, I am not prepared to lose the rest of the Bill, as the Government have suggested may happen, not only in the House of Commons, but more publicly elsewhere. The Government have a job between now and the election to convince not only the electors, but the air traffic controllers that their plan is right. I do not think that they can do it.
  The issues are very important, for the reasons that have already been given in the debate. Time is of the essence and the Government do not have a lot of it on their side. However, I do not want the air traffic controllers to say that the issue should not be proceeded with because the Government do not have time on their side. They should face up to the problem with the Minister fairly and squarely. That they have not so done yet is not their fault, but largely the fault of the Government.
  I do not believe that the Liberal Democrats should support the Conservatives tonight. That is what they are going to do. They have no policy. They say that they believe in National Air Traffic Services, so they should support the Bill, albeit reluctantly. I believe it is important that all parties should speak frankly tonight as to where they stand on this issue. I do not believe that the Tories have done that.
  It is with a heavy heart that I shall go into the Government Lobby. It is not very important whether I go with a heavy heart or a light heart, but I shall support the Government, not because they have won my support on the issue of NATS but because I believe that the "venue" has changed. The House of Commons has spoken. I take that very seriously indeed. I hope that my noble friend will not be reluctant to speak to the air traffic controllers and put forward his point of view. However, I hope that he will go with his ears open and that he will listen carefully to those who have the day-to-day job of flying and looking after the aeroplanes. That is the burden that rests on my noble friend tonight.
  9 p.m.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, this amendment seeks to delay a wretched piece of proposed legislation which few want. As we heard, 62 per cent of public opinion is opposed to it, as are the airline pilots and the air traffic controllers. Pace the Minister, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and others, if there is a constitutional outrage, it is that the Government have no electoral mandate for it. Indeed, quite the reverse is true; they have done a complete U-turn on NATS.
  1220
  Part-privatisation is neither one thing nor the other. As a corporate beast it is unrecognisable and is most likely to be a mere staging post on the way to complete privatisation. The government scheme for NATS is the most expensive option. On Report I challenged the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, to ask the National Audit Office to make a prior assessment of it, both as regards value for money and safety, as it is doing with London Underground. He evaded that question.
  Again, we have been endlessly and repeatedly assured that safety would be, if not paramount, then at least the top priority. The public were given such reassurances after the fatal Southall and Ladbroke Grove rail disasters by Ministers, the privatised Railtrack and the railway operating companies. Then Hatfield happened. Ministers have failed utterly to answer the question of how safety can be maintained alongside severe cost-cutting.
  Only yesterday the Observer newspaper revealed:
  "A briefing document prepared by NATS last month says that plans to cut up to £165 million from their budget over the next five years will undermine safety of passengers and mean that 1.8 million flights a year over Britain could descend into chaos".
  On the previous Sunday, 19th November, the main editorial leaders of both the Observer and the Sunday Times condemned the Government's scheme, with the latter endorsing the NavCanada model of the kind advocated by the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lord, Lord Brett, and his like-minded colleagues on the Labour Benches.
  The country is bewildered by the Government's blind intransigence on the future of NATS. That bewilderment was elegantly encapsulated in the Steve Bell cartoon of 17th November in the Guardian. It graphically depicted the Prime Minister, scooped up in the claws of a giant eagle, anxiously telephoning his chief press officer on his mobile, saying:
  "Alastair, remind me why we must privatise air traffic control? Is it logic, principle, financial pressure, or have I taken a bung?"
  Although no one would suggest that the last is the case, few people, if any, can fathom the Government's motivation behind their irrationally obsessive determination to create what the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, called "a Railtrack of the air".
  The proposals should be deferred until the Government include them in their election manifesto next time or, preferably, when they have had second thoughts and have come up with a better and more credible option along NavCanada lines.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, when this matter was last debated and voted upon, I voted against the Government. I voted for this amendment and I intend to do so this evening as well. Indeed, if I needed any convincing to do so, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis provided the very arguments which I needed to re-establish my faith in my own decision when the issue was last discussed.
  It is no good to say, as has been said on the Front Bench by my noble friend Lord Macdonald, that this is a constitutional outrage. The noble Baroness, Lady

  1221
  Hogg, dealt with that at some length, but I wish to add something myself. The fact is that this House of Lords is the creation of the present Government. Its constitution depended on government decision and House of Commons votes, supported by votes in this House. Therefore, it is a government creation. Make no mistake about that.
  I well remember hearing my noble friend the Leader of the House when she was challenged by the Opposition that this House would be a rubber stamp. She refused to accept that, saying that it was not intended to be a rubber stamp; it was intended to be a significant House which would bring the Government to account. Indeed, she asked how it could be a rubber stamp with people such as the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Bruce, in the House. Tonight I shall prove that my noble friend was absolutely right, and that while we have people such as myself, Lord Bruce and others—many others, I hope—this House will not be a rubber stamp; it will give proper advice to the House of Commons.
  At this point it is strange to ask Labour Members of this House to do the exact opposite of what we were told we should do before the election. Some of us have brains. We shall not simply be told one minute that something is wrong and the next minute that it is right and that we must have a completely different mindset. It may be that others are prepared to do that but I am afraid that I am not and particularly at this time, because we have seen the shambles that Railtrack is in as a result of privatisation. I do not want the same shambles to follow as regards air traffic control.
  It has been said that the airlines are in favour of this measure. Of course they are; it will suit them. But what about the pilots? They are the people who must fly the planes and have confidence in the air control system. They are dead against this piece of legislation and we should listen to them.
  Therefore, with great regret, I must tell my noble friends that I shall be voting for this amendment this evening. My noble friends are laughing. But I can remember a Labour Party which was in favour of public ownership because it was necessary for matters which affected the whole of the population; because it was necessary for the safety of people; and because, as in this case, public ownership was a strategic necessity. So it is no good my noble friends laughing at me. I have been in the Labour Party for 54 years. I joined it because I believed that public ownership had a place in our economy, particularly where public safety was involved and where a great service was involved.
  My noble friends can laugh if they want to. But I repeat that it is with great regret that I shall go into the Lobby against the Government. I hope that the delay will persuade them that they should bring forward different proposals for the retention of NATS in public ownership.
  Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I wish to declare an interest. I am a director of British Airways plc and a member of the British Airways Board Safety Committee. That close involvement with many aspects
  1222
  of the operation of air traffic control has resulted in my following a self-denying ordinance so far throughout the passage of the Bill. However, I have become increasingly concerned that a distinct pressure has been applied by those who do not wish the partial privatisation of NATS, and the various companies which have expressed an interest in being involved in the process have been barred from lobbying. That rule has not been imposed on the opponents. The opponents, orchestrated by the noble Lord, Lord Brett, the former general-secretary of IPMS, the union of air traffic controllers, if the report in the Guardian of 23rd November is correct, seem to have had it all their own way.
  In the circumstances, I feel compelled to state some facts clearly to make sure that the arguments are fairly balanced. I must emphasise that I am not speaking as a supporter of any consortium interested in becoming the 49 per cent shareholder but solely from my experience of the sector, going back some 40 years from my first job as a very junior airline economist.
  Like my noble friend Lady Hogg, it gives me no pleasure to be in a position of speaking against my party on this issue. It will be a most uncomfortable experience for me to vote against my party's amendment. But in my view the House of Lords must do what it thinks is best in the interests of the best quality of legislation for the country. I believe that the partial privatisation of NATS falls into that category. My sole aim in taking part in the debate is to do all I can to achieve the objective that the partial privatisation of NATS is not derailed by political shenanigans. It is far too important for that.
  The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was very forceful in his comments about his party changing its mind. I agree. Although I shall vote in a different Lobby from him, I find it extremely difficult to accept that my party has changed its mind.
  The current situation of NATS is that it must take its place in line for Treasury funding long behind, one suspects, education, education, education and the National Health Service. That really is not good enough. Although the air traffic control system has served us well and has caused no anxiety in the minds of the general public, there is a crying need for significant investment. It is imperative that access to capital is free from PSBR constraints. Investment is urgently needed.
  I gently remind your Lordships of what happened on 17th June this year. There was a catastrophic failure of the air traffic control system which left thousands of passengers stranded and delayed and having to spend nights at hotels near the airports. Indeed, it cost British business many millions of pounds in total.
  Are we convinced that even if the Government did give NATS the investment needed, such expenditure would be subject to effective programme management and robust corporate discipline? I do not intend to make a cheap point about the startling record of mismanagement of large systems-focused projects in the public sector, tempting though that may be. However, it is appropriate in this debate to mention

  1223
  just one word—Swanwick. That is a project which, if completed and up and running by the revised date of 2002, will be a full six years late. By now we should have had the latest in computer systems and a state-of-the-art control centre. Not only is it not yet on stream, but the revised system specification is less advanced than that promised when the project was first drawn up. Between now and the year 2002 shall we be in danger of yet another collapse like the 17th June collapse or indeed, heaven forbid, many more collapses like the 17th June collapse?
  There has been an amount of irresponsible scaremongering about the threat to safety resulting from the proposed public-private partnership. That really is what one would call colloquially a "no brainer". One has only to look at the huge emphasis upon safety which is the number one objective of the airlines. Membership of the British Airways Safety Committee for the past seven years has left me in no doubt of that fact. NATS does not have the sole monopoly on safety, but because of the lack of investment and mismanagement of what investment there is, one wonders whether a continuation of NATS in its present form is the best way of ensuring that safety comes first, second and third.
  Business people recognise another point as essential; namely, the separation of regulation from the service provision. Business people rail against regulation and are strident in their calls for the abolition of regulation, but in something as fundamental as the safety of millions—I do not exaggerate—I believe that it is imperative that there should be such separation. From an organisational position, I would much prefer to see those functions separated and run by totally different bodies.
  I hope that my contribution will take some of the heat out of this stupid situation that we seem to be in. We need the safest, the most efficient air traffic control organisation possible and I firmly believe that the proposals put forward in the Bill are currently the best way of achieving that. Believing that, I can see absolutely no validity in the demand for delay in achieving the public-private partnership. I am sure that I am not alone in believing that, if we delay it, it will never happen. That would be in nobody's interest; it would not be in the interest of the country nor of the Government nor of all those involved in air transport, be they employees or travellers.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not opposed to privatisation, but the blatant fact is that this Bill is not privatisation; it is partial privatisation, as my noble friend Lady O'Cathain has acknowledged. I believe it is less than that. It is a public-private partnership and it is a scheme to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to balance his books.
  I accept that moving the National Air Traffic Service into the private sector has no bearing on safety. I am certain that private sector operators will be equally capable of running a safe air traffic system.
  1224
  The problem is that this is a botched privatisation and a rushed privatisation. At earlier stages of this Bill I raised some of the admittedly minor difficulties about which I had been concerned relating to access to air space by non-public transport users. The noble Lord and I have been in correspondence on that matter.
  The plain fact is that this is a botched proposal that ought to be delayed. I am not opposed to privatisation. I believe that in the fullness of time the National Air Traffic Service can be, will be and should be privatised. Indeed, at the moment, running as it does in the private sector, it is running short of money for investment, which is abundantly obvious.
  My noble friend Lady O'Cathain referred to the problems at Swanwick. They are not caused by the fact that NATS is still in the public sector. The Swanwick programme is being run by a large American company that has not succeeded in fulfilling its contractual obligations. No doubt there are great difficulties, but they have not been caused by NATS being in the public sector; they are the result of the failure of the contractor to deliver.
  Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I did say that project management and robust corporate structures were important in the management of such projects and that is why Swanwick has not been properly managed.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Swanwick may or may not have been well managed as far as NATS is concerned, but the plain fact is that the contractor has failed to deliver the technology required in the timescale that was set. Sadly, my noble friend said that it was six years late. The failures of the Swanwick programme are as a result of the failures of the contractor and not the failures of NATS.
  When I was a junior Minister at the Ministry of Defence I had some experience of managing large, highly technical programmes from a government point of view. In those days, as now, the problems were very much with the contractors, and with the relationship between the contractors and the National Air Traffic Service. Moving NATS into the private sector will not wave a magic wand over Swanwick or Prestwick when it comes to pass in a little while.
  My noble friend Lord Brabazon is right to suggest that there should be a delay in this programme. I have nothing to say about the views of members of the Labour Party or what the Labour Party said before it came into office. For practical reasons we should agree to the amendment proposed by my noble friend. I am not opposed to privatisation. I am not opposed to the thrust of what is contained in the Bill and I support the separation of the regulation of NATS from the operation of the system itself. My noble friend's amendment will enable this programme to be moved forward in a more responsible and effective manner and I hope that the House will agree.
  Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I support my two noble friends Lord Stoddart and my older noble friend Lady Jeger, who spoke against this amendment.

  1225
  The public sector borrowing requirement was mentioned. It is certainly a vital matter. Many of those who have studied the history of public ownership in the past 50 years believe that it is the way in which the public sector borrowing requirement was applied, giving the Government the iron hand over publicly-owned industries, which was partly responsible for their not living up to the hopes we had in them.
  A vital service like air traffic control should not depend on those considerations if extra investment is necessary to enable the service to continue as efficiently as in the past and to guard against the dangers of the terrible accidents that could occur if that efficiency is put at risk. Safety is the prime case for public investment. The Treasury should not wield the tired old argument about the PSBR. It should not be the case that the efficiency of this vital service is held back and the need for private capital so strongly asserted when it is not necessary for that argument to be put forward.
  When we consider this question, we must keep safety in our minds. There was always a strong argument for public ownership when a natural or created monopoly arose. Another argument was when safety was involved. I remember that when I had the privilege of inscribing the nationalisation of the coal industry into the 1945 manifesto, a good deal was made of the need for safety in the mines. It was argued that safety in the mines had been put at risk partly because profit was such an important consideration for the owners of the coalmines. Where has that tradition gone? Why have those arguments for the moment been scuppered?
  Safety is the main reason why many of those who are of the same mind as myself want to go along this road. It has of course been brought to our attention by the sad disasters that have occurred recently.
  If this Bill is passed in the form proposed by the Government and, shortly before the next general election, an air disaster occurred over this country, whether or not it had anything to do with air traffic controllers, it would be a tragedy for the people directly involved, about which the whole country would be extremely distressed. The Government may also find themselves particularly distressed, because it would yet again be pointed out, as in the case of Railtrack, that such a disaster—for example, over Heathrow—could be attributed in part to a decision to add to the woes of the air traffic control system, which is already in some degree of chaos, waiting for the new day to dawn. If responsibility for such a dreadful crash was attributed to the Government, they would feel very sad that they had taken part. Many other people would feel sad for personal reasons, but it would have a political impact.
  I beg the Government to consider the tradition that lies behind the kind of opposition from three of us on this side of the House and agree, to the maximum possible extent, with the plea that has been made by those who on this occasion disagree with the proposal.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I have two points to make. The first is financial. With some
  1226
  trepidation, I disagree with the two accomplished lady economists who have spoken from the Conservative Benches in support of the Government. I am particularly nervous about disagreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, since we learned our economics at the same time and at the same university. However, I invite both of them to return to basic economics.
  Air traffic control is a licence to print money. It is the classic case of a natural monopoly. Volumes rise steadily, year in, year out; the charges are a tiny fraction of the total cost of air travel. The revenue is therefore rock solid. If a not-for-profit trust were established, I have not the slightest doubt that our pension funds and insurance companies would be queuing up to lend money, through long-term bonds secured on those revenues, at very fine interest rates. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, put it, the Treasury loosened its grip, and if the Government lost their obsession with privatisation, there would be no problem about funding the investment NATS needs.
  Nor is there any need to confuse privatisation with good management; Railtrack surely proves that. Why on earth should a privatised Airtrack, as I suggest we call it, do any better? A not-for-profit trust based on the Canadian model, free of the dead hand of the Treasury, with proper, secure, long term funding, would be well able to recruit the people with the skills that it needs, both at board and project management level. That is the financial point.
  My second point, as a relatively new Member of this House, is about the rights of the House and the constitutional implications of pressing this amendment. Last night on the BBC, I heard the Leader of the House of Commons, at her most gracious, telling us that the House of Lords could invite the Government to think again about a Bill, but that if our invitation to reconsider it were declined, it would be quite wrong for us to continue to oppose it, whether or not it was in the election manifesto. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, reading out the so-called manifesto commitment. Possibly John Prescott at his finest may be able to make that sound like a manifesto commitment, but the noble Lord certainly did not. I am relatively new to this House and I have not previously heard the Beckett doctrine, but it seems to me that it would turn this House into very little more than a glorified focus group.
  This morning we heard the noble Lord, the Minister of Transport, accuse the opponents of the Bill of complete cynical opportunism—that was just a warm up—and we then heard what a constitutional outrage it would be if we were to pass this amendment from what he called,
  "this deeply unrepresentative institution, with 70 per cent of the Lords against us".
  Noble Lords opposite might bear in mind that the votes cast for the three main political parties at the previous general election are more fairly reflected in the party strengths in this House than they are in the House of Commons. But if Ministers think that this House is deeply unrepresentative, they have no one to blame but themselves. We on these Benches accept no

  1227
  lectures on our rights or composition from a Government moving on to stage two reform with all the speed of a snail stuck in the long grass.
  We on these Benches invite the Government to think again—and again, and again, if they have to—about this idiotic privatisation. We shall be happy to repeat the invitation as often as is necessary.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, I am loath to rise but I am concerned about the constitutional question. The House as it voted a week or so ago was doing its job correctly in asking the Government to think again. It voted in that way. I believe that the arguments are well balanced and I do not regard anyone arguing either way as being unreasonable or unethical, or betraying anything on this matter. When my noble friend Lord Stoddart was a member of the Nationalised Industries Select Committee and I was its expert adviser we were committed on issues of nationalisation. I can be persuaded as easily by his arguments as I can by the arguments the other way.
  However, I am concerned about one issue. I believe that your Lordships' House, in asking the Government to think again, is doing the right thing and is not being a rubber stamp. I regard it as ridiculous, if I may use a strong word, to talk about the issue as though it were the kind of last-ditch issue on which we must ask the Government to think again and again and again.
  We asked the Government to think again and the House of Commons duly said, "No". What reasonable person would then say, "We would like you to think yet again and if necessary again and again"? I am totally devoted to this House and believe that it should not be a rubber-stamp House. However, once it has voted and returned the matter to the other place, and the other place has sent it back to us, then, unless the matter is of such depth as to threaten the whole future of the nation, I believe that we ought to accept the view of the other place.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, much as I regret the attempt by noble Lords opposite to insist on their amendments, we have had a robust debate on the issues raised. I am grateful for the many and varied contributions. We have ensured that these important matters have once again been fully aired. I listened most carefully. Following such a debate, noble Lords cannot fail to be aware of the importance of the proposition before us.
  I am sure that it will come as no surprise to your Lordships that the Government continue strongly to believe that the House should not insist on the amendments. As regards the substance of the Bill, I have already set out in detail the effect which delaying the PPP might have on a number of the parties involved and I want to repeat the arguments. However, let this House be in no doubt that the effect of the amendments would be harmful to NATS, to the airlines, to the passengers and to the country as a
  1228
  whole. We should not forget in particular the needs of the NATS staff, who for a long time have lived in a state of uncertainty about the future. I do not believe that it will do any good to prolong the uncertainty. Noble Lords should be aware that further delays to infrastructure investment, which NATS needs so badly, will cause considerable difficulties, especially as regards the delivery of the vital two-centre strategy.
  I return to the constitutional issue. As I said earlier, this House prides itself on being a Chamber which strives to refine and improve the quality of the legislation put before us. However, I do not believe that its remit extends to the introduction of provisions which specifically seek to delay the implementation of government policy, particularly when, as I have demonstrated, full consideration has been given to our proposals. Our adversarial political system produces good democracy, a parliamentary democracy which is still the envy of the world. It does so because we set limits beyond which opposition is not pressed.
  We have very full debates and listen to each other; we modify our legislation in the light of what is said, and what emerges is better legislation. But, ultimately, the democratically elected majority in another place should not be prevented from carrying through its policies, whichever government are in power. I hope that noble Lords opposite will, even at this late stage, consider the ramifications of insisting on these amendments. I urge noble Lords not to insist on the amendments.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful—I believe—to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I cannot possibly deal with every point made by each noble Lord. I particularly enjoyed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. We have not heard much from the noble Baroness recently and it is always a pleasure to listen to her contributions.
  Much has been said, not least by the Minister, about the constitutional aspect. From what I have heard, in particular the contributions of my noble friends Lady Hogg and Lady O'Cathain, I am convinced that as far as concerns the constitutional issue we are on safe ground. There is no question that if this amendment is agreed the Bill, or even Part I, will be lost, as some noble Lords suggest. All the amendment does is to ask the Government to postpone the implementation of the transfer until after the next general election when, if they are returned to power, they have a mandate for it.
  It has been said that the House of Commons has spoken. It has spoken twice, with the second largest rebellion on the Labour Benches this Parliament. The Select Committee of the House of Commons which considered this matter said that in its view the current proposal for a PPP for NATS was the worst of all possible options for the future structure of the company. I listen to that as well as the response of the Minister.

  1229
  The Minister said that NATS staff did not wish the uncertainty to be prolonged. All the information that I have received from the union which represents NATS staff is that they are wholly opposed to these measures. Therefore, I am not sure that the Minister is correct in saying that the staff want the uncertainty stopped.
  We have had a good debate on the issue and the time has now come to take the opinion of the House.
  9.38 p.m.
  On Question, Whether Amendment No. 27B, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 27A, to leave out "not" be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 132; Not-Contents, 125.

  Division No. 5

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Arran, E.

  Higgins, L.

  Astor, V.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Attlee, E.

  Hooson, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Howe, E.

  Barber, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Barker, B.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Bell, L.

  Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Blatch, B.

  James of Holland Park, B.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Kingsland, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Burnham, L. [Teller]

  Lucas, L,

  Byford, B.

  Luke, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Carlile of Berriew, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Chadlington, L.

  McNally, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Crathorne, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Denham, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Dholakia, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Naseby, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Neill of Bladen, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Newby, L.

  Elton, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Falkland, V.

  Northover, B.

  Feldman, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Onslow, E.

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Geddes, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Greaves, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Green way, L.

  Rees-Mogg, L.

  Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

  Rennard, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Renton, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  1230

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Taverne, L.

  Roper, L.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Tebbit, L.

  Russell, E.

  Thatcher, B.

  Saatchi, L.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Tope, L.

  Selkirk of Douglas, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Sharman, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Waddington, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Walmsley, B.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Watson of Richmond, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Young, B.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Young of Dartington, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Ahmed, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Alli, L.

  Hogg, B.

  Amos, B.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Hoyle, L.

  Bach, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Hunt of Chesterton, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Billingham, B.

  Jay of Paddington, B. {Lord Privy Seal)

  Blackstone, B.

  Borrie, L.

  Jordan, L.

  Bragg, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Brennan, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Brett, L.

  Layard, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Lipsey, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Lockwood, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  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.

  Marsh, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Marshall of Knightsbridge, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Desai, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Elder, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Peston, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Gale, B.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Puttnam, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Goudie, B.

  Richard, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Richardson of Calow, B.

  Grabiner, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Greengross, B.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Grenfell, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Simon, V.

  Haskel, L.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  1231

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Warner, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Strange, B.

  Whitaker, B.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Wilkins, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Turnberg, L.

  Winston, L.

  Varley, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment No. 27B agreed to accordingly.
  9.48 p.m.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  28 Clause 41, page 27, line 25, at end insert
  ("() No approval of a transfer scheme shall be made under subsection (2) before the first Session of the next Parliament after that in which this Act is passed.")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  28A Because the effect of the amendment would be to delay unjustifiably the setting up of a public-private partnership in respect of air traffic services.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 28 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 28A. I spoke to this Motion when dealing with Lords Amendment No. 27.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 28 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 28A.—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 28B, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 28 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 28A, leave out "not".
  Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 28 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 28A, leave out "not".—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
  On Question, Amendment No. 28B agreed to.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House on a point of order whether it is correct for the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms to sit at the Clerk's table and conduct the Labour Peers as if he was conducting an orchestra?
  Lord Carter: My Lords, there are times when the Benches opposite resemble Monty Python's Flying Circus. I am sitting here because there is no room on the Front Bench. I want to get to the Dispatch Box to explain to the House that the whole of the group of amendments in regard to the deferment have been won by the Opposition. It would be easier if we got on with it.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  Clause 42, page 27, line 38, at end insert
  29 ("() No transfer scheme shall be made under subsection (2) before the first Session of the next Parliament after that in which this Act is passed.")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  29A Because the effect of the amendment would be to delay unjustifiably the setting up of a public-private partnership in respect of air traffic services.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 29 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 29A, to which I spoke on Amendment No. 27.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 29 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 29A.—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 29B, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 29 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 29A, leave out "not".
  Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 29 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 29A, leave out "not".—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
  On Question, Amendment No. 29B agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  31 After Clause 61, insert the following new clause

  PENSION ENTITLEMENT OF PRESENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES OF NATS
  (" .—(1) In this section—

  "NATS employer" includes NATS, any designated company which succeeds to the business of NATS and any employer other than a designated company which succeeds to or acquires any part of the business of NATS;

  "NATS" is National Air Traffic Services Ltd whose air traffic services are to be transferred under the provisions of this Act;

  "protected beneficiary" includes—

  (a) any person who, on the transfer date, is employed by NATS and is an active member of the Scheme;

  (b) any person who is employed by NATS on the transfer date, but is then too young to join the Scheme, and who subsequently joins;

  (c) any person who is not an active member of the Scheme on the transfer date but who is subsequently entitled to rejoin as a NATS employee without a break in their continuity of employment;

  (d) any person who is not an active member of the Scheme on the transfer date, but who is entitled to accrued pension rights under the Scheme at that date; and

  1233

  (e) any person who is prospectively or contingently entitled to benefit under the Scheme on the death of a person covered under (a) to (d) above;

  "relevant scheme" means the Scheme or any other scheme of a NATS employer that covers protected beneficiaries, and that provides benefits in respect of the protected beneficiaries which are at least equivalent in value to those applicable to the protected beneficiaries as at the transfer date;

  "Scheme" means the Civil Aviation Authority Pension Scheme;

  "transfer date" means the date of the transfer of NATS to the public-private partnership.

  (2) NATS (or, if appropriate, the designated company) shall, subject to the consent of the Pension Schemes Office of the Inland Revenue, participate in the Scheme as a non-associated employer.
  (3) If NATS (or the designated company) does participate in the Scheme as a non-associated employer, a proportion of the total assets of the Scheme shall be segregated for the benefit of the protected beneficiaries and the share of assets so segregated shall be equal in proportion to the proportion that the Scheme's liabilities in respect of the protected beneficiaries bears to the Scheme's liabilities as a whole.
  (4) If NATS (or the designated company) is unable to participate in the Scheme, that NATS employer shall instead make available a relevant scheme for the benefit of the protected beneficiaries.
  (5) If the shares or business of NATS (or the designated company). or any part of that business, is transferred to a NATS employer other than NATS or a designated company, that NATS employer shall become a non-associated employer in the Scheme and if that is not possible that NATS employer shall instead make available a relevant scheme for the benefit of the protected beneficiaries.
  (6) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (5), if a NATS employer is to make available a relevant scheme other than the Scheme, a share of the assets of the Scheme (or of the previous relevant scheme if not the Scheme) shall be transferred to the receiving relevant scheme, calculated on the basis described in subsection (3).
  (7) If a protected beneficiary transfers to the employment of another employer that also participates in the Scheme but which is not a NATS employer, that beneficiary shall remain a protected beneficiary for the purposes of the benefits to be provided to and in respect of him under the relevant scheme and if that beneficiary subsequently transfers back to the employment of a NATS employer he shall still remain a protected beneficiary.
  (8) For so long as a NATS employer remains as a participating employer of the Scheme in respect of protected beneficiaries, one trustee of the Scheme shall be a member representative selected from amongst the protected beneficiaries, and one trustee of the Scheme shall be an employer representative of the NATS employer.
  (9) The NATS employer shall contribute to the relevant scheme at no less than the rate recommended by that scheme's actuary as being sufficient to secure the accrued rights from time to time of the protected beneficiaries in full by the purchase of annuities and the NATS employer shall not be entitled unilaterally to suspend or terminate its contributions to the relevant scheme except upon its insolvency.
  (10) On the full winding-up of a relevant scheme, or on a partial winding-up which involves protected beneficiaries, any shortfall in the assets required to buy out the accrued rights at that time of the protected beneficiaries shall be met in full by the relevant NATS employer and shall be treated as a debt on the employer.
  (11) If, on the full or partial winding-up of a relevant scheme, as described in subsection (10), the trustees wish, rather than securing benefits by the purchase of annuities, to pay a bulk transfer to another scheme, that other scheme shall be a relevant scheme and the transfer value payable in respect of the protected
  1234
  beneficiaries shall be sufficient to secure a buy out of their accrued rights if the receiving scheme were to be wound up immediately following the transfer.
  (12) The NATS employer shall provide future benefits in the relevant scheme which, in respect of the protected beneficiaries, are at least equivalent in value to those available under the Scheme at the transfer date.
  (13) No amendment may be made to a relevant scheme which would result in a reduction of the accrued or future rights of protected beneficiaries, nor in an increase in the contributions payable by protected beneficiaries who are active members.")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  31A Because all necessary protections in respect of pensions arising by virtue of employment with National Air Traffic Services Limited, or any subsidiary of that company, can be put in place without this amendment.

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON NO. 31A
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 31 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 31A, but do propose Amendments No. 31B and 31 C in lieu thereof—
  LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU
  31B After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—

  CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY PENSION SCHEME
  (" .—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the allocation of assets, rights, liabilities or obligations between different sections of the Civil Aviation Authority Pension Scheme.
  (2) An order under this section may include provision for or in connection with—

  (a) securing that the Scheme continues to be approved for the purposes of the relevant enactments;

  (b) the amendment of the Scheme;

  (c) the manner in which questions arising under the order are to be determined.

  (3) The reference in subsection (2) to the amendment of the Scheme includes a reference to the amendment of—

  (a) the trust deed of the Scheme;

  (b) the rules of the Scheme;

  (c) any other instrument relating to the constitution, management or operation of the Scheme.

  (4) An order under this section may be made so as to have effect from a date falling before the making of the order.
  (5) In making an order under this section the Secretary of State must secure that each person falling within subsection (6) is overall in materially at least as good a position, as respects pension arrangements, as a result of the order.
  (6) A person falls within this subsection if—

  (a) he is or has at any time been a contributing member of the Scheme, or

  (b) he is or may become entitled to benefits in respect of a person falling within paragraph (a).

  (7) A contributing member of the Scheme is a member who makes, and whose employer makes in respect of him, contributions under the Scheme.
  (8) The relevant enactments are—

  (a) Chapter I of Part XIV of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (retirement benefit schemes);

  1235

  (b) Part III of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, so far as relating to occupational pension schemes.").

  LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU
  31C Clause 95, page 60, line 6, at end insert—
  ("(11A) The power to make an order under section (Civil Aviation Authority Pension Scheme) is exercisable only after consultation with the trustees of the Civil Aviation Authority Pension Scheme.").
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should like to reassure the House right from the beginning that the Government regard the matter of pensions protection for air traffic control staff as one of great importance. Pensions affect us all, and I can well understand why this is a matter of such importance to NATS employees. I must therefore make it clear that we would not act in any way that would put them at threat. We are not doing so.
  We have looked in some detail at the adequacy of protections for NATS employees. We believe that there are already a number of non-statutory protections in place which amount to a very strong regime of safeguards, even before the amendments I am now moving and the new guarantee I shall describe in a moment. I shall attempt to explain, as briefly as possible, the existing protections. Some of this will, of course, be very familiar to the House because we have discussed these matters before on more than one occasion. None the less, these are key points on which the House needs to be clear.
  First, the Civil Aviation Authority pension scheme, to which NATS staff currently belong, is to be amended to make it possible for staff employed by the public/private partnership to remain members of that scheme. This will involve NATS becoming a non-associated employer within the scheme. This arrangement will prevent cross-subsidy between the new NATS section of the scheme, which will relate to a company classified to the private sector, and the CAA section of the scheme, which will remain in the public sector. It will enable NATS staff to continue to enjoy the benefits that they currently enjoy.
  Secondly, current pensioners and deferred pensioners within the scheme will remain unaffected by the PPP. They will remain in the Civil Aviation Authority pension scheme and they will be in the CAA section of the scheme, which will also include current CAA staff. This section will, as I have just said, remain in the public sector. Both groups of pensioners will continue to receive benefit in exactly the same way as they do now.
  Thirdly, returning to the position of existing NATS staff, we have made it very clear to all those bidding to be our strategic partner in the PPP that securing the continued participation of current staff in the scheme is a fundamental condition of being considered for that role. In addition, we will be putting into the strategic partnership agreement a binding commitment, enforceable at law, that guarantees the continuation of that right on terms at least as favourable as those now existing. This is a very significant safeguard, underpinned by the Government's continued participation in the PPP.
  1236
  Fourthly, NATS staff will also enjoy the protections on pensions that exist under the law of the land, such as the Pensions Acts of 1993 and 1995. These provide, among other things, protections for accrued benefits and funding levels.
  Finally, but most importantly, yet another level of protection exists in the scheme's trust deed and rules. These are unusually restrictive and protective of members' interests. It is not uncommon for the sponsoring employer of a pension scheme to have the ability to reduce the level of benefits for future service (known as "prospective benefits"). However, no employer who participates in the Civil Aviation Authority pension scheme has that particular power, because the restrictive power of amendment in the trust deed provides that amendments cannot be made to reduce prospective benefits. Let me spell that out. Under the CAAPS, the future benefits have to continue to be at least as good as the accrued ones. This is a very valuable protection indeed. For the avoidance of doubt, let me make it clear that the new strategic partner will not have the ability unilaterally to change the trust rules. They are embedded so that change can come only with the consent of the trustees.
  My noble friend Lord Brett tabled Amendment No. 31, which this House approved on Report, and with which the Commons subsequently disagreed. We consider that the amendment has some technical flaws that cause difficulties, in particular, for the trustees of the Civil Aviation Authority pension scheme. I believe that my noble friend would not disagree with this. Instead, the Government are proposing a package that meets the legitimate concerns on pension arrangements of both the trustees and NATS staff who will be employed by the PPP. The measures I am about to describe are new since this House last considered the issue and add further protections over and above those that I have already mentioned.
  The package is made up of two elements. First, the Government have tabled Amendments Nos. 31B and 31C, which we propose should replace Amendment No. 31. The purpose of these two amendments is to meet the concerns that have been expressed with regard to the pension arrangements by the scheme trustees. Amendment No. 31B provides the Secretary of State with a power to make an order by negative resolution which will enable him to allocate the assets, rights, liabilities or obligations of the Civil Aviation Authority pension scheme between different sections of the scheme. Amendment No. 31C confirms that the power can be exercised only after the trustees of the scheme have been consulted.
  I am sure that noble Lords will recall from our previous debates that the scheme is to he divided into two sections. The first section is the CAA section, which will cover CAA employees, together with all pensioners, irrespective of whether they were employed by the CAA or NATS prior to the establishment of the PPP. The second section is the NATS section, which will embrace all current staff who are in the employment of NATS when the PPP is created.

  1237
  The responsibility for making an equitable division of assets and so forth between the two sections rests with the trustees. They are understandably concerned at the prospect of a disaffected member mounting a legal challenge to any decision they may reach, and wish to guard against this eventuality. As was made clear on Report, they were intending to make an application for a court order to provide them with the necessary protection. Noble Lords will be well aware that court proceedings could become lengthy and costly. The order made by the Secretary of State under the terms of our amendment will provide the trustees with the protection that they are seeking and so avoid the need to resort to court action.
  I come now to an important point. The amendment ensures equitable treatment for all scheme members and their dependants by specifying that in making an order for the division of the fund, the Secretary of State must secure that every potential beneficiary is in materially at least as good a position, as regards pension arrangements, as a result of the order. I am sure that the House will welcome this addition of a protection of staff to the face of the Bill. I imagine that the trustees will welcome these amendments as well.
  The second element of our package does not involve making an amendment to the Bill. Its aim is, however, broadly the same as that which my noble friend wished to achieve with Amendment No. 31. That aim is to provide protection for the pension benefits currently enjoyed by NATS staff. I understand that staff have particular concerns over a possible future change of ownership or a "TUPE" transfer of part of NATS' current activities, or a change of attitude on the part of a future government.
  The Government have, therefore, devised a scheme that I shall explain to the House. The scheme will give the fullest possible protections in the circumstances of concern to staff. It is, for staff, as good as having protection on the face of the Bill yet, at the same time, does not cause the Government the problems that would flow from offering the protections in that form.
  The essence of the scheme is as follows. The Government would, as part of the PPP, ensure that each and every NATS employee at the time of the sale is required to be permitted to stay in CAAPS—or a scheme that is at least as good as CAAPS—in the opinion of the courts or an independent trustee—and continue to build up CAAPS benefits on the same basis as they do now. I shall come back to the role of the trustee shortly.
  On that basis, there is no way that NATS could erode that right or those benefits without the consent of each individual concerned. If NATS tried to do this, the employee would have the individual right to go to court to prevent NATS from cutting back on his or her benefits, and to require NATS to continue to provide for the benefits that he or she has or could reasonably be expected to earn under CAAPS.
  1238
  The Government would also create a process for an independent third party—called a "trustee of promise"—to have the role of guaranteeing the implementation of this promise. The third party chosen would almost certainly be an independent trust, such as, for illustrative purposes only, the Law Debenture Trust Corporation, although we have not yet approached that body. The Government will examine the possibility of involving staff representatives in this in some way. The third party could act quickly and relatively informally to ensure that NATS was adhering to its promise. Using legal rights to be given to it, either under general trust law principles or under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, the third party would have the ability to enforce its decisions if it was necessary to do so.
  I hope that the House will agree that this two-part package gives the fullest possible protections to both the trustees and to NATS staff. It is, for staff, as good as protection on the face of the Bill, without causing the Government the problems that would flow from offering statutory protection. It will also serve to remove the difficulties presented by Amendment No. 31.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 31 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 31A, but propose Amendments Nos. 31B and 31C in lieu thereof.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  Lord Brett: My Lords, I rise to express the appreciation of myself and of my noble friends on this side of the House who proposed and persuaded noble Lords that Amendment No. 31 was valid. I apologise in part because, of course, we found that there were technical problems with that particular amendment. However, I am most grateful for the initiative shown both by Treasury officials and by Ministers in seeking to provide the degree of protection that is equal to that which would be available were there to be a statutory provision on the face of the Bill. This has gone a long way and, indeed, will go a tremendous way towards reassuring the staff of NATS that their pension concerns have been taken on board. It will also be of comfort to the trustees.
  I have two points for clarification. I should like confirmation that there will be close liaison and consultation with the CAAPS trustees on these matters. Secondly, can my noble friend the Minister confirm my understanding on the following key point? I have in mind a situation where, for example, a contract currently operated by NATS at an airport, or elsewhere, is lost to another provider of services whereby the staff would normally he cheaply transferred. However, subsequently, down the track, there is a requirement for technology and so on which results in redundancy of former NATS staff. If my interpretation is correct, that would fall within the

  1239
  NATS pension scheme, and those employees would be entitled to all their pension and redundancy benefits, which are tied into the NATS pension scheme. These are the accrued entitlements about which the staff are most concerned at this most difficult time. I am sure that my noble friend can confirm those two points. I should like, once again, to express my appreciation for the efforts that have been made in this respect.
  Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I wish to welcome this most useful amendment. It will stand the employees in good stead. I should like to thank my noble friends and the Government for the constructive spirit in which the negotiations were carried out and for the wider understandings reached. The words used by my noble friend the Minister regarding the rights of all members of the scheme over and above the particular amendment will be on the record. We are very content with my noble friend's explanation.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, can the Minister confirm something that I believe he said in his introduction; namely, that those employees remaining with the CAA will be in exactly the same position in relation to their pension and other benefits as they would have been if NATS and the CAA had not been separated?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and the Government on coming forward with the amendments. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brett, on his persistence in bringing this issue forward. I believe that this House has done a valuable job. When we achieved an amendment on Report on this issue, I believe that the Government
  1240
  then said that nothing needed to be done. I am glad that the Government have reconsidered the matter and I congratulate them on that.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this brief debate. I think that I can give all the assurances which have been asked for.
  The noble Lord, Lord Brett, asked me to confirm that the Government would remain in close liaison and consultation with the trustees. I can certainly give him that assurance. He asked me what would happen if NATS staff have to transfer to another employer, for example, because NATS loses the contract for services at an airport. I confirm that the noble Lord is correct in thinking that their terms and conditions, including pensions and redundancy terms, would be the same as if they were still employed by NATS. In the situation that he described, the scheme would provide individual legal rights for qualifying staff to stay in the CAA pension scheme, or a scheme at least as good as the CAA pension scheme. This would involve the successful bidder either joining CAAPS as a further non-associated employer, accepting the need to make contributions to the scheme at the level required to maintain the benefits of staff, or persuading the independent third party or the courts that any alternative scheme is at least as good as CAAPS.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked me for confirmation that those remaining with the CAA—I think that she meant those remaining with the CAA pension scheme—would not lose out in any way. That is indeed the case. Their scheme will remain in the public sector. I commend the Motion to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at seven minutes past ten o'clock.

  Zimbabwean Land Redistribution Programme
  Zimbabwean Land Redistribution Programme
  International Development Targets: Monitoring
  International Development Targets: Monitoring
  BSE and Variant CJD: Epidemiological Research
  BSE and Variant CJD: Epidemiological Research
  Newly Laid Rail: Faults
  Newly Laid Rail: Faults
  Rail Operating Companies: Efficiency Comparisons
  Rail Operating Companies: Efficiency Comparisons
  Children's Fund
  Children's Fund
  Television Licence Concession Scheme
  Television Licence Concession Scheme
  Pension Investment Comparisons
  Pension Investment Comparisons
  Second State Pension Contracted-out NI Contributions
  Second State Pension Contracted-out NI Contributions
  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Pension Credit
  Pension Credit
  UK Citizens Abroad: Retirement Pension Uplift Proposal
  UK Citizens Abroad: Retirement Pension Uplift Proposal
  UK/National Assembly for Wales Primary Legislation Procedure
  UK/National Assembly for Wales Primary Legislation Procedure
  Meat Processing: Local Authority Enforcement Responsibility
  Meat Processing: Local Authority Enforcement Responsibility
  Lord Mayor Treloar Hospital, Alton
  Lord Mayor Treloar Hospital, Alton
  Autism and MMR Vaccination
  Autism and MMR Vaccination
  Parkinson's Disease
  Parkinson's Disease
  The Third Way: Policy Announcements
  The Third Way: Policy Announcements
  Strategic Communications Unit: Website
  Strategic Communications Unit: Website
  Mrs Rosemary Nelson: Murder Investigation
  Mrs Rosemary Nelson: Murder Investigation
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Police (Northern Ireland) Bill: Guardian Article
  Police (Northern Ireland) Bill: Guardian Article
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Northern Ireland Policing Board: Appointment
  Northern Ireland Policing Board: Appointment
  Government Achievements: GICS Guidance
  Government Achievements: GICS Guidance
  Mr. T. Constantine, Oversight Commissioner, Northern Ireland
  Mr. T. Constantine, Oversight Commissioner, Northern Ireland
  Devonshire and Dorset Regiment: Remembrance Day, Bessbrook, Co. Armagh
  Devonshire and Dorset Regiment: Remembrance Day, Bessbrook, Co. Armagh
  RAMC Site, Millbank
  RAMC Site, Millbank
  Meteorological Office: New Headquarters
  Meteorological Office: New Headquarters
  European Charter of Human Rights
  European Charter of Human Rights
  US National Missile Defence System and China
  US National Missile Defence System and China
  UNAMSIL
  UNAMSIL
  Turkey: ECHR Judgments
  Turkey: ECHR Judgments
  Cayman Islands: CPA Visit
  Cayman Islands: CPA Visit
  Yugoslavia: Lifting of EU Sanctions
  Yugoslavia: Lifting of EU Sanctions
  "Airwave" Police Radio Service
  "Airwave" Police Radio Service
  Warrant Enforcement: Police Funding
  Warrant Enforcement: Police Funding
  Firearms Act 1997: Delayed Compensation
  Firearms Act 1997: Delayed Compensation
  Electronically Monitored Curfew Orders
  Electronically Monitored Curfew Orders
  Mandatory Sentences
  Mandatory Sentences
  Remands to Custody, 15–16 Year-olds
  Remands to Custody, 15–16 Year-olds
  Police Grant Allocations
  Police Grant Allocations
  Policing Objectives
  Policing Objectives
  Rural Policing
  Rural Policing
  Police Recruitment Funding
  Police Recruitment Funding