Sitting of 29 November 2000

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

NEW WRIT
Ordered,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Falkirk, West in the room of Dennis Canavan, Esquire, who since his election for the said County Constituency has accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Drugs
    Miss Anne Begg: What recent discussions she has had with other departments regarding public information on the long term effects of designer drugs, with specific reference to ecstasy. [139175]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office apologises to the House for her absence. She is unwell and will not be undertaking ministerial duties today.
    My right hon. Friend regularly meets ministerial colleagues to discuss various aspects of the Government's anti-drug strategy, including the need to raise public awareness of the potential harm that drugs, including ecstasy, can cause. Since 1994, ecstasy has been associated with nearly 80 tragic cases in which people have died as a result of taking those tablets. Short-term effects of taking ecstasy include anxiety, panic attacks, confused episodes, first-time epileptic fits and paranoid states. Longer-term harm includes memory loss.
    Miss Begg: Although the drug of choice for many in the older generation is alcohol, many in the younger generation choose designer drugs such as ecstasy, and they often use the two drugs interchangeably. My fear is that there might be long-term psychological effects of taking ecstasy, even after using it just a few times, so are
    946
    the Government carrying out research or other work to highlight those psychological effects, which people might not experience at the time of taking the drugs?
    Mr. McCartney: I, like my hon. Friend, am worried that that might be the case. Such issues are closely monitored by the Government. As a consequence, I can set out the effects of taking such drugs.
    We need to involve young people in an awareness campaign. In Liverpool a few weeks ago we launched a campaign involving club owners because most ecstasy and so-called designer drugs are sold or used in a drug-related environment in clubs. For the first time, we are asking clubs to take medical action on the premises to ensure that if young people get into trouble through using drugs, we can sustain them and get them off the drugs. That is vital. As well as getting the message across, we must ensure that facilities are available when young people get damaged, as they will be, by ecstasy.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Minister pass on our best wishes to the Minister for the Cabinet Office? We hope that she makes a speedy recovery.
    What can the Minister do to remove the appeal of ecstasy as a so-called designer drug? He is right that in many areas it is associated with clubbing. Many people who take ecstasy do not mix it with alcohol but take it with water. Young people need to be better educated on the downside of taking the drug, so that they know not only that it tragically and instantly kills many young people, but that it has long-term effects. What research is being done into the long-term effects of taking ecstasy, and what can the Minister do to get that information to young clubbers?
    Mr. McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his gracious words. I am sure that my right hon. Friend perked up as soon as she heard them. No doubt all my hon. Friends would join us in wishing her well.
    The hon. Gentleman is right. It is critical that information be provided to young people, but it must be done in a way that is acceptable to them. It is okay for a fuddy-duddy 50-year-old like me to prattle on about drug abuse, but young people do not necessarily listen to fuddy-duddies. The "Check Your Life" campaign involves young people's peer groups talking to them about the danger of drugs. The programme also provides advice about not taking drugs, and what to do if young people are taking drugs, so that they can get help to come off them.
    Mr. Ken Purchase: Does the Minister agree that, given the nature of profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies with shareholders, if we were foolish enough to legitimise designer drugs we would be in danger of those companies spending more and more of their research and development budgets on such drugs, looking for big profits, rather than on pharmaceuticals that would benefit the whole population? Will he assure the House that it is not in his mind to go down that route?
    Mr. McCartney: Absolutely not; in no circumstances would we do that. During the next three years we shall spend substantially more on tackling the drugs that

    947
    come into this country, and the criminal gangs who use criminals with scientific qualifications to prepare such drugs so that they can be sold for profit. The Government want to smash such organisations, put those who sell such drugs behind bars and throw away the keys.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: What priorities for action she has identified following publication of the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator's second annual report. [139176]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): Our priorities are to build on the successes that we have demonstrated in the annual report. Our new investment will bring total annual expenditure on tackling the root causes of drug misuse to nearly £1 billion in 2003–04, targeting young people, and doubling spending on drug education and prevention from £63 million this year to £129 million in 2003–04; raising funding for treatment services from £234 million to £401 million, enabling us to expand and improve those services; doubling spending on safeguarding communities from £45 million this year to £95 million; and raising funding to prevent availability through conservative law enforcement activity from £353 million to a projected £380 million. That will help us to meet the strategy's challenging targets for 2008.
    Mrs. Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman alarmed by figures recently released by the Office for National Statistics that show that, contrary to previous predictions, the number of children aged between 11 and 15 taking drugs continued to rise last year? As the Government's 10-year strategy appears to be failing to deliver for those youngsters, what further measures will be taken to address that deteriorating situation?
    Mr. McCartney: I, like the hon. Lady, read the report with interest, and a number of factors emerged from it. First, the proportion of 11 to 15-year-olds who used drugs in the last month was 7 per cent.—the same as in 1998. The fact is that 85 per cent. of teenagers aged 11 to 15 have never tried drugs, and that is a credit to their common sense and the quality of the anti-drugs education that they receive at school.
    However, we are not satisfied with that, so alongside the £21 million invested in schools education programmes, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education announced a fortnight ago another £7 million to be spent on anti-drugs education in schools. We are not resting on our laurels. The Government will take further action if there is change of any sort. Our 10-year strategy—a 10-year struggle against drugs—is supported throughout Britain. It has achieved results so far, and it will continue to do so.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: The annual report contains little information on drug fatalities resulting from misuse of drugs. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the report on reducing drug-related deaths produced for the Home Office in the summer. Are the Government making any attempt to sharpen up the information on the precise number of drug-related deaths, which is a mystery at the moment?
    Mr. McCartney: I assure my hon. Friend that he will receive an answer in response to Question 11, whether we
    948
    reach it this afternoon or not, stating that we are considering the report on drug-related deaths, which covers what my hon. Friend describes as sharpening up the information about the causes of drug-related deaths. In addition, research is under way into what happens to people in the first year after leaving prison in terms of drug-related damage and deaths. We shall use that information to hone and improve our programmes further to provide stability and opportunities for people to come off drugs.

    Ombudsman System
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What steps have been taken to improve the ombudsman system. [139177]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): In April this year, Phillip Collcutt and Mary Hourihan produced a survey of the services provided by the ombudsmen, which the Government used as the basis for a consultation document released in April. At present, the Government are considering the 250 responses to that document and we hope to give our views early in the new year
    Mr. O'Brien: I welcome the steps that the Government are taking to try to review the system of ombudsman services for individuals in our communities. While my hon. Friend considers responses to the consultation exercise, will he pay particular heed to the fact that the ombudsman service to citizens would be greatly improved if people were allowed to contact the ombudsman direct? Will he also take up with ombudsmen the question of correcting mistakes in published responses to submissions to their offices?
    Mr. Stringer: Both the review and the Select Committee on Public Administration recommended that the MP filter be removed, as did virtually every consultee who wrote in to the original review. The Select Committee also asked Members of Parliament for their views, and they differed from the other consultees, as a majority of them wished to retain the MP filter—although in the latest survey, the number who wish to do so has fallen compared with the numbers in previous surveys. The Government will take into account all the views expressed in both consultations.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Why is there no ombudsman for Members of Parliament? What can we do when Ministers consistently take too long to reply, give inaccurate replies or cannot even be bothered to put their names on the bottom of their letters?
    Mr. Stringer: If the hon. Gentleman requires the assistance of an ombudsman, he should consider his position in the House. Most Members of Parliament are elected by the people whom they represent. Members on both sides of the House do their best, and do not need help from anybody outside to do their job. However, if the hon. Gentleman feels that he does need help, he should consider further.
    Tony Wright: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are real difficulties with the ombudsman schemes? As we try to get closer working between

    949
    different services, especially health and social services, complainants are faced with the difficulty of dealing with ombudsman systems that work quite differently. If we are to get joined-up government, we need joined-up complaints systems. I welcome the review, but will my hon. Friend make sure that its results produce legislation as soon as possible?
    Mr. Stringer: Obviously, I am not going to pre-empt any decisions on the legislative programme. My hon. Friend is right, as provision for each of the three ombudsmen—the health service ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the local government ombudsman—is made in three different pieces of legislation. The consultation document and the report by Collcutt and Hourihan point out that, as my hon. Friend says, there are overlapping areas, especially in health and social services, where the ombudsman's remit is not clear, or to which it does not extend. The changing nature of local government means that certain services have been taken out of local government and others have been put in, so some of the provisions of the Act that set up the office of local government ombudsman in 1967 are probably now inappropriate. That is why the reviews recommended a single commission, with generic ombudsmen covering the whole area of public services.
    Mr. John Bercow: What are the trends in the numbers of complaints to the ombudsman schemes? Is the hon. Gentleman content with the average time that the various ombudsmen take to make decisions? What is the proportion of cases that ombudsmen decide do not come under their aegis, notwithstanding the fact that prima facie there appear to be good grounds to consider them?
    Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question. The local government ombudsman is currently dealing with 15,000 to 18,000 cases a year. On average, cases dealt with by the health service ombudsman take two years to complete. The local government ombudsman takes six weeks to three months to deal with a case. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration deals with only slightly more than 100 cases a year. The review will consider areas in which the overlap in matters under investigation causes a problem. It will also examine what inhibits ombudsmen from doing an even more effective job than they do at present, and will look at their efficiency. The report expresses the belief that the ombudsmen will be more efficient and effective if they are all in one commission, even though there will be more cases. The Public Administration Committee cast doubt on that assertion, but there is little doubt that removing the MP filter would lead to an increase in the number of cases.

    Drugs
    Mr. Alan Simpson: What assessment she has made of the implications for the Government's drugs policies of decriminalising cannabis. [139178]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): The Government's policy on all illicit drugs, including cannabis, is based on scientific evidence of the harm they cause. On the basis of that evidence,
    950
    which the Government keep under review, we have no plans to decriminalise cannabis for recreational use. For example, a 1997 World Health Organisation report found that cannabis had acute and chronic health effects, including impairment of concentration and damage to mental health, learning capacity and manual dexterity. It also has an impact on respiratory diseases, including bronchitis and lung cancer.
    Mr. Simpson: I am sure that the Minister will remember the lobby of Parliament by sufferers of multiple sclerosis, which took place just before the summer recess. In meetings that were held around the Palace at that time, I spoke to many of those who were lobbying us and asked whether any of them there had not used cannabis for the symptomatic relief of their suffering, but I could not find one who had not. Does my right hon. Friend accept that no useful purpose would have been served by arresting and charging those MS sufferers, and that there is precious little social gain in criminalising the 97,000 people—mainly young people—who are arrested each year on cannabis-related charges? Does he also accept that sooner rather than later the House needs to recognise that we should reclassify cannabis within the same regulatory constraints that apply to alcohol and tobacco?
    Mr. McCartney: I can tell my hon. Friend two things. First, he should not confuse the medicinal use of cannabis with the dangers associated with uncontrolled use of the drug for illicit purposes. Secondly, the Government are currently licensing a major cannabis- based medicines development initiative conducted by GW Pharmaceuticals, as well as supporting scientific research projects into possible benefits of cannabis-based medicines. The results are expected in 2002. If they prove to be successful, the Government will support the licensing of new products, and that should lead to their being made available on prescription from mid-2003 onwards.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the Minister please convey my warm wishes to the Minister for the Cabinet Office? We really do miss her when she is not here.
    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to distinguish between the potentially proven medicinal uses of cannabis and its other uses? Legalising cannabis is not an answer—that would not deal with its misuse. In the Netherlands in the decade up to 1997, the incidence of cannabis use rose by over half and the use of hard drugs nearly doubled. Does he agree that a necessary objective is to achieve a higher awareness of the damaging effects of cannabis? It is addictive and carcinogenic, and it carries a considerable risk of mental health problems.
    Mr. McCartney: I will pass on the hon. Gentleman's good wishes to my right hon. Friend. I am sorry that it is the monkey rather than the organ grinder who is here today.
    I cannot disagree with a word that the hon. Gentleman said—and I do not say that with disappointment. As I have previously said from this Dispatch Box, I want a proactive, all-party approach to the issues of illicit and illegal drugs. Cannabis should not be confused with medicinal products. One cannot use the problems of MS

    951
    sufferers as a blanket excuse for allowing drug traffickers to peddle hard drugs to our kids. A high proportion of young people who use cannabis go on to use even more problematic drugs in later life. We should recognise that there is a slippery slope, and we should not decriminalise cannabis.
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Research from New Zealand, which was recently referred to by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), shows that the likelihood of going on to use other drugs is 60 times greater among regular cannabis users than among those who do not use cannabis. Will he therefore correct from the Dispatch Box the statement made by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who said:
    the scientific evidence is not yet available to suggest that smoking cannabis leads to
    the use of hard drugs? Does he accept that we must deter people from cannabis use, and that that drug has a gateway effect, leading on to hard drug use?
    Mr. McCartney: I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman had changed his ways and was trying cleverly to tease out a disagreement between myself and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. There is no disagreement within the Government about the matter; I could not have made it plainer where we stand. It was rather churlish of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there was a difference of opinion. There is no such difference.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Why is it that after 30 years of Britain having the harshest anti-cannabis penalties in Europe, cannabis use in this country is the highest in Europe, whereas after 25 years of regulated decriminalisation, cannabis use in the Netherlands is lower than here? The Netherlands has separated the two markets, so it has only a tenth of the number of heroin deaths per million people that we have. Is it sensible that in the same country and in the same week, a chief constable said that he would arrest anyone for recreational use of cannabis, while a desperately ill young woman was dragged through the courts for using cannabis medicinally? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, I ask the House come to order. Far too many conversations are taking place in the Chamber.
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend has conducted a long campaign on this matter, but he is mixing up two important issues. I shall not repeat my remarks about medicinal use, which we will support if research proves that available products can be secured for 2003 onwards. I cannot, however, accept the naive proposition that drug traffickers and sellers somehow separate the sale of cannabis from that of other drugs. In Holland and other places, the availability to 12 to 15-year-olds of cannabis and other drugs has hugely increased. We should not take that road, as it is the road of despair. We must stick to our 10-year strategy and protect our young people from the effects of drugs. I know of no family in Britain that would sit back and say that their child should be dosed
    952
    up on drugs. I do not believe that that would happen, or that any right-thinking family member would want to see any child of any age take cannabis.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Is the Minister aware that his quotations from the World Health Organisation were a selective collection of evidence about cannabis? There is much evidence to suggest that the opposite of what he said is correct. Will he establish a working party, a royal commission or another public body to examine all the research on cannabis and to consider the matter sensibly and logically before we proceed any further?
    Mr. McCartney: I can never for the life of me understand the Liberals on this issue. First, a royal commission is not needed to tell people that drugs are harmful, that they damage and kill children or that they destroy families and communities. Secondly, the World Health Organisation's evidence is medically based. It is nonsense for the Liberals to suggest that cannabis does not have the effects that I describe. That argument is irresponsible in the extreme.

    Disability Rights (Civil Service)
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What meetings she plans to have with the Disability Rights Commission to discuss the implications of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 for the civil service. [139179]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): There are no meetings scheduled at present. The civil service's equal opportunities policy takes account of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Government are keen to ensure that disabled people can play their full part as employees of Departments. A new civil service-wide network for disabled people is being launched today by Sir Richard Wilson, head of the home civil service. The Disability Rights Commission will attend that launch.
    Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am encouraged by his remarks about the activities and initiatives. Does he agree that access to employment and employment buildings is a key issue for disabled people? As more than 10,000 civil service employees are concentrated in Blackpool and the Fylde, but are fragmented across a number of agencies, will my hon. Friend use his best offices to ensure that they co-operate and work effectively on the matter, and do not become bogged down in turf wars?
    Mr. Stringer: In answering the question, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this connection. He has done a great deal of work in his constituency to help disabled people.
    It is obvious that fair access to employment cannot exist if disabled people cannot enter the employment buildings. The Government and the Cabinet Office have a check-off system to ensure that Government buildings are adapted

    953
    to provide access for disabled people. No. 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office have both been made accessible to them.
    Mr. Speaker: Before Prime Minister's Question Time, let me remind the House to pay attention to what I said last week about behaviour during Prime Minister's questions.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ann Clwyd: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 29 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend consider the case of Ernie Obern, an 85-year-old ex-miner in my constituency? He has 90 per cent. dust in his lungs, he is on oxygen permanently, and he is bedridden. He is very ill at this moment. He has just received a letter from his solicitor telling him that it will be not months but years before he receives his full compensation.
    May I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that the elderly, the sick and widows are a top priority? May I also ask him personally to take the question of compensation by the scruff of the neck, and deliver justice to the miners?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak of her frustration on behalf of her constituent. Indeed, I have many constituents in the same position.
    We are now processing claims at a rate of hundreds per week. Last week alone, £1 million was paid in compensation every day. The money is being ring-fenced, and the money is there. The difficulty is that, as a result of litigation, we must ensure in respect of each case that it has been certified as proper to pay the money. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that I share her frustration. We are doing all that we can to speed up the payments: this is, I am afraid, a legacy that we inherited, and we are determined to put it right.
    Mr. William Hague: It is widely accepted that up to 15,000 care home beds were closed in the year to April. What is the Prime Minister's assessment of the number of beds that will be lost in the current year?
    The Prime Minister: It is correct that 15,000 were lost; however, the net figure is 5,000, because many more were put on. It is also the case that some 20,000 were added as a result of packages for home care. As a matter
    954
    of fact, as a result of the additional money put in by the health service plan, we do indeed aim to expand the beds to which the right hon. Gentleman referred as well.
    Mr. Hague: Is not the truth that that will be a sticking plaster on the gaping wound that the Government have created? The Prime Minister's statistics suggest that he is not aware of what is happening around the country. This week, Cornwall reports that 400 beds have been lost since April this year; Kent reports 500, Surrey 500 and Hampshire 400. In some cases, the figures constitute 10 per cent. of total capacity in the counties involved.
    Is the Prime Minister aware that that lies behind the increased number of blocked beds and the tens of thousands of cancelled operations that we have seen so far this year? Does he accept that the care homes sector blames those problems on a Government who have failed to listen to its concerns?
    The Prime Minister: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that when he was in office 60,000 beds were cut in the national health service. Indeed—I speak from memory—when he was Secretary of State for Wales, 1,200 beds were cut under his stewardship. But, as ever, the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my original reply. I accepted that there was a 5,000 net loss in respect of the beds to which he referred; however, because of the extra home care and health packages, 20,000 have been put on elsewhere. As for the areas that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, yes, it is correct that in certain parts of the country there is real pressure on residential care. As a result of the national health service plan, however—the plan that the right hon. Gentleman opposed—we are getting the extra investment in the health service to deal with that.
    Mr. Hague: We are clearly not getting the extra investment. If the Prime Minister wants to talk about what happened in Wales, when I was Secretary of State for Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, the Prime Minister was speaking from memory. I am speaking from the facts, which are more reliable than his memory. When I was Secretary of State for Wales, the total waiting list fell by 6,000. Since he has been Prime Minister, it has risen by 72,000 in Wales. Those are the facts, but is not the truth about care homes that the Government have failed to listen to the representations of the care homes themselves? From Norwich, they say:
    I am concerned that my home will close
    if the regulations are brought in. From Coventry, they say that the regulations mean that they have to turn their "business into an hotel." From Kent, they say:
    We wish to draw to your attention the potential catastrophe
    if the Government's proposals are implemented. Is it not a sign of an arrogant failure to listen that leads to a miserable failure to deliver?
    The Prime Minister: Just to correct the right hon. Gentleman, when he was Secretary of State for Wales, in-patient waiting lists rose; he cut the number of nurses, he cut the number of doctors and he cut the number of beds. However, in respect of the regulations regarding these homes, as that is where his bandwagon is now parked, the regulations are introduced for a specific purpose. For years,

    955
    the House debated the problems of abuse in those homes. The regulations are introduced to correct that. They are surely right.
    Of course, we will listen to representations made, but the regulations have not even come into effect yet—they do not come into effect until 2002—so they are not the reason for the recent difficulties. The reason has been under-investment in the health service over a long period of time. The difference between me and the right hon. Gentleman is that our proposals are to increase investment and, as a result of the commitment by his shadow Chancellor, his proposals are to cut it.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Harriet Harman.
    Hon. Members: More, more.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called Harriet Harman.
    Ms Harriet Harman: Is the Prime Minister aware that the family and the whole of Peckham are devastated by the appalling murder of Damilola Taylor? Will the Prime Minister tell the people of Peckham that he shares their grief, anger and steely determination that the hard work that they have put in over the past few years to improve their neighbourhood must not be abandoned, but must continue?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has spoken, rightly, on behalf of her constituents. There is shock and outrage not just in the House and in her constituency, but right across the country at the appalling and brutal murder of Damilola. As his brother said yesterday, we must do everything we possibly can to bring the killers to justice. There are other issues raised, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, but I think that today is the right day to express our outrage and our profound sympathy for the family.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Can I associate myself entirely with the sentiments that have been so properly and well expressed?
    In terms of our national transportation policy, if that is not a contradiction in terms, we have chaos on the railways, gridlock on the roads and parliamentary revolts over air traffic control. If the Prime Minister wins a second term, will the Deputy Prime Minister still be in charge of all those things?
    The Prime Minister: Thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister and the 10-year transport plan, we will put more money into our public transport system than has been put into our country's infrastructure since the 19th century. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman, too, that that plan—£180 billion worth—is more than he ever promised at the last election? As ever, no matter what he promised, when we exceed it, he tells us that it is not enough.
    Mr. Kennedy: I am sure that the whole country will be greatly encouraged by the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister may still be in charge of all those things if there is a second term, but is not the point to be made that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is too monolithic and too big for any one politician to be in control of it, particularly someone as
    956
    big as the Deputy Prime Minister? Should we not have a specific Transport Secretary at Cabinet level to get transport in this country back on track?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. However, in respect of the railways, yes, of course there is a serious situation at the moment. We know what has caused it, following the Hatfield crash. As I emphasised at my meeting yesterday with the executives of Railtrack, those who represent passengers, the train operating companies and the Strategic Rail Authority, it is important that we inject some common sense back into the system. Today's meeting of the Railtrack board is important for that very reason. If it is the case—as it is—that people have to go on to the roads because there is not proper rail provision, that would be a risk. We have expressly asked people to take that into account.
    Let us, however, be in no doubt that, over a long period, the problem with the British transport system has been under-investment. If we do not face up to the need to put in that investment and sustain it year on year on year, we will always complain about the problem, but never solve it.
    Mr. Phil Woolas: Following the question from the leader of the Liberal Democrats, does the Prime Minister agree that—in the light of the announcement two weeks ago of a 100 per cent. increase in the highways maintenance budget and the forthcoming announcements on local transport plans to make real the —180-billion plan—soon, in my constituency of Oldham, East and Saddleworth, the potholes will be filled and the Liberal Democrats will have nothing to do?
    The Prime Minister: It is of course the case that the investment is not only in the railways but in the road infrastructure, too. However, it is important to put that investment in context. We said that we had to take measures to stabilise the economy and reduce national debt; we have done that. We said that education would be our first priority; we have put the extra resources in education. The national health service plan followed, and then the transport plan. That money is going in and it will yield results, but that takes time. However, I totally understand the frustration particularly of people travelling on the railways. I can tell my hon. Friend that that investment is being made in his constituency, that it is being replicated in constituencies right across the country, and that it will make a difference.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Will the Prime Minister please tell me why, three and a half years after he came to power, hospital waiting lists in mid-Essex are 1,100 higher and rising?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know about the particular position in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, although I will look into it—[Interruption.] I will look into it because I often find that the figures given to me by Conservative Members do not always entirely accord with the truth. However, whatever the situation may be in Essex, in respect of waiting lists nationally we have met our waiting list pledge on in-patient lists. It is correct that out-patient lists—which increased for years under the

    957
    previous Conservative Government whom he supported—increased in the first two years, but they are now down from their peak and continue to fall.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a large body of public opinion that maintains that the privatisation of Railtrack should be reversed? Who does he think is to blame for the fact that Railtrack is having a nervous breakdown? Was it caused by 20 years of neglect and gross under-investment by the previous Conservative Government? Is it a result of the fact that, on privatisation, thousands of professional railway personnel were sacked to increase profitability? Or is it a result of the fact that Railtrack ignored safety to increase profits? Will he also tell us what we will do to put right the railway network?
    The Prime Minister: We inherited two problems. The first was fragmentation of the railways under the previous Conservative Government's privatisation proposals, and the second was chronic under-investment. Both those problems have to be tackled. The first is best tackled through the Strategic Rail Authority, which is now in place and working, and the second by our investment proposals.
    Again, we have the clearest possible choice between the two political parties. Labour Members are committed to our transport investment proposals, whereas Conservative Members— thanks to the shadow Chancellor, if indeed he is still the shadow Chancellor—have made it absolutely clear that they would could cut the investment that we want to make in the transport system. There could not be anything worse for the future of the railways than that.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: Will the Prime Minister retract the comments which he made last month to the Royal College of Surgeons blaming general practitioners for abusing the admissions procedure? Is he aware that the chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners has said that the Prime Minister's remarks, coming at a time of low morale and change, have served only to heighten the feeling that primary care is insufficiently valued by him and the Government?
    The Prime Minister: First, I did not blame doctors. I said that it was important, as we are doing, to get some sort of system in place that allows these decisions to be taken on a rational basis. The British Medical Association is fully in favour of such protocols.
    Secondly, I met many representatives of the health service this morning. They accept that there is still a long way to go, but they support the national health service plan and the extra investment going into the NHS. I can assure the hon. Lady that the one group of people that the country does not trust with the NHS is the party that she represents.
    Mr. Paul Goggins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Saturday supporters of Jubilee 2000 will gather for a final rally to celebrate their coalition's considerable achievements, and to make clear their determination to press for debt cancellation? Will he take this opportunity to send a strong message of support to these campaigners? Will he ensure that his Government continue to place the highest
    958
    priority on international development and the search for deeper and wider debt relief for the poorest countries of the world?
    The Prime Minister: As a result of the work done by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development, there are about 20 of the poorest countries in the world that by the end of the year will have had their debt cancellation put in place. That will make a difference of billions of dollars to those countries. It will allow them to spend that money on rebuilding their economies rather than paying interest on debt. It is part of a programme that the Government have been spearheading over the past three and a half years, not only nationally but internationally. One of the Government's proudest achievements is the rise in the proportion of national income that is going on overseas aid and development, and the difference that that is making to some of the poorest countries and to people who find themselves in the most difficult situations throughout the world.
    Mr. William Hague: Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told the House at Prime Minister's Question Time that he was consulting over the abolition of community health councils. Will he now admit that all the time he was saying that he supported the work of the councils and that he wanted to consult on their future, that was totally untrue and he is now abolishing them?
    The Prime Minister: We are indeed consulting upon them. We put forward proposals in the national health service action plan, and we shall continue consulting on them. I am aware of the strong feelings on both sides of the House, and we shall listen to those.
    Mr. Hague: Every time the right hon. Gentleman is asked about the matter, he says that he is consulting. However, when he told my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) that two weeks ago, he had to write to him afterwards to say:

    I thought it would be helpful if I clarified the nature
    of my answer. That means that the civil servants told him that he had not told the truth. He added:
    Our proposals mean that Community Health Councils are to be abolished.
    That means that everything he said was rubbish.
    The letter continues:
    This better describes the consultation I alluded to.
    The right hon. Gentleman hoped that my hon. Friend was reassured. Is it not absolutely clear that the consultation is about things that the right hon. Gentleman wants to put in place of community health councils and that there is to be no consultation, there has been no consultation and there will be no consultation about the abolition of community health councils, which the Government now intend to proceed with?
    The Prime Minister: No. They are described as proposals because that is what they are. Yes, of course, that is what the Government consider to be the best way forward. We now, however, as will be familiar to people, consult on the proposals, and we shall listen to the representations that are made. There was a debate about

    959
    this in the House yesterday. Of course the matter will be debated, and we shall listen to the representations made. That is the purpose of the NHS plan.
    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now explain whether, contrary to what he said back in July, he now supports the NHS plan and the extra investment going into the health service.
    Mr. Hague: We support the Prime Minister trying to give an answer to some questions. He should read his letter, which states
    that Community Health Councils are to be abolished … and replaced with an entirely new system.
    That is the Government's policy.
    Is it not the case that the community health councils tell the truth about his broken promises, and that that is why he wants them to go? The casualty watch report from community health councils says it all in the past couple of months. It refers to the
    the 69 year old lady who waited on a trolley in East Surrey Hospital for … 30 hours; the woman waited 35 hours in a chair before being seen.
    This is three and a half years after the right hon. Gentleman has been in charge of the health service. The British people have had to wait more than three years to get a straight answer from him. Is he not abolishing community health councils because he wants to gag all those who expose the fact that he is all mouth and no delivery?
    The Prime Minister: Let me give the right hon. Gentleman some of the facts about the national health service and the money that is going into it. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like to hear this, because it is true. There are 10,000 extra nurses since we took office. Every accident and emergency department—including the one in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency—has been modernised as a result of our investment. Extra money is going into primary care, medical training places and every part of the national health service.
    I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition listen to the words of Norman Lamont from just two days ago. When asked about the Conservative party, he said:
    The economy is not a very good issue for them because the … economy has gone pretty well. I don't believe the health service is a brilliant issue for the Conservative Party, the public will never perceive the health service as being the strong electoral card of the Conservative Party.
    That is absolutely right. Why is it right? It is because we are committed to increasing investment in our public services, and the right hon. Gentleman is committed to cutting it. It is investment that our schools, hospitals, transport and police need, not the cuts that he will be standing on at the next election.
    Mr. Tom Levitt: In the past three and a half years, the Government have done much to build on the relatively weak foundations of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I commend my right hon. Friend on his personal commitment in that respect, but is he aware that there remains a gaping hole in the disability legislation? The disability rights taskforce has identified problems with the rights of disabled children in education and of children with special educational needs. Will my
    960
    right hon. Friend give a commitment that he will address those problems as soon as possible in the next legislative programme?
    The Prime Minister: Yes; I am delighted to say that we will introduce the Special Educational Needs Bill in the next Session to improve the standard of education for all children with special educational needs. That will build on the introduction of the Disability Rights Commission, and it shows our intention to ensure that all children, whatever their background, get the chance to fulfil their potential in life.
    Mr. David Trimble: I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that questions to do with holding ministerial office or sitting in a legislative assembly are constitutional issues. Given that the Belfast agreement dealt comprehensively with the constitutional issues relating to the British isles as a whole, why are the Government pursuing legislation that would enable a person to be a Minister in one country and also sit in another country's Parliament or assembly where there is a clear conflict of interest?
    The question of such proposals was never raised during the Belfast agreement negotiations. The other parties to those negotiations were never consulted before the legislation was introduced. The legislation is designed to benefit one party in particular. Will the Prime Minister take advantage of the opportunity that the other place has given him to reconsider this constitutional monstrosity?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I do not accept that the legislation is a constitutional monstrosity. It gives people in Northern Ireland the same rights as those enjoyed by people in Commonwealth countries. I do not think that that is the wrong thing to do. I think that it is the right thing to do. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman and I disagree on this matter, but we do.
    Miss Anne Begg: I am sure that my right hon. Friend was very pleased with the results of the three by-elections last week, and especially with the double victory in Glasgow, Anniesland. That was a great tribute to the memory of Donald Dewar, my predecessor in Aberdeen, South.
    My right hon. Friend may not be aware that the leader of the Scottish National party had said that Labour might be in a for a shock in Anniesland. He was right: we were shocked at just how badly the SNP did. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the electorate of Anniesland that the place for Scotland is to be part of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: It is increasingly clear that devolution has strengthened the United Kingdom. The performance—or lack of performance—of the Scottish National party is an indication of that. I think that many people in my hon. Friend's constituency and in Scotland recognise that in introducing a stable economy—which has given people lower mortgages—and in getting 1 million extra jobs in the economy, as well as measures such as the working families tax credit, the new deal and

    961
    providing extra money for pensioners, we are delivering on our promises to the people of Scotland and, indeed, the people of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. James Gray: On Monday this week, six children from Colerne primary school in my constituency delivered a petition to the Prime Minister, signed by every head teacher of every school in Wiltshire, calling for fair funding for Wiltshire. Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government spend £1,000 less per pupil in Wiltshire than, for example, here in London? What is his response to their petition?
    The Prime Minister: The allocations between various districts are, of course, a long-standing grievance. We have been looking at this, as did the previous Government. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman had the honesty to tell the children and those who gathered the petition that his party's proposals are to cut the extra education investment. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can shout and bawl as much as they like, but the fact is that we put forward plans for increased investment in schools. That money is going into schools, and the commitment by the shadow Chancellor is not to match that investment. It is no good Conservative Members shaking their heads—they should now understand that that is their policy, and they will have to defend it at the next election.
    Mr. Hilary Benn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 6,000 people in this country are waiting for a kidney transplant because there is a desperate shortage of organs for donation? Does he therefore welcome the announcement by the Goldfish credit card company that it will issue its customers who want to be organ donors with a credit card bearing the organ donor symbol so that it can be carried with them at all times? Will he give his personal encouragement to other banks and building societies to follow this example so that we can increase the number of organ donors?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it is an excellent initiative. There is a real shortage of donors, and attaching the symbol to credit cards is an excellent way of increasing the numbers available. I fully support the initiative being taken by the company to which my hon. Friend refers, and I hope that it is taken up by others.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Why have productivity rates fallen so sharply since the right hon. Gentleman took office?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman, but productivity is rising. From memory, the latest figures show that productivity has risen by something like 3.4 per cent. in the past year. What is more, it is rising by more than 4 per cent. in manufacturing. So I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman, but the premise of his question is wrong.
    Mr. David Kidney: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that a new NHS Direct call
    962
    centre has just started work at Stafford hospital, creating 100 new jobs in Stafford and serving more than 3 million residents of the west midlands? Is it not by modernisations such as NHS Direct that Labour is saving the national health service?
    The Prime Minister: It is all part of the investment into the national health service plan. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the representatives of the health service whom I spoke to today, thought in particular that where NHS Direct worked with out-of-hours services by local general practitioners and with the local accident and emergency department, there was a significant reduction in the pressure on the accident and emergency department. That shows once more the need not just for investment but for a change in the way in which the health service works.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: I make no apology for returning to the question of the Chinook helicopter that crashed on the Mull of Kintyre in my constituency. Is the Prime Minister really aware of how deeply troubled so many people are that the two dead pilots should have been condemned by an unjust verdict of gross negligence, when in fact, the cause of the crash could not be determined? Will the Prime Minister please give the matter his personal attention, as he promised to do before, so that this tragedy can finally be laid to rest?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly aware of the strength of feeling on this issue. The last time the hon. Lady raised it with me I got back in touch with her and told her what I believed was the up-to-date position. I cannot, off the top of my head, offer any more details or information now, but again, I will go back and look at it and let her know the up-to-date position.
    The issue has obviously been looked at and pored over for a very long time. I am aware of the strength of feeling because I receive direct representations about it, quite apart from what the hon. Lady says. I will be in touch with her again, but I cannot add anything today to what I said to her before.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: In the light of the recent report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, on human rights abuses in the occupied territories in Israel, will the Prime Minister add his efforts to those of the Foreign Secretary in seeking assurances from the Israeli Government that they will not use arms or equipment bought from this country against civilians in the occupied territories?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly can assure my hon. Friend that we are engaged in doing what we can to help in this situation. Throughout, we have emphasised that two things must be put in place: first, the restoration of security—that applies not simply in respect of the Israeli forces, but also in respect of people from the Palestinian authority; and secondly, to ensure that, once some calm has been restored, a proper peace process is put back on track again. That is the only way to resolve the matter.

    963
    I know that there are strong feelings on all sides. I have taken the view throughout that our best way to influence the situation is by patient and quiet diplomacy. As my hon. Friend rightly says, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has both visited the region and been in touch
    964
    with the Foreign Ministers of many other countries. We are doing everything we can to try to put the situation right. I hope that we can do so, because the consequences of failure are grim—not just for Israel, the Palestinians and the middle east but for the world.

Personal Statement
3.31 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: As tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of my first election to the House of Commons, may I take this opportunity of expressing my sincere thanks to many Members past and present, from both sides of the House, for the many kindnesses shown to me and my family, especially during the past few days following the death of my wife, Caroline?
Those of us who work here will know of the strong bond of friendship and warmth between Members and the staff who work with us in the building. I am proud to have been a member of that wider parliamentary family—first as the representative of Bristol, South-East and now of Chesterfield—from whom I have learned and gained a very great deal during my half century in this place.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the House would want me to offer our congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on his long service to the House, and to express to him and to his family our sympathy in their recent loss of Caroline.

Inherited SERPS
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on inherited SERPS.
In my statement to the House of 15 March this year, I explained how millions of people were given wrong, misleading or incomplete information about rule changes introduced by the previous Government in 1986, which were due to come into effect earlier this year. As I told the House then, as a matter of principle, when someone loses out because they were given the wrong information by a Department, they are entitled to expect the Government to put it right.
In March, I announced that we would defer any changes in the inheritance rules by two and a half years, until 6 October 2002. That remains the position. I also said that I would consult the ombudsman, the National Audit Office and others about a protected rights scheme, designed to provide redress to people who were given wrong or incomplete information.
I received a range of helpful and constructive representations from Members of the House, Select Committees and others. I also received the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee, whose report I am publishing today—copies will be available in the Library and the Vote Office. As I have said before, the solution to this problem has to be both fair and workable. And as the ombudsman has said, it must provide a global remedy. I am determined to make sure that we do that.
Over the past few months, I have become increasingly convinced that a protected rights scheme would not work in the way intended and, therefore, would not provide a fair and just solution to this problem. It would not be fair because we could not be sure that it would reach all those affected, particularly the very elderly and vulnerable, and it would be very difficult to safeguard the scheme against fraud and abuse. Its operation would inevitably cause injustice, and on that basis, I do not intend to pursue it.
There were two key problems with the decisions taken 14 years ago by the last Conservative Government. First, they decided to implement the changes without any transitional arrangements. And worse, they continued for years to give out wrong, misleading and incomplete information about what they planned to do. We have already deferred the change in the inheritance rules until 6 October 2002, so no one at all will be affected by the policy change before that date.
The proposals I am making today are designed to give full protection to every pensioner; to give younger people adequate notice of the change to SERPS rules; and to provide transitional arrangements for those approaching retirement age. First, men and women who are already over the state pension age cannot do anything to restore their position. I have therefore decided that all men and women who are over state pension age on 5 October 2002 will be exempt from the changes. That means that every pensioner will keep his or her existing entitlement.
Secondly, proper notice has to be given to those who are planning for their retirement. So I am proposing that the new rules will apply only to men and women who are now 10 years or more away from their state pension age. Thirdly, those people who are approaching state pension

967
age will have less time to plan for their retirement. So we will phase in the changes for those who are within 10 years of their state pension age. For example, people who reach state pension age between October 2002 and 2004 will be able to pass on 90 per cent. of their SERPS, and those who reach pension age between 2004 and 2006 will pass on up to 80 per cent. and so on.
We intend to bring forward regulations in the new year to implement those changes. We will consult on the draft regulations in the usual way. We will also write to all those people who have contacted us already, to set out the position. There are, of course, a very small number of people who have evidence that they were clearly misinformed by the Department—for example, they have a letter from the Benefits Agency containing the wrong information. That small group will have access to the usual departmental procedures that deal with cases of maladministration, to the extent that the proposals that I am announcing today will not fully compensate them already.
I have already taken steps to prevent this problem from happening again. As I told the House in March, I am reorganising the Department of Social Security so that it can better serve its key customer groups. I am bringing together policy and operational responsibility into a single organisation dedicated to pensioners. As part of that process, we have already tightened up the procedures for checking leaflets and guidance.
I want to ensure that, in future, people are told about changes in pension policy, so that they can plan for their retirement in full knowledge of their position. That is why, next year, we will begin to send out combined pension statements, giving people more comprehensive information on their entitlements.
The proposals that I am making today will clear up the mess that we inherited. Everybody who has reached state pension age in October 2002 will be unaffected by the new rules. My announcement today will remove any worry for pensioners about providing for their spouse. We are giving those men and women who are more than 10 years away from state pension age the proper notice to which they are entitled. We will phase in the changes for those within 10 years of their state pension age.
Owing to the timing of the changes, the costs will be comparable to the protected rights scheme over the next 3 years. The reforms that I have announced today will cost an extra £1.5 billion over 10 years and an extra £4 billion over 50 years.
This problem should have been sorted out 14 years ago. What happened in the years after 1986 was a series of colossal blunders. That was inexcusable and caused untold distress to millions of people. The then Conservative Government have to take full responsibility for what has happened. We are now taking the responsibility for sorting it out. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr. David Willetts: Let me begin by making it absolutely clear that we accept that it took far too long to give people the advice that they needed on changes to SERPS for widows. We accept the criticism of maladministration in the reports by the National Audit Office, the Government ombudsman, the Public Accounts Committee and, most recently, by the Public
968
Administration Committee. Yes, we very much regret the maladministration that occurred. However, we must now question the Secretary of State on the extraordinary about-turn that he has announced. Nine months ago, he announced to the House a scheme that we warned at the time was unworkable. His about-turn is confirmation that his complicated scheme was indeed unworkable. Today's statement is not a triumph for the Secretary—[interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister was heard in silence. The hon. Gentleman should not be shouted at.
Mr. Willetts: The statement today is a triumph and I pay tribute in particular to the Public Administration Committee and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), because it was his report above all that made it clear that the Government's previous proposals were unworkable.
Along with his statement, the right hon. Gentleman has produced a report from the Social Security Advisory Committee on how the compensation scheme should work for what he calls a small number of cases in which there is clear evidence of maladministration. Of course, those are the cases that were to be the central feature of the scheme announced in March. Will the right hon. Gentleman stand by the assurances that we have had from Ministers about the way in which compensation will operate in such cases? His colleague, the Minister in another place, said:
if someone asserted that he had received that misleading advice, I suspect it may well be the case that the Government would have to prove that he had not, rather than the contrary, because there would be no evidence to counterbalance it.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 1999; Vol. 603, c. 847.]
Does that assurance apply to the scheme that the SSAC has announced today?
On the costs of the proposal, the right hon. Gentleman referred to £1.5 billion. I want to be absolutely clear what he is talking about. We were told that the previous compensation scheme would cost£8.2 billion. Presumably his extra costs are on top of that, so are we talking of a scheme that will cost £12.2 billion? We would be grateful for his confirmation of that figure.
Finally, on the crucial point about the maladministration that occurred, we accept that it occurred and very much regret what happened. Much of it happened under our watch—but I would draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the devastating report of the Public Administration Committee, which referred not to maladministration but to something far more serious. It referred to "conscious ministerial decision". Paragraph 17 of the report refers to the then permanent secretary at the Department, Rachel Lomax, who referred to decisions by Ministers in 1999 in the following terms:
Rachel Lomax told us that the failure fully to inform the public at this stage—
in other words, after the problem had been apparent for more than a year—
was a conscious ministerial decision, because possible options were being considered for the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, but with hindsight this was a mistake.
Does the Secretary of State agree with the judgment of his permanent secretary that that was indeed a mistake?
Mr. Darling: I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has pleaded guilty on behalf of the

969
Conservative party to gross negligence for a long period after the rules were passed. He then went on to ask how much the scheme would cost. I will explain. The total cost, over a 50-year period, is about £12 billion. That is the price that the country has to pay for the mess that the Tories left us. The figures that I gave him were that the extra, over and above the inherited SERPS scheme, for the scheme that I have announced today will be £1.5 billion over 10 years and £4 billion over the 50 years. The total cost is therefore£8 billion over a 10-year period and £12 billion over the 50-year period. That is how much we have to pay to put things right.
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that I had sent him a copy of my statement, but his response suggests that he did not receive it. He seems to be under the impression that we are discussing a proposal made by the advisory committee. That is not the case. We suggest that, to put matters right, we must ensure that all existing pensioners— all the people over the state pension age as of 2002—should exempted from the scheme, because they can do nothing about their arrangements.
We are also doing what the previous Government should have done. We are introducing transitional arrangements for people nearing retirement and making sure that the scheme affects only people who have long enough to start to make the appropriate arrangements. We are doing now what the Conservative Government should have done 14 years ago, and which they did not do. That is an indictment of the previous Government. This issue and the mis-selling of pensions show that they had scant regard for pensioners. They spent little time listening to what pensioners wanted.
Mr. Frank Field: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. People will not be slow to contrast the clearness of his statement with the misinformation that was given by the Opposition.
May I concentrate my remarks on the people who are 10 years from retirement? Does my right hon. Friend recall that, in the House not two weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, who is responsible for pensions, said that all people had to do was tell the Department that they had not been informed of the change and that taxpayers would meet the Bill? Is it not true that, despite the generosity and creativeness of today's statement, some people who are 10 years from retirement are in a worse position today than they were a couple of weeks ago? What would it have cost to pay the SERPS entitlement fully to those 10 years from retirement? In effect, that would have created a clean slate, because everyone would have known that they would have to cover the period from 10 years hence, but no one within 10 years of retirement would have suffered.
Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend has raised a point that enables me to return to one that I perhaps did not cover fully enough when I replied to the hon. Member for Havant. I refer to the scheme that the Department has run for many years in respect of maladministration. My announcement today means that most people who have been in touch with the Department will be exempted. The House may be interested to know that, of the 20,000-odd people who got in touch with the Department after my announcement in March, 70 per cent. were over the age
970
of 65. Their position is now taken care of. In fact, only 3 per cent. were under the age of 50, and they are clearly more than 10 years away from retirement.
My right hon. Friend is interested in the transitional arrangements, and we are making sure that the policy is introduced gradually for people with 10 years or less to retirement. Those who are very close to retirement will receive 90 per cent. of their entitlement and those further away from retirement will receive a lesser entitlement that goes down to 50 per cent. That is a lot better than the original proposal for inherited SERPS. Under that, although it was for the Department to disprove claims, it was clear to me that there was a potential for maladministration and injustice. It was very difficult to prove exactly what had happened and who had said what to anybody else. However, we maintain the scheme to which the hon. Member for Havant referred. When someone has manifestly been misled—for example, a person may have a letter from the Benefits Agency that tells him he would have an entitlement when he does not—he will be entitled to redress in the normal way.
I say to my right hon. Friend that the scheme that we now propose is much fairer. First, all pensioners are exempted and, secondly, we get away from the obvious difficulties that one faces when someone could have come to the Department saying that he remembers seeing a leaflet in the dentist. Even though he does not exactly remember where or when, he may still have asked for compensation. That would not have been a proper way of dealing with the problem. The scheme that we are introducing today is fairer, it is just and, above all, it is workable.
Mr. Steve Webb: When I issued a statement to the press this morning stating that
The only decent thing to do would be for the Government to cancel the cut to widows pensions for those who've already reached pension age,
little did I expect that, within three hours, the Secretary of State would be in the House doing so. That represents an extremely welcome precedent, and I hope that it will happen again.
We unreservedly and enthusiastically welcome the Secretary of State's announcement. We are prepared to ignore the fact that in April, when we tabled an amendment to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill proposing an almost identical scheme, we were told that the cost would be enormous and that the proposal was not practical. The Secretary of State should have announced such a scheme a while ago, but we unreservedly welcome the fact that he announced it today.
I shall ask one question of detail. The Secretary of State has set up a tapering system for those close to pension age. On what basis has that phasing been calculated? Has it been calculated on the basis that people a couple of years from pension age could save a certain amount to top up their pension, so the percentage that they can pass on has been reduced accordingly? Does such a calculation underlie the tapering system?
That is a point of detail. I stress that the statement is enormously welcome and we welcome it unreservedly.
Mr. Darling: I must not be churlish, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for our proposals. His press release has escaped me so far, so I can honestly

971
say that no matter what he thinks, it did not have too much influence on what I had already decided. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the sliding scale. There are two points to be made. First, I am writing today to all Members of the House setting out the scheme in a little more detail, including the sliding scale. It does not have an actuarial basis. It is a genuine attempt to ensure that as people approach retirement, they have enough time to make provision, so that we avoid one of the problems of the Conservative scheme, if I can call it that—the cliff edge effect: someone who died on 31 March was all right, but someone who died the next day was not. [Laughter.] I am sure that the House gets the drift. It depends, I suppose, on what view one takes of the afterlife. Perhaps I should more correctly say that I was referring to the position of the widow.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) for his remarks, and also for the fact that he has abandoned a position that I understood the Liberals to support—a straight 10-year deferral, which of course does not fit the bill. [Interruption.] That was their position.
Tony Wright: Even if my right hon. Friend missed the Liberal Democrat press release this morning, I am glad that he did not miss the report issued by the Select Committee on Public Administration a few days ago. This is an extraordinary story. It is a complete political failure and administrative shambles, and to put it right the Government must now put more money into the pot. It is a dreadful failure on the part of the previous Government.
What my right hon. Friend announced today is an act of justice. All SERPS pensioners will be grateful for it. I thank him for it. Although there is general agreement with the essence of his announcement, hon. Members are asking specific questions. He was going to consult on the details of the previous scheme. Will he consult on the details of the scheme that he announced today?
Mr. Darling: On the last point, the regulations that will enable us to operate the scheme will be sent to the Social Security Advisory Committee and to others for comment. I do not want to mislead people. The Government have decided that this is the course of action that they will follow. The detail is clearly important, but given the time that has elapsed since the problem first arose, and the fact that people need to make arrangements now, I want to get the regulations through the House as quickly as possible, so that the matter is dealt with once and for all.
There are two other points. I did, indeed, see the Select Committee report last week. I am sorry that I could not tell the Committee last week what I announced today. The decision had already been made but it was not possible to announce it.
Finally, I agree with my hon. Friend that when people look back, they will wonder how it was that, for almost 10 years after the law had been changed, the Tories did not tell people what had happened. Perhaps we should not be surprised, in view of the other things that they did
972
while in office. It is an indictment of that Government that they caused so much misery and that it will cost quite a bit to sort the matter out.
Sir Norman Fowler: I welcome the proposals, which are fair and sensible.
There are two issues to consider—implementation and policy. On implementation, I share political responsibility with all other Ministers since 1987. However, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that I published a White Paper in 1985–86 setting out the change to SERPS; I made a statement in the House; I introduced the Second Reading of the relevant Bill, which also had a Committee stage; and I published under my own signature a leaflet on the changes to SERPS that was distributed around the country? In no way can it be said that the legislation and proposals were slipped through.
On policy, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he has now accepted our policy on SERPS and widows? There can be no doubt about that. Will he also confirm that had we listened to the advice of the Labour Opposition in the mid-1980s, who fought our proposals in every respect and all the way, no savings would have come out of this policy over the next 10, 20 or 30 years?
Mr. Darling: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman feels obliged to try to clear his name, but let me make one point about his reign at the Department of Social Security. The Department gave the correct information for one year after the law was changed when he was Secretary of State. The problem is that although he announced widespread publicity, it never happened and the wrong information was given after 1987.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming our proposals. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Havant could not do the same. However, that is not surprising: the right hon. Gentleman had the common sense to welcome the pension credit, which I announced two weeks ago, but the hon. Member for Havant has again shown how out of touch he is with the reality of pensions today.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the electors knew something on 1 May when they got rid of that crowd opposite? Is he aware that in addition to the £12 billion that the Tories have cost the British people, they piled on another £5 billion with BSE and left us with a £28 billion deficit that we had to clear? All that adds up, and this Tory party has the cheek to take £4 million in Short money from the taxpayer—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a bit wide of the statement.
Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend take it into account that during the next six, nine or however many months it is to general election, we should lay the blame squarely and fairly where it should be—with that lot opposite? Most of them have been to public schools and are supposed to be clever, while we members of the ordinary, common, down-to-earth working class party, have had to bail them out.
Mr. Darling: I have never been described that way before, but the general thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks

973
is right. The public have a right to know what Governments are doing to their pensions, and next year we are introducing an individual pension statement that will go to people so that they can see how much they will have to retire on. Had such a statement existed 14 years ago, the Tory Government would have had to tell people that they were halving SERPS entitlement.
It is also an advantage that the Tories are now committed to a policy of encouraging the under-30s to opt out of the basic state pension. It is interesting that in response to a parliamentary question tabled not by a Labour Member but by a Tory, the Government Actuary revealed that it will cost 16-year-olds £10 a week just to buy back the basic state pension that the Tories want to take off them. They will know all about that in the future.
Rev. Martin Smyth: On behalf of my colleagues and others, I welcome the statement. I also welcome the apology by Conservative Front Benchers and trust that Governments might be prepared to acknowledge that they make mistakes. Any human who has never made a mistake has made very little else.
I recognise that the Government are bringing together policy and organisational responsibility into a single organisation dedicated to pensioners. How will that work out in relation to the policy announced by the right hon. Gentleman in his statement? He said:
next year, we will begin to send out combined pension statements, giving people more comprehensive information on their entitlements.
When will that start—when people are 45, 50, or just coming up to pensionable age? Any redress would take some time and problems might arise if the statements were running late.
Mr. Darling: The two matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers are separate. We are bringing together the organisation and the policing-making functions of the Department of Social Security in relation to pensions, and we are doing the same thing for those of working age and children. That means that one person has end to end responsibility and we avoid the problem that was endemic in the old DSS, which had something of a Byzantine structure, where it was not clear who was responsible for what. In that way, we can ensure that, when we issue leaflets in future, or where policy is to change, the information is delivered on the ground and everyone knows about it.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the pension statement. They will start to be issued next year and they will be issued on a regular basis. Eventually, I should like people to receive them every year. That will tell them how much basic state pension they can expect, how much they will receive from their occupational or stakeholder pension, and give an indication, if they saved a little more, of how much more that would be reflected in additional pension. The idea is to ensure that people, particularly younger people who do not always think about their pensions, will have their minds focused on the fact that, if they want a decent and good income in retirement, they need to save for it. In addition, as I said earlier, if any future Conservative Government comes along and starts trying to take pensions off people, or to privatise the pension system, the public will know all about it.
Mr. David Winnick: Would not the most dignified way for the Opposition Front-Bench
974
spokesman to have responded to the Government's welcome announcement have been for him simply to apologise unreservedly for all the anxiety that the Conservative Government caused so many people in Britain—and then to sit down?
Mr. Darling: I am sure that the hon. Member for Havant will work on his dignified responses. There have not been many so far.
Mr. David Rendel: As the person who first raised the matter with the National Audit Office, I, too, unreservedly welcome the Secretary of State's change of mind today. The second scheme that he has just announced is, without question, much better than his previous scheme and meets most, if not all, of the recommendations of the Public Administration Committee at its recent hearing. As a result of his statement, SERPS contributions that have already been made by people, whether in work or retired, now have a much higher value than they had only an hour ago. Is not some further recompense therefore also due from the Government to those who contracted out of SERPS and took out private pensions?
Mr. Darling: No, I do not think so. The measures that I have announced today will put right the injustice that occurred all those years ago, and that will be seen by most people as the right thing to do, as the hon. Gentleman also recognised. I do not propose to go further than that.
Dr. Lynne Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement today. Did he notice that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who was in his place until a few moments ago, has chosen not to respond to the statement? My right hon. Friend talks about statements being issued to pensioners, which I welcome, but will they give pensioners an indication of their likely pension when they retire, whether or not the state pension is linked to earnings or to income?
Mr. Darling: The intention is that the statements will be issued to people of working age because it is they who need to know on how much they are likely to retire. The statement will give an indication of the value of the basic state pension. For example, had the statements been in widespread use now, they would announce that pensions are going up quite dramatically next year and would also set out the effect of the pension credit. The object of the pension statement is to help people of working age form a view about how much they need to save to enjoy the standard of living to which they wish to be entitled when they retire.
Mr. John McFall: As a member of the Public Administration Committee, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his profound statement today. I wish to comment on the sheer unalloyed cheek of the shadow Secretary of State. We have now had a disastrous hat-trick of BSE, rail privatisation and SERPS. The question on our lips is: why should the Government pick up the £12 billion bill that is the result of the previous Government's incompetence and a problem that has lasted since 1986? I remind the Secretary of State that, in evidence to the PAC, two former permanent secretaries, Sir Christopher France and

975
Dame Ann Bowtell, said that the Department was a shambles. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), told the PAC that it was not until 1988 that he found out about a problem that had lasted for 12 years.
Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reassure me that information will go down to local offices, where the problem arose in the first instance, and that people on the ground will get their due rewards as a result of today's statement?
Mr. Darling: The tragedy is that the cost of picking up the pieces left by the Tories falls on us. It does not fall on the Government or the country, but on individuals who pay contributions in their taxes. People are paying dearly for the 18 years in which the Tories were in power, and we had to clear up the mess that the Conservatives left.
My hon. Friend also asked about the Department. When I became Secretary of State, I was struck by the fact that the DSS was in grave need of an overhaul, basically because its organisation had not changed for 20 or 30 years. Its Byzantine structure made it difficult to organise things, and the relationship between the Department and its agencies needed to be changed. We are putting those changes in place and I hope that we are now getting a tighter organisation.
It was also necessary to replace information technology systems so that front-line staff could be kept up to date on policy and know what it is. Once again, however, the problem is lack of investment, which has been a common theme. At Prime Minister's Question Time, one Member after another complained about the lack of investment under the Tories in the rail system and other services. We have now made money available to replace the Department's IT system. The Conservatives would put all that at risk with their £16 billion pledge to cut public expenditure.
Mr. Derek Twigg: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), on today's statement and on the work that they and others have done to bring it about.
Today's Opposition statement was probably one of the most disgraceful that I have heard in my time in Parliament. The Opposition did not apologise and say, "Sorry, we have some regrets." Instead, they seemed to regret the fact that they had been found out. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that there was pensions mis-selling under the Tories? He has now sorted out the debacle that they caused back in 1986. There is now more investment for pensions and the mis-selling of pensions has been sorted out. The dividing lines are clear: the Tories do not care about pensions, but the Labour party does.
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. The matter is not just about the mis-selling of pensions or the inherited SERPS scandal, because the Tories have learned nothing yet. Their proposals to begin privatising the basic state pension will mean that many people under 30, who should not go into funded pensions, will be mis-sold pensions. We would have to pay the cost of that. Indeed, we know
976
that it will cost between £5 billion and £14 billion to begin the process of privatisation. In addition, the Conservative party must explain to 16-year-olds why they would have to pay £10 a week just to buy back the pensions that it would take away.
Mr. David Taylor: I do not know if there is a doctor in the House who can tell us whether, physiologically, if one has two brains, then one has no sense of shame. My right hon. Friend's planned root and branch reform of the Department is welcome. However, does it include forms, websites, and training manuals so that when legislation changes in future, we can check whether the information that the Department provides is accurate, comprehensive, free of gobbledegook and written in plain English? Will that be audited externally and independently?
Mr. Darling: We do need to take steps to make sure that information that is given to the public and any policy changes are communicated effectively and in a way that people can understand. We are doing that and have now got the necessary investment to replace antiquated IT systems so as to produce the service that people want. It is important that Governments should be honest about what they do and, if they make changes to pensions, they should tell the public. Whatever else they do, they should not put people in a position in which they do not have adequate pension cover. If we had not made changes when we came to office, nearly a third of working people heading for retirement would be dependent on benefit.
As a result of changes we made in the long term and the short term, we are tackling pensioner poverty and ensuring that more pensioners will be able to retire on a decent income. My announcement today means that at long last there is justice for the millions of pensioners who lost out very badly under the Tories.
Mr. Christopher Chope: The Secretary of State obviously enjoyed making some party political comments this afternoon. Does he accept the verdict of the Public Administration Committee, which said that his own Government were responsible for perpetuating the matter and for making an already unsatisfactory situation worse by neglecting issues between 1997 and 1999? Would not his failure to admit that show that the Government are keen to pass responsibility on to everyone else? Their basic approach is to say, "Not me, guv."
Mr. Darling: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman is distressed when political points are made in the House of Commons. That is an inevitable consequence of political parties being here. I remember, before he lost his seat at the election before last, that he was one of the most strident advocates of Thatcherism at that time. I am sure that he voted with great enthusiasm for the measure to take money away from pensioners and not to tell them about it. I make no apology for the fact that the Government have looked at the problem, listened to people and, above all, put the situation right in a fair and workable way. The Tories could never have done that.
Mr. Mark Todd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on two matters: first, on an excellent statement, which responded fully to concerns that had been expressed; and secondly, on the

977
process he followed. He listened carefully to trenchant criticisms of the proposal in the first place—some of them were made on the day of his statement—learned from them and chose to change his mind. He is to be complimented on that. A key outcome of the approach will be the provision of better information for pensioners about any change in policy, which is a course that I urged at that time. Does he agree?
Mr. Darling: I do agree with my hon. Friend, but I add a further point. During the past few months, there has been a tendency, particularly among the Conservatives, to say that the whole matter was somehow the fault of civil servants. It is not, and it was not. Political responsibility must lie with the Government in office at the time. I accept responsibility for anything that happens during the term of this Labour Government, including the time I have been Secretary of State. However, I also accept responsibility for putting the situation right. The situation was a scandal—it has cost billions of pounds and millions of pensioners could have lost out. We are putting it right and are determined to ensure that it does not happen again. The previous Government could never have done that—they would not face up to the problems they caused, they deliberately failed, year after year, to tell people what was happening and they did absolutely nothing about the situation.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: When councillors in the 1970s and 1980s were negligent, they were surcharged and forced, by law, to pay the debt from their own pockets. Some of them were bankrupted. In light of this costly inheritance—the report makes that clear—and the negligence of Conservative Ministers in the previous Government who are responsible for the debt that our taxpayers have to pay today, how about changing the law on surcharge? That would involve those Ministers paying out of their pockets, because they are responsible.
Mr. Darling: Perhaps we should send the bill to the treasurer of the Conservative party and ask him to pay it.
Dr. George Turner: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his announcement, which the 23,000 pensioners in Norfolk will applaud even if they will not personally benefit from it. Will he pass on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer our recognition of the fact that the economy that the Government are delivering allows us to make decisions, including this one, in an atmosphere in which public services are being improved, not cut? That has, I am sure, played an important part in the settlement's generosity.
My right hon. Friend knows from correspondence from my constituents that many pensioners are proud of their independence. They will welcome the fact that there will be a division in his Department to deal separately with issues affecting pensioners. Will separate letterheads be used? Independent pensioners feel that they worked all their life without having to take state aid, and they should recognise that they are entitled to a pension—they do not need to go with begging bowl in hand to claim it.
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Part of the problem for the Department of Social Security was that it did not have a clear focus on the people whom it was meant to serve. Our efforts to help people into work
978
are different from the services that we are trying to provide for the elderly. The organisation for pensioners will be distinct in every sense from the working age and child elements. During the next few years, we will introduce improvements to ensure that pensioners receive their entitlements and gain the information that they need to enable them to make sensible planning decisions. That has not happened in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) made another good point. It is precisely because of prudent management of the economy and the stable conditions that have been achieved that we can sort out the current mess in a way that is satisfactory to the great majority of pensioners. The previous Government could not have done that, as they did not have the necessary means. We have those means and are able to take action within the prudent plans set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Robert McCartney: I join hon. Members in welcoming the Secretary of State' s statement. He made much of the necessity for transparency and for making pensioners aware of their rights. However, were the Government behaving transparently when they abolished tax credits and, through the imposition of a stealth tax, provided much of the money that can be used for the purpose set out in the Secretary of State's welcome statement?
Mr. Darling: Those measures were debated in the Chamber at great length. If the hon. and learned Gentleman was not present, that is his responsibility and not mine. The Government's proposals have meant that the corporate tax regime is appropriate to the modern age. We have reduced corporation tax, which benefits the insurance companies that provide pensions. All our tax changes have contributed to the stable economic conditions that now prevail. As I said, those conditions have enabled us to sort out a colossally difficult problem within the prudent plans set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Point of Order
4.17 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the way in which the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill is to be dealt with today? There are 666 Government amendments. Their groupings follow the practice that was adopted in the House of Lords. That process was condemned during discussion of the Bill in the other place, as there was a complete muddle in chronological sequence and in the items under discussion. Not only must items further down the list be voted on together with previous ones—that is often customary—but there is no chronological sequence for consideration. In those circumstances, is it in order for our approach to be changed and for us to vote on the groupings as they appear on the selection list?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice of that point of order. The grouping of Lords amendments is a matter for the Member in charge of the Bill. We must proceed through the amendments in numerical order as they stand in the Bill, unless the House has ordered otherwise. It has not done so in this case.

Rewarding Democracy Commission
4.20 pm
Mr. Jimmy Hood: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Commission, to be called the Rewarding Democracy Commission, to inquire into the reasons why those entitled to vote in elections either fail to register as an elector or decline to vote when registered and to produce recommendations for rewarding those who vote in parliamentary and other elections.
I want to encourage a debate throughout the country on how we can best re-engage our people with the democratic process. Only the enemies of democracy can be comfortable with the continued decline in voter participation in our elections. The most recent example of voting apathy occurred across the Atlantic. The identity of the most powerful politician in the world will be decided in a country where less than half of the people bothered to go out and register to vote. Fewer than one in four people who were registered will have voted for the eventual winner, whenever the result is declared.
We have welcomed three new hon. Members into our midst this week. They were elected through by-elections in Preston, West Bromwich and Anniesland in Glasgow. The turnout was 28 per cent. in Preston and West Bromwich, and 38 per cent. in Anniesland. None of us can be comfortable with such a continued decline in voter turnout. My Bill invites us all to do something, and to do something now.
We may ask what is the cause of the decline, and who is to blame. I do not intend to walk away from my responsibility, and I hope that our Parliament does not intend to walk away from its responsibility, to try to put things right. We live in a blame culture. I do not think it is good enough for us to continue to practise the politics of "It's not me, it's someone else". It has come to this, and we as parliamentarians must do something about it. Doing nothing is no longer an option.
I am not persuaded by Members who argue that the answer can be found in tinkering with the voting system. Such a proposition has been significantly weakened by the evidence of the most recent European elections, and indeed the Scottish parliamentary elections. Both were held under different proportional representation systems, which resulted in a devastating 24 per cent. turnout in European elections, and a turnout of only 57 per cent. in the Scottish parliamentary elections. That is far from what we should expect.
I am pleased to say that Charter 88 contacted me this week to say that it supports the Bill and the establishment of a commission to look into the problem. I welcome its support.
The 1997 general election featured the lowest turnout since 1935. Thanks to figures provided by the House of Commons Library, I can tell hon. Members that the turnout in the 1987 election, which brought me to the House, was 75.3 per cent. At the last election, it was down to 71.4 per cent. The average turnout for by-elections during the 1987 Parliament was 57 per cent. The average for the 16 by-elections that have taken place during the current Parliament is 42 per cent., or less.
It is not necessarily a United Kingdom problem, however. The turnout statistics for other European Union member states also flag up the danger of people becoming disengaged from our democracy. Austria had a 49 per cent.
980
turnout for the 1999 European elections. Worries have been expressed about what is happening in Austria. In France and Germany—where we hear of so-called Europhiles—the turnouts were 47 per cent. and 45 per cent. respectively. Nevertheless, our 24 per cent. turnout should be setting off alarm bells.
Other Parliaments have legislated to compel people to vote. In the Commonwealth, Australia has compulsory voting, enforced by an A$200 fine for non-voters. Similar laws operate in Latin America—in Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Venezuela. In the European Union, Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece have compulsory voting. Belgium imposes a fine of up to BF5,000, and there is a similar fine in Luxembourg. Legislation in Greece confers the right to imprison people for not voting.
I reject compulsory voting, as my Bill shows. I believe that the United Kingdom Parliament should consider using the carrot, not the stick. I want the commission that is set up under my Bill to look at rewarding voters by incentivising voting procedures. The stick of compulsion is too authoritarian, too dictatorial and alien to our parliamentary democracy. My Bill proposes rewarding participating citizenship by making modest remunerations to people who vote in our parliamentary elections. The level of payment should be enough both to reward participation and to discourage non-voting.
Under my proposals, citizens who vote in the elections for their Parliaments will be rewarded. Any citizens who choose not to exercise their right penalise themselves, not others. My Bill will help to achieve real stakeholder democracy. Let us embrace that challenge. Time is not on our side. I commend the Bill to the House.
4.26 pm
Mr. John Gummer: I exempt the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) from personal responsibility for the reduction in voting since he came into the House. It clearly is not entirely his fault. All of us should take some responsibility, but I must congratulate him on becoming an absolute dyed-in-the-wool Thatcherite. Evidently, the only answer to any of those questions is the market. The only thing that one has to do is to pay people to vote.
That seems a surprising proposition. The last time that we had that in the United Kingdom was during the unreformed days of the 18th century, when people who voted were liberally rewarded. They normally had to say which way they had voted, of course, before they got the funds. Now it is proposed that the mere mechanism of voting should bring the reward.
I am concerned about the Bill, not least because of the proposition that we should have a commission to investigate the whole issue. The hon. Gentleman said that we should do something about it and then suggested that we should get someone else to do something about it—appoint a commission.
The commission holds a great attraction. Think of the things that it could do. It could go to Australia and to South America to investigate Ecuador, Costa Rica, Argentina—it could go everywhere. It could investigate the places that have compulsory voting and then the places that do not. It could then discover whether it was better to be in Brazil than to be in Paraguay, whether Uruguay had something on Argentina, or whether Peru had something on Ecuador.

981
Then the commission could come back and report. Having reported, it could say: why not look elsewhere? Why concentrate only on voting? What about other help that is given by Government? Should it not have a fact-finding tour of China to discover how effective giving radios for sterilisation has been? After all, that too is—if I may put it like this—a carrot.
The hon. Gentleman proposes an entirely novel concept: democracy is not its own reward, but needs some special premium. It is the little man at the bottom of the cornflakes packet. People are encouraged by their children to buy a packet of breakfast cereal that they do not want to get some cheap and unnecessary toy that they do not need. The proposition is the same. Evidently, people who do not think that they want democracy are to be encouraged to use it by something that is trivial and unimportant.
I find that an unacceptable way of treating democracy. Democracy is the opportunity for all of us to make decisions about our future. Therefore, I have some cynicism about the reason why the Bill has been introduced.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to introduce the Bill, first, because people are beginning to see that Parliament itself has been sidelined by the Government. I have no doubt at all why there have been such low turnouts for all parties. People recognise that the Prime Minister himself does not think that it is worth turning up in this place. He has the worst parliamentary record of any Prime Minister in history. His record is worse than that of any previous Labour Prime Minister, any previous Conservative Prime Minister and— remarkably, in so far as one can go back that far—any previous Liberal Prime Minister. It pains me to have to find something in which Liberal Democrat Members are not as bad as Labour Members.
The hon. Gentleman has introduced the Bill, secondly, because he knows very well that Labour activists will not get out their vote. He knows that, whatever happens in the next general election, as we have seen across the country, Labour activists do not want to bother. Whereas the number of Conservative activists is increasing, Labour activism is decreasing—[Interruption.]
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) to laugh in her characteristic manner, but the fact is that, in my constituency, the Labour party has found it difficult to get activists out for any of the local government by-elections in the past two years. Moreover, Labour's difficulty is true universally. She laughs with the embarrassment of one who knows that she is wrong.
Thirdly, the Bill is being introduced simply because some people wish to avoid the fact that low turnouts are a good warning for politicians. We need to be in a position in which the public can tell us—all of us—that we are not doing what they believe politicians should do, and that, in this House, we are not providing the opportunities that they expect us to provide.
The fact is that a serious issue has been raised with a frivolous solution. I hope very much that I shall be able to divide the House against the Bill, and that those who vote against it will be saying, "We want this House to return to being the centre of the nation's political life. We want it to return to conducting proper scrutiny of the issues, and we do not want any more of these short hours
982
and comfortable arrangements for those who thought that they could come along here and work part time, without continuing in the evenings at all. We want to work harder and better on behalf of our constituents. Then they will come out and vote, and they will not need any trinkets to induce them to do so."
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business:—
The House divided: Ayes 79, Noes 143.

Division No. 361]

[4.33 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

McDonnell, John

Ashton, Joe

McFall, John

Austin, John

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Ballard, Jackie

Mackinlay, Andrew

Barron, Kevin

Mactaggart, Fiona

Best, Harold

McWalter, Tony

Chaytor, David

McWilliam, John

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Coaker, Vernon

Meale, Alan

Cohen, Harry

Mitchell, Austin

Connarty, Michael

Moffatt, Laura

Corbyn, Jeremy

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Crausby, David

Mountford, Kali

Dalyell, Tam

O'Hara, Eddie

Davidson, Ian

Organ, Mrs Diana

Dismore, Andrew

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Dobbin, Jim

Pearson, Ian

Donohoe, Brian H

Pollard, Kerry

Drew, David

Powell, Sir Raymond

Gapes, Mike

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Gerrard, Neil

Robertson, John

Gibson, Dr Ian

(Glasgow Anniesland)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Roy, Frank

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Ruane, Chris

Hancock, Mike

Savidge, Malcolm

Harris, Dr Evan

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Hinchliffe, David

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Hood, Jimmy

Skinner, Dennis

Hopkins, Kelvin

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Khabra, Piara S

Vis, Dr Rudi

Kilfoyle, Peter

Watts, David

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Linton, Martin

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Tellers for the Ayes:

McCabe, Steve

Mr. Eric Clarke and

Macdonald, Calum

Mr. Bill Tynan.

NOES

Allan, Richard

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Amess, David

Brady, Graham

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Brake, Tom

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Brand, Dr Peter

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Breed, Colin

Baker, Norman

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Barnes, Harry

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Beard, Nigel

Burstow, Paul

Beggs, Roy

Butterfill, John

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Cable, Dr Vincent

Bercow, John

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Blunt, Crispin

(Chipping Barnet)

Boswell, Tim

Chope, Christopher

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Clappison, James

983

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Malins, Humfrey

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

(Rushcliffe)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

May, Mrs Theresa

Collins, Tim

Moss, Malcolm

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Oaten, Mark

Cran, James

ÖPik, Lembit

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Ottaway, Richard

Day, Stephen

Paice, James

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Pickles, Eric

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Evans, Nigel

Randall, John

Fabricant, Michael

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Fallon, Michael

Rendel, David

Fearn, Ronnie

Robathan, Andrew

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Ruffley, David

Fox, Dr Liam

Russell, Bob(Colchester)

Fraser, Christopher

Salmond, Alex

Garnier, Edward

Sanders, Adrian

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Gibb, Nick

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Gidley, Sandra

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Gill, Christopher

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Spicer, Sir Michael

Godman, Dr Norman A

Spring, Richard

Gray, James

Squire, Ms Rachel

Green, Damian

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Greenway, John

Steen, Anthony

Grieve, Dominic

Streeter, Gary

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Stunell, Andrew

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Swayne, Desmond

Hammond, Philip

Syms, Robert

Harvey, Nick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hawkins, Nick

Taylor, David(NW Leics)

Hayes, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Heald, Oliver

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Horam, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Townend, John

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Trend, Michael

Jenkin, Bernard

Tyler, Paul

Key, Robert

Walter, Robert

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Waterson, Nigel

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Webb, Steve

Letwin, Oliver

Welsh, Andrew

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Whittingdale, John

Llwyd, Elfyn

Wilkinson, John

Loughton, Tim

Willetts, David

Luff, Peter

Wilshire, David

McCartney, Robert (N Down)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (congleton)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Tellers for the Noes:

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Mr. Simon Burns and

McLoughlin, Patrick

Mr. Stephen O'Brien.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and Disqualifications Bill(Allocation of Time)
  4.44 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 Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and the Disqualifications Bill:—

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and Disqualifications Bill(Allocation of Time)

    Lords Amendments
    1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.
    (2) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Disqualifications Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
    2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on either Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
    (2) The Speaker shall 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 Bill.
    (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.—(1) This paragraph applies to any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, in relation to either Bill, for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
    (2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on the Motion.
    (3) The Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
    (4) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
    (5) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (4), 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.

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

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

    (a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill,

    (b) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Disqualifications Bill,

    (c) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill, and

    (d) proceedings 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.

    7. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
    8. The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
    9. 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.
    10.—(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.
    11. 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.

    The allotted day
    12. In this Order, "allotted day" means any day on which the Disqualifications Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.
    As Opposition Front-Bench Members will no doubt observe, this is the second time this week that I have moved a motion to timetable certain Bills.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: We had noticed.
    Mr. Straw: The motion is in respect of the third and fourth Bills that it has been necessary to subject to a timetable motion this week.
    May I deal with the need for guillotines? It may be helpful if I first dispose of the reasons that are irrelevant to our requirement for timetable motions. It has been suggested that we have needed timetable motions in this Session because there have been more Government Bills than in any similar Session, of a normal length, between elections. That is incorrect. Leaving aside the long Sessions that have occurred after each election—since 1974, although not including it—more Government Bills were considered during five separate Sessions between 1979 and 1997 than in this Session.
    Nor is it a case, as has been alleged, of the late introduction of Bills. Bills have been introduced into this House and the other place either at a similar time to previous years or earlier. If we compare the 1994–95 Session with this one, for example—it was a similar length and rather fewer Bills were introduced—22 Bills were introduced by March 1995 into the Commons, compared with the 31 that had been introduced by March 2000.
    Mr. David Wilshire: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Straw: I should like to deal with the matter in hand first, and then of course I will give way.
    So the guillotines are not to do with the fact that there have been more Bills in this Session, because there have not, or with the late introduction of Bills, because that has not occurred either.
    Mr. Eric Forth: What is it then?
    Mr. Straw: I am glad that that has been asked, on cue, by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
    Mr. Wilshire: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on this point?
    Mr. Straw: I am elaborating on this point, and I may even answer the hon. Gentleman's question without the need for an intervention from him.

    987
    There have been two Bills additional to those anticipated at the time of the Queen's Speech last year. The Football (Disorder) Bill, was, in principle, supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Not by me.
    Mr. Straw: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned that. The fact that it could easily have been filibustered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was one of the reasons why we had to have a timetable motion on that. Yet again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own side, having supported the principle of the Bill, could not deliver.
    The Football (Disorder) Bill was widely supported by the Opposition Front Bench in principle, even though they could not deliver.
    Mr. Forth: So what?
    Mr. Straw: I was just going to say that there was a need for it. As far as we can judge, it has proved very successful.
    There was another Bill that we judged necessary, although I accept that it has been controversial throughout its passage. I refer to the Bill to implement the recommendations of the former chairman of the Conservative party, Chris Patten, in respect of police in Northern Ireland. I continue to take the view that that was necessary, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends.
    The introduction of two additional Bills is one reason for the number of guillotines. The second is that throughout the passage of Bills for which I have been responsible in my three and a half years as Home Secretary, I have gone out of my way to ensure that proposals are judged on their merits and not on the fact that there may be a weight of votes on our side, which there is. Where we can, we have listened to amendments and have then amended Bills. If we believed that suggestions for amendments from the Opposition Benches, as well as from our side, would command the approval of the House and improve the Bill, we accepted them. That has occurred at every stage.
    I thank individual Opposition Members as much as my right hon. and hon. Friends for the way in which every Bill in which I have been involved has been improved as a result of the parliamentary process. However, people cannot have it both ways, and that inevitably means that when we improve a Bill because we are listening to the proposals made from the Opposition as well as the Government Benches, the Bill has to be amended. Sometimes—indeed, often—an undertaking has to be given in this House to amend a Bill in the other place; there is then traffic back to this place.
    The third and overriding reason for this situation is that we cannot, and have never been able to, command a majority in the other place, whereas, although there were many Sessions in which Conservative Governments introduced Bills that were just as controversial as some of those we have introduced during this Session—in some cases, for example, in 1988–89, they were more controversial—the Conservatives could always guarantee
    988
    that they would obtain a majority in the other place. That was true even on a notorious matter on which they later came to regret their majority—the deeply divisive poll tax—when people who had never previously been seen in the other place, and who were not even known to the attendants, were pulled out of the woodwork to vote for the Conservatives so that the measure would be passed. Thus, it is now more likely not only that amendments will be carried in the other place against the advice of the Government but that more time will have to be allocated.
    Mr. Wilshire: I want to take the right hon. Gentleman back to one of his earlier points: was he arguing that the fact that there had been fewer Bills than usual was a plus? I should have thought that a better argument would be that there had been more Bills, so that there was less time per Bill. If the number of Bills is the same and the right hon. Gentleman has still got himself into this mess, he is quite incompetent.
    Mr. Straw: I do not accept for a second that the Government are in any sort of mess. I was dealing with charges made in the House and elsewhere regarding our reasons for imposing guillotines—
    Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Straw: I will give way in a second.
    I was explaining why we have had to impose four guillotines this week. I merely point out that, looking back over the past 20 years, there is nothing especially unusual either in the number of guillotines or in the number of Bills for the whole Session. The central allegation made by the Conservatives is that there have been too many Bills during this Session. That is incorrect. The main reason for this end-loading is that we have accepted many amendments; we have listened to what has been said—I regard that as a merit; and, above all, we do not command a majority in the other place.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Bill left this House at Easter and its first day in Committee in the other place was on 11 May. After that, will the Secretary of State confirm that it did not reappear in the House of Lords until 10 October? Surely that delay is entirely down to the Government. If they had been prepared to bring the measure back earlier, the current logjam would not have occurred and we would not be facing this disgraceful situation today.
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman would be correct had the other place been idle from the day on which the Bill left this House to the day on which it went into Committee in the other place. It is true that the Bill could have been scheduled earlier, but that would only have meant that—assuming that the Conservatives had behaved towards other measures as they did towards this one—some other measure would have been subject to the guillotine.
    Mr. Hogg: May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to his point that the Government do not command a majority in the other place? That is true. The right hon. Gentleman implies that a large number of amendments are passed by the other place contrary to the Government's advice, and that that is the source of his problem.

    989
    There are 665 amendments to this Bill. Will the Home Secretary tell the House how many of them are Government amendments—or are supported by the Government—and how many were passed contrary to their advice?
    Mr. Straw: My recollection is that there are 666 amendments, one of which was passed contrary to the advice of the Government. However, the fact that there are a great number of amendments makes my point rather than the right hon. and learned Gentleman's—[Interruption.] A great number of amendments were tabled in response to the concerns that were expressed. Neither this House nor the other place can have it both ways. We have been listening, and I have been anxious to ensure that, so far as possible, we proceed with the Bill on the basis of consensus between the parties.
    It is widely accepted—in this country, at least—that we do not want to go down the same road as the United States and that it is not a good idea for a campaign manager also to pop up as a returning officer. Therefore, we should ensure that the ground rules are operated and moderated by people who are above the battle and that, so far as possible, there is widespread agreement between the parties about how those ground rules should operate.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: The Home Secretary is missing the point. He started with consensus on the Bill. Its main provisions were implemented by voluntary agreement between the parties in the Scottish elections last year, but he has now arrived at a pig's breakfast and the consensus has totally fallen apart, especially on section 4. That must surely be his responsibility. Is he seriously suggesting that a Bill with 666 amendments is in a fit condition to be guillotined?
    Mr. Straw: I do not accept for a second that the consensus has fallen apart, but there will be disagreement about some issues. The hon. Gentleman refers to clause 4. I am not sure whether he is talking about the provisions on advice for the conduct of referendums. We have strengthened the provisions on controlling expenditure in referendums; they are far stronger than those proposed in the Neill report. I exempt the Scottish National party from criticism about party funding because, so far as I recall, they were always in favour of statutory controls on party funding, but I shall not take criticism from the principal Opposition party, because it presided over the most scandalous situation with regard to the funding of political parties. In the face of all sorts of unacceptable things that appeared to be going on, we called for the Nolan committee on standards in public life to be allowed to examine party funding.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The Conservatives fought it.
    Mr. Straw: They not only fought it, but refused to allow the Nolan committee to look at the matter. It has fallen to us to clean up the conduct of British politics—we said that we would do so in our manifesto—first by asking what became the Neill committee to study the matter and then by introducing the changes that we propose.
    Mr. John Bercow rose—
    Mr. Straw: I shall give way, but then I want to make progress.
    Mr. Bercow: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously advancing the novel and pernicious parliamentary doctrine that the more heavily amended a Bill is in the other place, the greater the justification for truncating its consideration in the House? Does he not accept that, irrespective of whether more or too many Bills have been introduced this Session, there is a serious case to answer—the charge that there have been more ill-conceived, badly drafted and hastily introduced Bills under this Administration?
    Mr. Straw: The advantage of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and me is that our memory goes back beyond May 1997, as does the memory of many of those sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches. If the hon. Gentleman wants to have a competition about really badly drafted Bills, he should have been in the House during the first and second Sessions of the 1979 to 1983 Parliament.
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend was still at school.
    Mr. Straw: That is no excuse. After all, the Leader of the Opposition was also still at school then, but while other people were going out in the evening and enjoying themselves, he was studying Hansard—between his 14 pints—day by day and week by week. He would surely have known about the utter chaos that the previous Administration got themselves into. For example, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill was so huge and chaotic that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) had to withdraw it altogether and start again. Then, when the Bill came back at the end of the 1980 session—[Interruption.] The Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill (No.2) is in good order. The only problem is that the other place has decided not to acknowledge that. There cannot have been a better drafted, simpler Bill than that and, in due course, it will ensure justice for the victims of crime as well as justice for defendants. It will speed up the criminal justice system. The fact that the Conservatives have sabotaged that Bill illustrates how hollow is their claim to be taken seriously on law and order and crime, as on many other issues.
    I did not answer the first question of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I do not think that the guillotine is pernicious; it is regrettable, but it has happened under Governments of both persuasions. The majority of the 666 amendments are technical and consequential. Owing to the structure of this Bill, one change in principle has led to a huge number of consequential and similar amendments.
    So far, the Bill has been the subject of considerable scrutiny. First, I made an oral statement on the Neill report in July 1999. We then had a full day's debate on the report, on a motion for the Adjournment, in November 1999, and we published the draft Bill. Since the Bill itself was published, the two Houses together have spent 114 hours considering it and a considerable number of

    991
    changes have been made. With the hours that we will spend on the Bill today, we think that that is adequate time for consideration.
    One of our anxieties was also the anxiety of a Government of a different persuasion in the early 1980s—that if we did not guillotine the Bill, the debate would simply be filibustered. The Conservatives often deny that charge, but leaving aside the provocative term "filibuster", let us consider what happened during the debate on Monday. I gather that one of the complaints today is that it will be some time before we get to group 10. On Monday, there was every opportunity—even in the three or four hours available—for the House to debate the three important groups of amendments. The other groups were all technical.
    What happened? We spent an inordinate length of time on the first group, which was third in order of importance. We then moved on to the second group, which concerned the most technical issue imaginable—the naming of the National Assembly for Wales—and other consequential amendments. The Conservatives decided to go on at such length on that issue—to dance on the point of a needle, for hour after hour—that when 12 o'clock came there was no chance to debate any of the other issues or to allow my hon. Friends or hon. Members to express concern about what the Government were doing.
    Mr. Forth: That is what happens with a guillotine.
    Mr. Straw: No, it is what happens when an Opposition cannot see sense. If I had been on the Opposition Benches, I would have found many more opportunities to have a pop at the Government. Conservative Members completely failed to use those opportunities. It was hopeless. We could truncate this debate, but it is possible that we will get into a similar position today.
    Mr. Grieve: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge, as I think his colleagues on the Treasury Bench have, that at no time has the Bill been subject to any sort of filibuster in this place—not in Committee, on Report or on Second Reading? There has been complete co-operation in an attempt to get through substantial constitutional legislation in proper form. Will he also understand that the complaint today is that, at the end of the process, we face 666 amendments and have minimal time to consider important further changes?
    Mr. Straw: My understanding is that the Conservative Opposition behaved very constructively in Committee, and we are grateful to them for that. The difficulty that they face is one that we faced for part of the 1980s, although after a few election defeats, we finally learned our lesson. The Conservative party cannot speak for its Back Benchers when we discuss voluntary arrangements. That is a fact of life.
    Many of the guillotine motions that were introduced between 1979 and 1997 were introduced in the 1980s. That is because we thought that our constituents needed to see us arguing about tiny points into the small hours of the morning. Gradually, we came to the view that our constituents wanted us to examine legislation sensibly and rationally, and the best way to do that is by voluntary
    992
    agreement. It gives an Opposition more flexibility, but there must be a backstop. We can then get on with our other job of representing our constituents.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the Home Secretary confirm that no attempt was made to reach a voluntary agreement on a programme motion on Monday night, yesterday or today? The Government have not given the House the opportunity to decide how best to arrange these matters or how to avoid the filibustering which, as he rightly said, took place on Monday night.
    Mr. Straw: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not privy to the discussions through the usual channels. However, if he is right and the Government did not invite discussion on the timetable motion, there is nothing to stop the Opposition Chief Whip or the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip making such a suggestion. We have hard experience of dealing with the official Opposition, if not the Liberal Democrats, and Conservative Members have taken the opportunity to speak at length—that is a statement of fact—so I think that Government business managers judged that the risks of taking the approach that the hon. Gentleman suggests would be too great.
    One complaint about the guillotine motion for the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill is that it is being introduced for a long Bill to which there are 666 amendments. However, if one makes that complaint about that Bill, one cannot make a similar complaint about the Disqualifications Bill. I cannot think of a shorter Bill that has come before the House in the whole Session. It is one page long, with just one operative clause and two consequential ones. It is a simple Bill with just three clauses—
    Mr. Forth: It is a constitutional Bill.
    Mr. Straw: I know that opinions about the Bill differ. In fact, some Conservative Members feel so strongly about it that, if there were no backstop to the debate, they would do their best to talk it out.
    The Bill has been the subject of considerable discussion in the House. It was introduced in December 1999 and its Second Reading, Committee and Report stages were held on 25 and 26 January and lasted more than 26 hours. That was a memorable occasion. The Government were not having their best week; Prime Minister's Question Time was coming up, offering the Leader of the Opposition a great opportunity to shine. What did Conservative Back Benchers do? They took away the opportunity provided each week for the Leader of the Opposition to shine. [Interruption.] All the leadership bids take place in the Conservative party.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Home Secretary has just said that, in his eyes, an important constitutional measure is much less important than the little bit of spin that may be put by one party or another on Prime Minister's questions. Those of use who care about the constitution of this country were very concerned about the Disqualifications Bill, and we remain so. The fact that we debated it at length show the care that Conservative Members took. The Home Secretary seems to think that a little bit of spin from Prime Minister's questions is more important than that.
    Mr. Straw: I do not recall saying that—indeed, I did not say it. I was making the point that Conservative

    993
    Members managed to talk out not Government business but the important part of the parliamentary week in which the Prime Minister is subject to questioning, not least by the Leader of the Opposition. I found that an eccentric consequence. There were many Conservative Members, although obviously not the hon. Gentleman, who found it an eccentric notion as well.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Home Secretary give way?
    Mr. Straw: No. If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I must make progress.
    The Bill has been discussed at great length. It has also been discussed in the other place. It is unfortunate that in the other place, clause 1 was knocked out, but it is widely accepted that it is entirely legitimate for this House to seek to put the operative clause back in the Bill.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and—
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): Sefton, East.
    Mr. Hogg: The Home Secretary is not very good at constituency names.
    Mr. Straw: I am good at many other things, but I am not very good at long constituency names which do not reflect a serious sense of place. If my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) were simply called the hon. Member for Kirkby, which is a proper place, I would know it. The problem goes back to Peter Walker and the artificial boundaries in the Local Government Act 1972. Constituencies were given the names of all sorts of strange places and even brooks in towns, which we had never heard of, and nor had the people in the town.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: This is a filibuster.
    Mr. Straw: No, it is not a filibuster. I have one more point to make.
    There will be complaints from the Opposition about the guillotine motion, as there always are from the Opposition, whichever party is in opposition. We used to make such complaints in the 1980s, but by the 1990s, particularly in the Parliament between 1992 and 1997, even when we disagreed with the principle of the Bill, we sought to enter into voluntary agreement wherever we could, because we thought that that was much more sensible. There was one Session, 1994–95, in which there were no guillotines at all, because of co-operation from the Opposition. It is a learning curve for the Opposition.
    I rest my case by repeating the sage and amusing words of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions—
    Mr. Forth: Which constituency?
    Mr. Straw: Sunderland.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: North or South?
    Mr. Straw: One or the other. Sunderland, South. Winding up the guillotine debate on Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said:
    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.—[Official Report, 27 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 711.]
    None of us could have put it better. I look forward to the embraces and kisses of the Opposition.
    5.13 pm
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Well, well, well. National guillotine week carries on. The only surprise is that the affable Home Secretary has chosen to be chief executioner every day.
    Some of us who were in the House in the 1970s are reminded of poor old Michael Foot—in those days of greater honour, the Leader of the House used to move guillotine motions, rather than leaving it to departmental Ministers. I remember poor old Michael Foot moving five guillotine motions in one day. That ruined his reputation as a parliamentarian.
    We value the Home Secretary's reputation as someone who is serious about this place. He is in such stark contrast to the Prime Minister and others who treat the Chamber in a cavalier way, but I regret that by moving four guillotine motions this week, he is following Michael Foot's road.
    The Home Secretary cannot be comfortable with what he is doing today. It arises from the fact that an arrogant and incompetent Government have got their legislative programme horribly wrong. Labour Members who shake their heads—especially the parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin)—need to think about what the business managers have done.
    This Labour Government have the biggest majority in the House in modern times and have reformed the other place to their supposed advantage, but in the final week of the longest Session in nearly 80 years—in the run-up to a new Queen's Speech which, unusually, will be delivered in December—we need to ask why they have been so incompetent and arrogant. The Home Secretary maintains that there is not an excessive number of Bills. I can let that remark pass, but I cannot ignore the sheer incompetence of not getting the Bills ready in time and, having got them ready, not being able to proceed with them.
    Let us be specific about the two Bills that are relevant to the guillotine motion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) reminded us in his powerful intervention, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill started in Committee in the other place on 11 May, but its second day in Committee was not until 10 October. That was pure incompetence—there was no filibustering or delay by the Opposition parties. The Government did not have their Bill properly drafted, could not make progress and did not know what they wanted

    995
    to do. Month after month, like a rabbit in front of headlights, progress on the Bill remained absolutely stationary. We are rushing it through tonight on a timetable motion because of the Government's delays, not because of filibustering by the Opposition.
    The Disqualifications Bill will be rushed through the House tomorrow. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), will recall that way back in January we stayed up all night because it was being rushed through as a matter of urgency. It was so urgent that it did not appear in the other place until October and has only just returned to us. Why such a huge delay? Again, it is due to total incompetence. Many people did not want the Bill; the Government lost their nerve; pressure was put on them by the Irish Government and Sinn Fein; and they had to reintroduce it in the other place. Once again, there was no undue delay or excessive, unreasonable opposition in the other place.
    Mr. Bercow: Given how controversial the Disqualifications Bill has proved, does my right hon. Friend have any idea of the audacity displayed by the Under-Secretary when he introduced it on Second Reading? He said:
    I hope that this will not be too long a debate.—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 26]
    Is that not evidence of the Government's early determination to truncate its consideration?
    Mr. MacKay: I feel sorry for the Under-Secretary, who seems to have disappeared—no, he is just about in the Chamber. He was set up and did not know what the Bill was all about. He had been told, "Don't worry. It's uncontroversial. It will get through in half an hour." Some 14 or 15 hours later, he was beginning to understand all about it. We should be sympathetic towards him; he was unaware that he had been sold a pup.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does that not show the real need for the programming of all Bills at the beginning of a parliamentary Session? The right hon. Gentleman makes the argument well. We need to ensure that there is enough time to debate controversial Bills, and that we have a parliamentary timetable. Programming will achieve that.
    Mr. MacKay: If a Bill is introduced in January as a matter of urgency and goes through all its stages in the House, the fact that it does not reappear until the autumn in the other place is entirely the Government's fault. The other place did not have much legislation in February, March and April, and there was every opportunity for the Bill to be taken through at leisure, and it could have been on the statute book— regrettably —because of the Government's majority. It is the Government who are incompetent in that they introduce badly drafted Bills and do not proceed with them quickly. This is no case for the hon. Lady's pet passion of timetabling.
    As has been mentioned, 666 amendments have been tabled to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. It is a significant Bill which goes to the heart of our democracy, yet in a few hours tonight we are supposed to
    996
    consider all those amendments. The Home Secretary is right that some of those amendments are consequential, but nowhere near 666 of them.
    The Bill left the House with 181 pages and it has come back with more than 240 pages.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey rose—
    Mr. MacKay: I will give way in a moment.
    It is a different Bill, yet in the limited time available to us tonight we will have no opportunity to consider it. There are two pages of amendments and there is no way that we shall get through them all. The third group of amendments, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and myself, closely affects Northern Ireland. Those amendments will need considerable discussion and there is no way in which we shall be able to deal with them all.
    Dr. Starkey rose—
    Mr. MacKay: I have not forgotten the hon. Lady.
    There is no doubt that the majority of the amendments will not be debated tonight. Does that matter? Are they all consequential or not? Some matter greatly. The Representation of the People Act 1983 governs our elections to this place. The amendments to that Act were moved in the other place and we will not discuss any of them tonight. Is the Home Secretary happy that major amendments to the way in which we conduct elections to this place will have been debated and passed in the other place without any debate here simply because they are so far down the list and time is limited this late in the Session?
    The Deputy Prime Minister, discussing the future of the National Air Traffic Services yesterday, said that it was disgraceful that the other place should take final and serious decisions on that matter. Yet the Representation of the People Act is entirely to do with us. It concerns the election of Members to this place. Major changes have been made, most of which we do not necessarily object to, but they need to be debated and they will not be because the Home Secretary has moved the guillotine motion today. Can he explain himself?
    Mr. Straw: There would be some strength in the right hon. Gentleman's argument if the overwhelming bulk of the Bill were not agreed between the parties. The right hon. Gentleman has just shot down his own argument by saying, in a double negative, that the Opposition did not necessarily disagree with a large number of the amendments down for consideration. That is because they have been the subject of consultation. The basic structure of the Bill is the same as when it left the House. I accept, however, that it is technical and has needed frequent amendment in the other place in response to undertakings in the House which, for the most part, have been the subject of consultation with various political parties.
    As to whether there will be enough time to reach the final groups of amendments, that is entirely in the hands of the Opposition. There will not be enough time if Opposition Members behave as they did the other day, but there will be if they behave sensibly.
    Mr. MacKay: I disagree, as the matter is entirely in the hands of the Government, who are arrogantly

    997
    timetabling a Bill and not allowing us to debate it. There is no practical way of debating all the groups of amendments. In my capacity as shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I can say that the Northern Ireland amendments are very serious and will require careful consideration—[Interruption.] As the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office is explaining to the Home Secretary, those are serious amendments, and the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, his colleagues, and Conservative Members feel strongly about them. There is no possibility that we shall reach the amendments on the Representation of the People Act 1983, which will affect election to the House.
    In response to the point that the Home Secretary has just made, I emphasise that we broadly support the measure. However, the broad support of those on the Conservative Front Bench does not mean that other Members or other parties agree with the legislation. I agree with the Home Secretary that most of the Bill is non-controversial, but people with different views will want to examine the Home Secretary's proposals. It is not controversial in party political terms, but it does relate to democracy and elections to the House and is extremely important. There is no opportunity, however, to look at the proposals that affect the election of Members of Parliament, all of which have come from the other place, whose Members will not be directly involved in parliamentary elections. Indeed, they are not even allowed to vote in those elections.
    That constitutional outrage is contrary to what the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday in a debate on a separate matter. The Home Secretary should be ashamed, and the matter needs to be put right. At this late hour, he should come up with a manuscript amendment to ensure that, at the very least, amendments relating to the Representation of the People Act and parliamentary elections are properly debated and discussed by the House; otherwise, we shall be in an anomalous position with which, I know, the Home Secretary will be uncomfortable, as he cannot possibly be right.
    Dr. Starkey: I knew that the right hon. Gentleman would eventually keep his promise.
    The burden of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that there is insufficient time to discuss the substance of the Bill. Would it not be more logical for him to cut short debate on the allocation of time, thereby making additional hours available for the substantive debate that will stop at midnight, but which could start now?
    Mr. MacKay: Debate on these Bills is being guillotined and truncated, and all neutral outside observers feel that that is thoroughly wrong. This important matter needs to be discussed by the House. If the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) thinks that it is not important and is relaxed about the fact that, in the last week of a Session, a Bill which is practically a new measure has come from the House of Lords and many amendments to it will not be debated in the Chamber, I am amazed that she wishes to belong to the House of Commons. What was the point of her coming here in the first place?
    Dr. Starkey: I shall rephrase my question so that the right hon. Gentleman gets the point. If this bit of the debate—which, frankly, is fruitless—were cut short,
    998
    it would add to the time available to discuss substantive amendments. I am proposing a method by which the Opposition could add an hour and a half to the time available to discuss the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pass up that chance, that demonstrates that all his concern about discussing the Bill is hogwash.
    Mr. MacKay: I have rarely been more pleased in my 20-odd years in the House to have given way to a Labour Member. The hon. Lady gave the game away when she said that our debate is fruitless. The pure arrogance of new Labour, of which the hon. Lady is a caricature, was much in evidence. I am immensely grateful for her contribution, which will be used to the full in future.
    If I agreed that we should not pursue the serious wrong of guillotining the Bills—
    Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend would not carry his colleagues with him.
    Mr. MacKay: I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to restrain himself for a moment. I used the word "if". If I was of a charitable nature and wanted to do that, and if I managed to persuade, by the strength of my argument, my right hon. and learned Friend and other right hon. and hon. Friends not to speak, we would immediately move on to the main business. If I did so, there would be a slight change. The time available to debate each amendment would be 0.6 of a second instead of 0.36 of a second. With 666 amendments to consider, curtailing the debate would make virtually no difference to our consideration of those amendments, but it makes a huge difference to explaining to Labour Members that the guillotine breaches democracy and is a constitutional outrage. The proposal is totally wrong, and they will live to regret it.
    I turn to the specifics of both Bills. I should appreciate it if the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who, I guess, will tomorrow carry some of the burden associated with the Disqualifications Bill, paid a little attention. More importantly, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who will also be closely involved, will pay attention.
    A strand runs through both Bills, which significantly affects Northern Ireland—the appeasement of and concessions to Sinn Fein. There is no reason to pass the Disqualifications Bill other than to offer an additional confidence-building measure to Sinn Fein so that its politicians will be able to sit, on the one hand, in the Northern Ireland Assembly—possibly as Ministers in the Executive—and, on the other, in the Irish Dail and, possibly, in this Parliament. That is wrong because the Republic of Ireland is not part of the Commonwealth and because the reasons behind that measure are very dubious.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has to deal with such matters on an hourly basis, so he will know that endless concessions have been made to the republicans, and that nothing has been gained in return from them. It has been all give by the Government and all take by the republicans.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of those who may sit in the Dail Eireann and in the House may also sit as fully fledged members of the seven-man IRA military council?
    Mr. MacKay: That could conceivably happen. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman and I

    999
    pursue that matter further in tomorrow's debate—that is, if he is able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the three hours available. It is far from certain whether he will be able to do so as we shall be discussing a controversial measure that is widely opposed.
    The Home Secretary lightly referred to the Disqualifications Bill as a modest little measure of only a few clauses and said that a debate of three hours would surely be sufficient. However, the amendment passed in the Lords removed clause 1. That effectively castrates it, which was our intention. We are not talking about minor amendments or small details in a large Bill about which we could have a narrow debate—you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rightly call us to order if we strayed. We are talking about the detail of an entire Bill.
    We need to discuss all the merits of a Bill which has been rejected in another place. Will the Home Secretary speculate on when a whole Bill was last thrown out by the other place? The answer must be at least several years ago. A Bill that was effectively thrown out will be reinstated in just three hours. I am sure that, on reflection, he will agree that that is wrong.
    Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill must be regarded as a constitutional measure? It has important implications for the House and the other place, as it bears on people's qualifications to sit in the House of Commons. It also bears on the relationship between this place, the Northern Ireland Assembly and, potentially, the Dail in Ireland. Can there be any more constitutional measure than that?
    Mr. MacKay: As so often, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is right. We are discussing a serious constitutional measure, which makes changes that many hon. Members and a majority in the other place want to resist. We will attempt to do so tomorrow in the limited time available.
    Let us return to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, and its effects on Northern Ireland and on the funding of political parties. After yesterday's amusing outburst from the Home Secretary about the different national football teams in our country, and in the light of his desire, which I broadly share, to increase awareness of what he likes to call Britishness, one might have assumed that he would want United Kingdom political parties to be treated identically.
    However, it has shocked many people that measures ensuring that political parties cannot receive foreign donations will not apply in Northern Ireland, although it has been widely agreed in Parliament, and accepted in the Conservative party, that it is wrong for political parties to receive such donations. That is strange and anomalous, and there is only one reason why it is the case. It is another sop to Sinn Fein and another piece of appeasement. It reflects a strand that runs through both Bills.
    Mr. George Howarth: I should like to correct the impression given by the right hon. Gentleman. I consulted all the political parties in Northern Ireland about the provision. Every one of them asked for it, as they were
    1000
    afraid that retaliation would occur if they had to publish the sources of donations. Let me set the record straight. It may surprise the right hon. Gentleman—as, indeed, it surprised me at the time—that the one party that opposed the measure was Sinn Fein.
    Mr. MacKay: As usual, the Under-Secretary is charming but wrong. The issue on which we agree and on which he tried to organise a little smokescreen just now is security. The only respect in which Northern Ireland political parties should be treated slightly differently from parties elsewhere in the United Kingdom is in respect of allowing them not to publish the names of major donors, for simple security reasons. That is widely accepted.
    Mr. Howarth indicated assent.
    Mr. MacKay: I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary nodding. However, it is not correct to suggest that Northern Ireland parties should be treated differently from parties representing the rest of the United Kingdom in respect of collecting money from abroad. If the Under-Secretary gained the support of all political parties in his consultations, something has since gone badly wrong or he misunderstood his conversations.
    The amendments tabled my myself and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann have the full support of Unionist Members. They are intended to ensure, among other things, that overseas donations are not received by Northern Ireland political parties. Allowing that practice has only one benefit, of which we are all aware: to ensure that the money flows into the IRA from the Americans and, to a lesser extent, to the minor loyalist paramilitary parties, which fish in the same murky pond on the eastern seaboard of the United States.
    Mr. David Trimble: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, in respect of consultation with Northern Ireland parties on the wholly anomalous arrangements that allow them to receive foreign donations, my party vigorously and consistently opposed the exemption during consultation. It is misleading of the Under-Secretary to suggest otherwise.
    Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to Northern Ireland's First Minister, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. If the right hon. Gentleman had not been in his place, but on duty in the Province as First Minister, the Under-Secretary would have been allowed to mislead the House. It is good news that the right hon. Gentleman is present to put the record straight and to confirm my remarks.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: I, too, endorse everything said by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and I think I can state with confidence that the same position would be held by members of the Democratic Unionist party, who are not present.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the terms that have crept into these exchanges are unfortunate, and perhaps had better not be repeated.
    Mr. MacKay: On a lighter note, I was about to say—anticipating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that I suppose we should congratulate the Minister on at least uniting,

    1001
    unusually, all three Unionist parties represented in the House. That does not happen as often as some of us would like.
    I think that we have clarified the position. We have heard from two of the three Unionist parties, and I am fairly confident that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) is able to speak for the DUP on this matter.
    Mr. Howarth: I can say that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), and probably, as he and the right hon. Gentleman have said, the DUP, were—in common with Sinn Fein—opposed to the provisions. But I think the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will be aware that the late Josias Cunningham of the Ulster Unionist Council said in evidence:
    Taking the American example again, we have several well-heeled sympathisers. It would be very embarrassing if one of them said, "I would like to support your election campaign or party machine generally. Here is a cheque for $10,000." And we had to say, "Sorry. We're are not allowed to accept it".
    That is the evidence that we received from the right hon. Gentleman's party.
    Mr. MacKay: I suspect that there was far more evidence than the evidence of a man who, having died tragically in a car accident, cannot answer the Minister.
    I do not want to be led further down this road, but I think it would be fair to say that others will be able to judge whether they believe the First Minister of Northern Ireland or the Minister's recollections. I maintain, and will maintain again if I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if we reach the amendments concerned—I think we will, because they are quite high on the selection list—that this is another sop to Sinn Fein. It allows Sinn Fein to get money from America and elsewhere, and it does the same for loyalist paramilitary groups. That, I believe, is entirely wrong.
    We should consider more than one aspect of the dirty money—for it is dirty money—that comes from America to republican and so-called loyalist parties. It would be bad enough if the money were just for their own election purposes, and related to political propaganda in Northern Ireland; but, worse still, it will involve referendums affecting the whole United Kingdom.
    Through Northern Ireland, there is a huge loophole. If we had a referendum on, for instance, the single currency—the Prime Minister has promised one for the next Parliament —it would be possible to channel huge sums from Northern Ireland into a campaign on one side of the argument. That must be wrong. Equally, in the event of a border poll on the future of Northern Ireland—and there will always be such polls from time to time—huge sums could come in from the Republic and America to support one side of that argument. That is entirely against what Neill advocated.
    This is a shabby, bad, nasty little motion, which is out of character for the Home Secretary. He should be thoroughly ashamed of it, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
    5.44 pm
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) would forgive me for perhaps
    1002
    disagreeing with her for a moment. She said that some aspects of the debate were fruitless. There is one fruitful aspect. It gives us the opportunity to expose fully the record of the Tories on guillotines and, in particular, the role played by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay).
    Some of us might recall that the right hon. Gentleman was an effective Whip under the previous Conservative Administration. In his speech today, he spent a long time weaving a tangled web of rhetoric in an attempt to disguise his own record, which is formidable, so again, as I did a couple of days ago, and for the public record, I take the opportunity to set out the record of the Tories and, in particular, the right hon. Gentleman.
    As background, may I mention what the right hon. Gentleman's role was? In 1992, he was appointed to the Whips Office as a Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury. In 1993–95, he was Vice Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household. In 1995–96, he was Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household. For five long years, he worked in the Whips Office, supporting, promoting and cajoling hon. Members to come into the Division Lobby and to vote in favour of guillotines. He is Mr. Robespierre personified. He is the man who, under the previous Government, was more responsible than anyone else for forcing guillotine motions through the House of Commons.
    Let us consider some of the Bills that the right hon. Gentleman guillotined. The Education (Schools) Bill, the Further and Higher Education Bill, the Local Government Bill, the Local Government Finance Bill, the Finance Bill, the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill—all were guillotined by the right hon. Gentleman. It was his task in the Government.
    Mr. MacKay: I am immensely flattered and I did not pay the hon. Gentleman, but, as he has some records in front of him, will he confirm that every time that I was involved in a guillotines—I am not against guillotines; I never said that I was during my speech—there was extensive discussion in the House and what some would call a filibuster? The Home Secretary likes to use that word. The hon. Gentleman will find that it never happened in the final week of a Session that was running into December and that the overwhelming majority of the guillotines were introduced when there had been extensive discussion already.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is not quite as the right hon. Gentleman says. I am referring to the period when Labour had taken a tactical decision to co-operate with the Conservative Government to ensure that legislation went through its stages in the House of Commons without filibuster. Even in those circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman was responsible—[Interruption.] He would do well to look at the record to see when the great body of guillotine motions took place on Bills. Most were prior to the 1992 Parliament.
    Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I want to proceed a little. Let me finish the list because we are coming to an interesting Bill.
    The next Bill on my list is the Railways Bill. What an interesting Bill the right hon. Gentleman guillotined. Does he remember it? Does he recall what it did? It privatised

    1003
    British Rail and that led to the total collapse of the national network. The right hon. Gentleman was the villain of the piece. He was responsible for introducing the guillotine. That was his task, which he was paid to carry out—he was paid about £30,000 a year on top of his parliamentary salary to ensure that those Bills were guillotined in the House of Commons. I would say that there was an element of hypocrisy about these matters, but I cannot say that because it is not a parliamentary term.
    Other guillotined legislation included the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, which we all remember as very significant legislation; the Non-Domestic Rating Bill; the 1994 Finance Bill—
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I certainly shall when I have finished my list.
    The list includes the Family Law Bill [Lords]. It also includes the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill. Does that legislation deal with matters in Northern Ireland? Of course it does.
    Mr. MacKay rose—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I presume that, when the right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, he will say, "Yes, I guillotined that legislation which relates to Northern Ireland."
    Mr. MacKay: Yes, I guillotined that legislation which relates to Northern Ireland, but that guillotine simply reminds the House how soft on terrorism the Labour Opposition were. That is why a guillotine was necessary. Labour Members often deny that they were soft and say that there was a bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland, but I have always maintained that they were soft on terrorism. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of that.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Robespierre always had excuses and sought to justify his actions. Robespierre is a wonderful name for the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Bercow: Although the hon. Gentleman is certainly a diligent researcher—I am full of admiration for his anorakish attention to the historical record—is he aware that several hon. Members in the Chamber are parliamentary virgins and, therefore, not remotely interested in—or could not give a tinker's cuss about-the record of alleged misdeeds of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay)? What we want instead from the cynical, world-weary hon. Gentleman is a principled defence of the parliamentary barbarity of what the Government themselves are proposing today.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: At the very beginning of my speech, I said that all I wanted to do was to draw attention to the former Government's record. That is my role today. The hon. Gentleman may not be interested in that, but many members of the public are very interested in it.
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his excursion into the record of the committee of public safety
    1004
    that used to operate under the previous Government. I simply want to say—being as generous as I can—that the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) erred in his recollection when he claimed that the previous Government had never guillotined Bills at the end of a Session—
    Mr. MacKay: I said rarely.
    Mr. Straw: I do not know whether three times in a week is "rarely", but that is exactly what happened in November 1989, just as we were nearing the end of the Session. The Local Government and Housing Bill, the Employment Bill and the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill were all guillotined within the space of six days.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Member for Bracknell might recall that the Firearms (Amendment) Bill also was guillotined. Did not that legislation have implications for Northern Ireland?
    Mr. MacKay: No.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I am wrong. The interesting thing about that Bill is that various Home Office Ministers voted in support of the guillotine.
    In the next day, a parliamentary question that I tabled will be answered. I draw attention to it because it will help students of Parliament who wonder what debates on guillotines are all about to understand the background. I understand that, in reply to my question, a right hon. Friend has set out in detail—
    Mr. Forth: Did they?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: A parliamentary question has been asked.
    Mr. Forth: How does the hon. Gentleman know the answer?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Because the information is available. Additionally, as this Government always answer questions and do not hide behind claims of unreasonable cost, I presume that the answer that I receive will be comprehensive. If it is what I expect, it will set out in detail all the legislation that has been guillotined since 1979. If the answer is available tomorrow, hon. Members may wish to carry it with them, as it would help them in their debates.
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that there are 666 amendments, to one of which we objected. In other words, the Government support the great majority of amendments passed in the Lords. It seems to me that that is the Lords working at its best. If the Lords can accommodate that volume of business on consequential amendments that are inconsequential in nature and would not be treated as controversial in the Commons, thereby saving the Commons time, the Lords will have helped the legislative process.
    Mr. Grieve: In the Lords, the Bill occupied five days in Committee and three or four on Report. Does the

    1005
    hon. Gentleman think that the House should simply rubber-stamp the amendments that were made there?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: If it had not been for the efforts in the past 12 months of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), we would have been able to find more time to discuss these matters. Although I understand why he and his colleagues do such things, in the past few years, they have repeatedly delayed legislation. It seems inevitable that, at the end of the Session, we are coming up against the buffers.
    Mr. Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman understand what he is saying? He is saying that primary legislation should be made in the unelected House, notwithstanding the fact that it relates to Parliament, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and will not be discussed in this place. Surely that must be a travesty of good sense, even to him.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I cannot believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that we are going to debate 666 amendments today. When the previous, Conservative Government were in office and hundreds of amendments were tabled, they were never all discussed on the Floor of the House. The justification given by Ministers in that Government was that the amendments had been dealt with in the Lords and were not controversial. I cannot see how the argument could have changed since then.
    Mr. Forth: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not saying either that I, singlehandedly, can shape the entire legislative Session, much as I would like to be able to do so, or that — certainly since the House returned late from a three-month summer recess dictated by the Government—we have not had ample time, had the Government managed their business properly, to consider these matters in very great detail. What about all the non-sitting Fridays and all the evenings when everyone bunked off early? What about all the other occasions when the House could have considered these matters? The Government have controlled the timetable. It was not me.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman talks about non-sitting Fridays. It is all right for him, because his constituency is about 20 miles down the road, in Bromley. My constituency is 319 miles from London. It now takes me 11 hours to get home. The reality is that we have very limited time to discuss legislation on the Floor of the House.
    Mr. David Winnick: Has not the summer recess always been from July to late October? Moreover, does my hon. Friend remember that, in 1992, we rose for the summer recess on 15 July, two weeks earlier than usual, but returned at the usual time in October?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not really want to go down this route. If we compare one year against another over the years, the recesses broadly average out. It is legitimate to argue that we could sit on Fridays, but the fact is that, when it takes many hon. Members 10, 11 or
    1006
    12 hours to get to and from London, we have to go home earlier in the week. We have to do that because of travel difficulties.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I think that the hon. Gentleman has said that none of the amendments, bar one, is controversial. I ask him to read Lords amendment No. 1, which the Government support. He says that we are talking about a non-controversial amendment. However, it reads:
    A person may not be appointed as an Electoral Commissioner if he…is a member of a registered party
    or if he is
    an officer or employee of a registered party
    or has held an office
    within the last ten years.
    According to that amendment, a person could be appointed as an electoral commissioner if he tore up his membership card the week before. Surely that is controversial.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that I hope that he catches the Deputy Speaker's eye.
    6 pm
    Mr. Paul Tyler: I note that the Secretary of State and the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), took a full hour to deploy their arguments, when we have only three hours to debate the motion.
    Mr. MacKay: There were a lot of interventions.
    Mr. Tyler: I acknowledge that there were some interventions. However, I hope to do rather better.
    The debate shows clearly that the pantomime season has started already. We have had a lot of, "Oh yes you did" and "Oh no we didn't". The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is clearly rehearsing for the role of Buttons. Others may have other views about who is to take which role. It is clear that we are having a repeat performance of Monday evening's debate. Rather than repeat everything that I said then—others have repeated what they said—I shall refer the House to columns 676 to 678.
    My fears were entirely justified on Monday evening. A guillotine is a blunt instrument. I am depressed to find that the Home Secretary—I am glad that he is still on the Treasury Bench—seems not to understand the difference between so-called programme motions and a guillotine. A programme motion allows us to have Divisions at particular stages of a debate. Such motions provide an opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House who have points to make to express their views and to vote. The problem with a guillotine is that we go right through the evening until everything falls, whether it is important or unimportant.
    There was a classic example on Monday night. We spent three hours debating why there was too little time to debate amendments. I am sure that it would be wrong to suggest that there was waffle, because the Chair would

    1007
    have called Members to account, but there were some prolix contributions. There was much elaboration and repetition.
    When it came to the vote on the guillotine, which we were told was so important and critical to the future of democracy, what did we find? Extraordinarily few Conservative Members remained to vote. In the words of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), they bunked off.
    Mr. Forth: Disgraceful.
    Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that contribution to my speech.
    When we moved on to a debate on the substance of the Freedom of Information Bill, which Conservative Members were saying was of critical importance and we needed more time to debate, how many Conservative Members came into the Lobby in support of the Liberal Democrat amendment? The answer is one. That was even more disgraceful. It was the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) who joined us. I am sorry that he is not in his place this evening. He would have contributed a well rehearsed speech to the debate. However, he did that on Monday, and I think that we can take it as read that had he spoken this evening he would have made a similar contribution. He stuck to his principles and he voted. I think that there were seven other Members from other parties who supported us, along with Labour Members.
    Mr. Forth: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting a new parliamentary principle? Is he saying that he will measure our assiduity in respect of parliamentary duties on the basis of whether we support Liberal Democrat amendments? That strikes me as a new principle. Does the hon. Gentleman really mean what he is saying?
    Mr. Tyler: The right hon. Gentleman is most helpful on these occasions. I have now found the figures. I am able to report that five Members of other parties supported us, with 12 Labour Members and one Conservative.
    Mr. Forth: So what?
    Mr. Tyler: I am saying that we debated the amendment at great length, and the right hon. Gentleman will recall that it was an important one. When it came to a Division, what happened? In the right hon. Gentleman's words, his colleagues bunked off.
    That is what happens during a guillotine debate. There is not a carefully rehearsed and orchestrated opportunity to debate the issues that the House wants to debate and to divide on them. Instead, Members waffle. We have now a real choice between that sort of blunt instrument and a much more precise instrument. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are present who are also members of the Modernisation Committee, and by consensus we developed the idea that it was for the Opposition to say what issues they wanted to debate and to divide upon. That provides opportunities for Members on both sides of the House, including Labour rebels.
    1008
    It will be within the recall of hon. Members now in their places that when we debated the Transport Bill on Report, it was decided that it would be important for certain Members to speak on particular issues. They did so and there were Divisions. When there is a guillotine, the Government too have it in their hands to waffle, filibuster or delay.
    Mr. Hogg: Obviously there is some force in what the hon. Gentleman is saying about programme motions. I hope that he will recognise that Back Benchers may not share the same view as Front Benchers in terms of what is important. If a programme motion is to be determined by Front Benchers—the hon. Gentleman is the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, and therefore has an interest in arguing this point of view—other Members who have a different set of priorities may not have their views properly reflected.
    Mr. Tyler: That is an important point. I acknowledge that the programme motion does not always work as perfectly as it should. However, on the occasion to which I referred, I received representations from both Labour and Conservative Back Benchers, as I am sure the Opposition Front Bench did. We made provision for those concerned. That cannot be done in a guillotined debate. However, in a programme motion, account can be taken of representations. As I have said, we managed to do that most successfully. I suggest that more often than not we should be seeking to adopt that approach.
    On tonight's vote, on last night's vote and on Monday night's vote the business was set by the Government without consulting either of the Opposition parties. There was no opportunity for us to make representations about where decisions should be taken and at what point Members would want to have a proper debate on certain issues. The Government stand accused, as I said on Monday night, of hypocrisy in saying that they had no alternative but to introduce a guillotine motion. They had a much better alternative, and one that is accepted by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House as most effective.
    It is not for me to give the Government advice on parliamentary tactics. However, would it not have been better to say, "We offered you the opportunity to debate the issues that you felt important and to have Divisions on them"? That would have put the Conservatives in some difficulty. There is a major division between the leadership of the Front Bench and the leadership on the Back Benches.
    Mr. Grieve: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the time that he thinks would be necessary to consider 666 Lords amendments and the Opposition amendments? I suggest that, far from there being any division, if a sensible time had been programmed, which would still have allowed the state opening of Parliament to take place next week, we would have put through the business having done a proper job.
    Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman comes to the point that I was about to make. I will not be betraying any secrets, but I am sure that in the specific circumstances of this week the Liberal Democrats would have been prepared to sit later if we knew that there would be adequate time for the particular issues that we wanted to debate and divide

    1009
    upon. That would have been true on Monday night, and certainly true last night, when there was consensus on many of the issues.
    It is to be remarked upon that if there is a guillotine, we hand to the small minority the opportunity to filibuster on a particular interest to prevent other issues coming forward. The classic case was that of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and I am sorry that he is not in his place. With his extensive experience of Wales, he managed to entertain the House for a long time, to prevent a discussion starting on freedom of information in relation to his erstwhile Department. Since the BSE report, it has been categorised as a seedbed of secrecy and deliberate obfuscation. In such instances the guillotine plays into the hands of small minorities on either side of the House. It enables them to prevent the House from debating issues that are of importance.
    Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has just attacked and impugned the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and he is entirely unjustified in doing so. Had we been able to get on to discuss the formulation of Government policy and the availability or non-availability of the facts leading to decisions, my right hon. Friend would have been able to demonstrate that the way the Government intend to proceed would suppress the release of relevant facts. My right hon. Friend devoted considerable attention to amendments relating to Wales and Northern Ireland because the Government's clauses on those subjects were woefully badly drafted—a point that he demonstrated effectively in his speech.
    Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman is being rather more prolix than he normally is—he is usually very succinct. I am afraid that he has missed the point of my contribution. What I was saying was that, if there were only a limited time in which to discuss certain issues, a practised parliamentarian such as the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal would make his own contribution that much more succinct to fit the case; and he could, in speaking to an amendment, have gone on to defend his former Ministry against accusations of secrecy.
    A programme motion will always be a more effective way for the Opposition as well as the Government to ensure that we debate the issues that need to be debated. That is why I think that the Government have missed a trick. Not only have they shown themselves to be hypocritical on the issue of the business motion that they put before the House, but they could also have wrong-footed the Opposition. If the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties had not been able to sign up to a programme motion, the Government would have been in a stronger moral position. As it is, they are not in a strong moral position tonight. All that they can do is pretend that their sin is somehow redeemed because their predecessors were equally wicked. I have never been able to accept that.
    I shall turn briefly to the nature of the two Bills whose timetable motion we are discussing. As has already been said, it is extraordinary that they were both introduced comparatively early in the parliamentary year, as though they were very urgent. Then everything seemed to go
    1010
    quiet for an amazing length of time. It has not yet been mentioned, but the Government waited until October to bring them into Committee in the House of Lords.
    Mr. MacKay: I just mentioned that.
    Mr. Tyler: The right hon. Gentleman should wait a minute. He is not hanging on my every word, but he should do so.
    The significance of the Government's action is that, this year, the other place came back in September. The House of Lords had plenty of time to make real progress and then send the Bills back to us in October or early November. That is what is so extraordinary.
    The rationale for the so-called Disqualifications Bill has never been fully explained. However, the Bill was said at the outset to be urgent. The urgency argument has completely dissipated as each month has gone by. I cannot understand how the Government can pretend that it is still necessary to make progress at such speed today.
    As I said earlier, the debate has all the elements of a well rehearsed pantomime. I regret that, and I hope that we shall shortly get on to the business that we are here to debate —the Bills. I hope that, in the new Session, which—all being well—will start next week, we shall all be able to learn a better way of dealing with our business.
    6.13 pm
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I felt that it was important to express my frustration at the synthetic indignation that has been voiced this evening.
    Many people must feel frustration that we are spending time debating the guillotine rather than the Bill. I certainly felt frustration on Monday night, when we debated the guillotine on the Freedom of Information Bill. I had an important point about the Bill that I wanted to put to the Minister—I think that it related to amendment No. 22—about information concerning a tribunal brought under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The point had been raised with me by one of my constituents. Unfortunately, the amendment was in the third group of amendments, which we did not reach because of the discussions on technicalities on the other side of the House.
    Mr. Swayne: Does not the hon. Lady realise that the remedy was in her own hands, in that she could have voted against the guillotine motion? I hope that she will learn from having made such a mistake on Monday.
    Mrs. Campbell: Had I, and a sufficient number of other Labour Members, voted against the guillotine motion, we should have lost an excellent Bill because there would not have been time to debate it. Of course, that is the whole point of being in opposition. I have been in the hon. Gentleman's place myself, and I know that those are the kind of tricks that the Opposition play. I am not completely naive about these matters.
    Mr. Wilshire: If I understand the hon. Lady correctly, she is suggesting that the three-hour limit for the guillotine motion is something to which she objects. However, the decision to allocate three hours to this guillotine—and to the guillotine yesterday—was taken by

    1011
    Government Front-Bench Members, not by us. If the hon. Lady thinks that wrong, how long would she allow—a minute, or two? Or would she prefer a rubber stamp?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The point that the hon. Gentleman is making is covered by the Standing Orders.
    Mrs. Campbell: I am grateful to you for that intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    The debate on the guillotine motion is timetabled for up to three hours, according to the Standing Orders, as Madam Deputy Speaker has helpfully reminded us. That will change after 6 December, when we adopt the new Standing Orders and, sensibly, everything will be programmed.
    Mr. Grieve: Given the number of amendments and the amount of time available even without any discussion of the guillotine, does the hon. Lady consider that there is sufficient time to discuss the amount of new material that has come back from the other place? We have seven hours in which to discuss 666 amendments.
    Mrs. Campbell: I have been in the Chamber since the beginning of the debate and I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been put forward. Opposition Members should say how many of those 666 amendments they consider controversial, and why we are not being given an opportunity—as we shall be under the new Standing Orders—to debate those controversial amendments and decide how much time will be allocated to each.
    Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Campbell: No, I want to make some progress.
    I brought up the example of the Freedom of Information Bill because I wanted to express my frustration at not being given the opportunity by the Opposition to make the point that I wished to make to the Minister on the Floor of the House. An Opposition who do not allow Government Back Benchers to make points to their own Ministers are incompetent, and the waffle that comes from that side of the House is, frankly, disgraceful.
    I first came across a guillotine motion in, I think, December 1992. I was a member of the Standing Committee considering the Education Bill and I was disappointed that the then Government decided to curtail discussion and to impose a guillotine. The following year, right at the end of the parliamentary Session—despite what the Opposition spokesman said earlier—discussion of the Railways Bill was curtailed on 2 November, and on 3 November the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill was guillotined.
    Bills were being curtailed, and not just at the end of the parliamentary Session. Almost immediately after the opening of the new Session, a guillotine was imposed, on 14 December 1993, on not one Bill, but two—the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill. That was a period in which we, as an Opposition, were co-operating with the Government. There was no necessity to curtail discussion on those two
    1012
    Bills at that stage in the parliamentary Session. The fact that guillotines were imposed demonstrates the hypocrisy on the part of Opposition Members tonight.
    I think that I speak for many of my colleagues on this side of the House when I say how much we are looking forward to the new Session of Parliament, which will begin on 6 December, when programming will become the norm instead of ridiculous performances such as the one that we are witnessing this evening.
    6.19 pm
    Sir George Young: I propose to make the briefest speech so far in this debate. I begin by agreeing with part of what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, in that the guillotine is the least satisfactory of all options. A more satisfactory one—if it can be secured—is an agreed programme motion that provides adequate time, to which I have often put my name when I believe that to be in the interests of proper discussion. The difficulty is that we can get an agreed programme motion only if the Government are prepared to offer adequate time. Given the scale of the amendments confronting the House this afternoon, I very much doubt whether the Government would have been able to open Parliament next week if they were first to concede the amount of time which, in my judgment, is necessary to deal with the Bills that are under discussion this week.
    Mr. Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Sir George Young: Yes, but it will the only time, otherwise I will break my undertaking.
    Mr. Hogg: I have already made the point to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that I have sympathy with the consensual timetable programme motion, but only on the basis that it is amendable. Many right hon. and hon. Members believe that those on the Front Benches did not actively reflect the identification of priorities. If we are to have programme motions, they must be amendable so that Back Benchers can seek to vary the allocated times.
    Sir George Young: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I do not think that he disputes my point that the least satisfactory option is the guillotine. A better option is the agreed programme, and then we can have a discussion about how to reach it.
    Just over a year ago, when I wound up the debate on the Loyal Address, I said that the Government's programme was ambitious. I also said:
    For many of us, the shambles of the fag-end of the previous Session is still fresh in our memory—four guillotines in the last 10 days of the previous Session, and 820 amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill. However, far from learning the lessons of the end of the previous Session, the Government seem determined to repeat and amplify their mistakes.
    So indeed has this turned out to be. My warnings at that time were brushed aside by the Leader of the House, who explained that the Government were
    modernising and reforming the legislative process.—[Official Report, 24 November 2000; Vol. 339, c. 709-10.]
    The right hon. Lady went on to reassure the House that the development of how the Government were handling the House's work should also produce better legislation. I do not think that that hope has been achieved.

    1013
    We end this Session, as we ended the previous one, with an unseemly rush of inadequate opportunities to consider important legislation. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill was dealt with expeditiously and amicably in this House. The Minister was kind enough to compliment Opposition Members on the way in which they conducted themselves. Third Reading was on 14 March. Second Reading in another place was on 3 April. The Bill then disappeared into a legislative Bermuda triangle, the map for which is jealously guarded by Sir Murdo Maclean. The Bill was glimpsed briefly between the clouds on 11 May. It then disappeared entirely until 10 September, when it reappeared, running dangerously low on fuel, in another place.
    This is an almost unprecedented disruption in the legislative process. It was rather elegantly explained away by a Minister in another place who said:
    we have had an unfortunate break in the thread of continuity…But that has enabled us to have time to pause for reflection.— [Official Report, House of Lords, 10 October 2000; Vol. 617, c. 183.]
    The reflection has altered and substantially increased the Bill, which is now stacked, along with eight others, over the House of Commons, awaiting a landing slot.
    This is a serious Bill. It sets the framework within which the democratic process takes place. It is a constitutional Bill; it influences how elections are conducted and referendums held. I caution the Home Secretary and other Ministers against over-use of the "listening Government" phrase. We have heard rather a lot of that this week. They may be a listening Government, but they are also rather careless. These Bills have not been well drafted, and that has been part of the trouble.
    The Home Secretary says that the Government have not brought in very many Bills. He is able to say that only because, in one case, three Bills have been put into one. The Transport Bill is actually three Bills—it deals with the National Air Traffic Services, the Strategic Rail Authority and charging. This Bill is also more than one Bill—it is the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. So I urge caution about over-use of the argument about the number of Bills.
    I spoke in yesterday's guillotined debate on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. Everybody spoke in a disciplined way—they stuck to the footpath and there was very little rambling. None the less, we could not do justice to all the amendments and the Bill was not fully considered. Exactly the same thing will happen to night.
    The Disqualifications Bill also had a very unusual passage. Third Reading was on 25 January. Indeed, it was so important that the House sat all through the night. On 26 January, the Bill had its First Reading in another place and then disappeared off the radar until 27 July. It has now been amended substantially and this House is invited to accept that a Bill which the Government did not seem to mind about for six months now has to be rushed through in two days.
    This is no way to manage a legislative programme; it is no way to treat Parliament and it is no way to scrutinise Bills. For those reasons, I will have no hesitation in voting against the guillotine.
    6.26 pm
    Mr. David Trimble: I shall also try to be brief. As other Members will know, our party is generally against guillotines in any form, particularly in the case of this legislation, as it may deprive us of the opportunity of debating some measures that apply uniquely to Northern Ireland. That is the point on which I wish to make a few comments.
    Earlier in our proceedings, I intervened on the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and said that the concept of treating Northern Ireland separately from the rest of the United Kingdom with regard to foreign donations had been consistently opposed by our party. Shortly after that, the Under-Secretary of State for the Northern Ireland Office intervened to quote a passage of evidence given by the late Sir Josias Cunningham, who was at that time president of our party, which implied a willingness to accept foreign donations.
    I wish to place this matter in context because I believe that the Minister has misled the House in this respect. The words that he quoted were said, but they were said on 17 June 1998, in evidence to the Committee. In the course of giving that evidence, Sir Josias also said that we would want a uniform system applied. If it were applied in the United Kingdom generally, we should not be omitted. On the point that I was making—that we objected and continue to object to Northern Ireland being treated separately on this matter—the evidence given on that date was quite clear. The comments that Sir Josias made on that occasion were in discussing foreign donations in general. They predated the recommendations in the report, because they were evidence given beforehand. Subsequently, the report was made recommending a ban on foreign donations. We have made it clear that we are quite happy to accept that. However, we have also made it clear, right through this matter, that when the Government brought forward proposals to treat Northern Ireland separately, we objected to them.
    May I quote to the Minister from the letter that was sent to the party funding unit at the Home Office by the general secretary of the Ulster Unionist council, Mr. David Boyd, dated 13 October 1999? He said:
    We are disappointed that the proposals for restrictions on donations from overseas differ in Northern Ireland from Great Britain. This is the one area in which legislation for Northern Ireland should be at least as strong as that in Great Britain.
    He went on to reinforce that point.
    I make it clear, and I hope that the Minister will accept, that we have opposed the separate treatment of Northern Ireland. To suggest, as he did, that we indicated a willingness to be treated separately is not accurate. I reinforce the point by saying that the sentence that he quoted was quoted in another place on 10 October and the misleading impression was thereupon immediately corrected in another place. I am amazed that the Minister proceeds to quote the matter in a misleading manner, even though the error—if error it be—had already been corrected.
    Mr. George Howarth: If I have in any way misrepresented the position that the right hon. Gentleman's party took on this matter, of course I apologise. I will need to check the record, but my recollection is that there were, subsequent to the events that he describes, further meetings at which a different

    1015
    point of view made on behalf of his party was put. If I am wrong about that, and I cannot locate the notes quickly to verify my version of events, I will of course put the record straight.
    Mr. Trimble: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has behaved honourably in this matter. If anything said subsequent to the publication of the Government White Paper indicated a willingness to treat Northern Ireland separately, that does not represent my views, because they are absolutely clear and have been expressed in our discussions with the Government.
    We shall be happy to read the record on the matter, however. I am grateful to have had the opportunity of setting out the matter more fully so soon after statements were made that I consider misleading. I do not want to detain the House longer at this point.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I regret both that this is the second timetable motion before the House this week and that it is the second time that I have spoken on such a motion. We should not be doing this. We are guillotining four major Bills this week. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and Disqualifications Bill are measures of real substance.
    We are being asked to consider the deletion of new clause 1 of the Disqualifications Bill. That provision is at the heart of the Bill, and to try to deal with the matter in three hours is plain wrong. On the PPER Bill, there are 666 amendments—as has been constantly pointed out. I gather from the Home Secretary that 665 of those amendments were either tabled by the Government or had their approval. The Government are presenting the House with 665 Government-inspired or supported amendments that we shall have to consider for the very first time in between only three or four hours. That is absurd.
    Labour Members have argued that many of those amendments are non-controversial or have been tabled in respect of undertakings. That may well be true; I do not challenge the bona fides of hon. Members. However, we need to bear in mind two points: when one considers an amendment, one examines its inherent merits and also the language in which it is encapsulated. Hon. Members may say that an amendment is not controversial, but that does not resolve the problem. The policy content of the amendment may not be controversial, but what about its language? We are in the business of—where we can—trying to improve legislation and trying to avoid nonsense. It is thus extremely important—even in respect of uncontroversial measures—that the House should have an opportunity to scrutinise statutory language.
    Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, as at least 500 Members of the House are not part of the Government, it would be difficult to state with certainty whether any measure—big or small—is a priori non-controversial? We are all politicians and we all hold different points of view. Is it not at least likely that someone — somewhere—may regard something as controversial, and that to prejudge that issue is a denial of the parliamentary process?
    Mr. Hogg: I agree with my right hon. Friend and in a moment I shall touch briefly on the point he makes.
    1016
    I was saying that, even if an amendment is genuinely uncontroversial as to its content, we are still in the business of trying to improve statutory language so that we do not send out legislation that is rubbish or imperfect.
    I point out to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the former shadow Leader of the House, that I am not wholly opposed to programme motions; I understand the force of them. However, there are certain conditions. First, we should have some agreement as to the overall volume of legislation with which we shall be dealing in any one Session. Secondly, we must ensure that, within the programme, there is sufficient time to address the relevant Bill.
    To amplify the point that I made earlier to my right hon. Friend and to the hon. Gentleman, let me say that an agreement between Front-Bench Members as to the key parts of a Bill does not necessarily reflect the views of, for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) or indeed myself.
    Mr. Tyler: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hogg: I will give way when I have finished my point.
    The danger of consensual agreements between the Front Benches is that the programming will not take into account the views of heavily engaged Back Benchers, who may take a wholly different view of what is important. That is why such a motion has to be amendable, so that people such as my right hon. Friend can argue that we need more time for discussion of one group of amendments and less for another, and we can then divide on the matter. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As I know that he is especially punctilious about the names of constituencies—with good reason—I point out that my constituency is North Cornwall.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a valid point. I agree that a programme motion may not always meet the case and accept the points he makes on Back-Bench opinion. That is especially true for the PPER Bill; we may not all be experts on agriculture or foreign affairs, but we are all experts on the political process, so the views of Back Benchers have a unique relevance in discussion of the Bill. I agree that a programme motion might have been difficult to construct and that it may well have been necessary to make it amendable, but it would still have been a much better option than a guillotine motion.
    Mr. Hogg: I see the merit in what the hon. Gentleman says; I have nothing to add to my remarks on that point. However, I have one or two further points on the guillotine motion.
    I acknowledge that I have already spoken on the matter this week. Hon. Members may ask rhetorically—or may even ask me—why I am making the speech again. The reason is that, if this motion is bad in principle, we should not acquiesce in it. If that means repeating oneself, so that

    1017
    one is not seen to acquiesce, then so be it. The principle is bad and I shall explain why, but I think that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) wants to intervene.
    Mr. Martin Bell indicated dissent.
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman does not want to intervene; I apologise.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do.
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman can always be relied on.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will think extremely carefully about his response to my question. In his 20 years in this place, has he ever voted for a guillotine motion on Lords amendments when there were more than 500 amendments?
    Mr. Hogg: I cannot answer the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question: I do not know offhand. However, when I was a Minister—and indeed, when I was not a Minister, but we were in government—I supported many timetable motions. As a Minister, I was bound by collective responsibility. That is not a laughing matter—one does not resign over silly matters. I trust that one resigns only over major matters. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, a guillotine motion does not fall into the spectrum of matters on which one resigns—they need to be more substantial than that.
    Mr. Salmond: Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider resignation over the many serious matters that he was involved in mucking up?
    Mr. Hogg: There certainly were times when I considered resignation—and indeed on serious matters. I went a long way down that road. I should certainly have resigned had I not been asked to stay on.
    Mr. Salmond: Tell us more.
    Mr. Hogg: I shall not continue this dialogue because it will be out of order. However, I was never someone—for example, when I was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—to hold on needlessly.
    The point that I was making in response to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is that, when one is a member of a Government, one accepts collective responsibility. Yes, I certainly voted for timetable motions—and may even have moved them from time to time. When I was a Government Whip, I certainly bullied my colleagues to support such motions. Incidentally, I had no greater respect for them when they agreed to be bullied than I would otherwise have had, because I want independent-minded people in this place. I shall return to that point, but I hope that I have fully and adequately dealt with the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. and learned Gentleman refers specifically to timetable motions. I was talking about timetable motions that involve hundreds—indeed 500 or more—of Lords amendments.
    Mr. Hogg: I answered the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered me. If he is opposed in principle, he would say that it had never happened at all.
    Mr. Hogg: I answered the hon. Gentleman's question, which was a perfectly fair one to ask. I simply do not remember; how am I supposed to remember whether I supported a particular timetable motion during 18 years? I have not a clue, but were it on the agenda and were I in the House, I am sure that I would have done so, for the reasons that I have given. However, that does not mean that it is right to agree to such a motion, and I shall explain the reasons why I think it wrong to do so.
    The first reason, which is important, is that democracy is a fairly fragile institution; we are calling on people to accept law and policy with which they may well not agree. An essential element of the bargain that people make in a political commonwealth is that policy and legislation is scrutinised and considered by their elected representatives. If we strip out the essential process of scrutiny, discussion and consideration, we also strip out the foundation on which the acceptance of law rests, and the electorate will begin to realise that the policies and laws imposed on them are but the will of one party. That cannot be right.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Is it correct to say that the essence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is that, if we impose guillotine measures in circumstances in which there is no fundamental consensus, we substitute elective despotism for democracy?
    Mr. Hogg: I would indeed say that. I ventured to make that point on Monday in response to a point made by the hon. Member for Workington. In fact, that phrase was used by my right hon. and noble father, who gave a long lecture on the subject in the latter part of the 1970s.
    The first point is that we undermine people's respect for democracy. I have alluded to the second point already in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. The volume of legislation is very great and we often get the statutory language wrong, as the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) knows full well from his time in the courts. If we strip out the process of scrutiny, possible defects in statutory language will simply slip through, and we should not allow that to happen.
    My next point is that we are in a truly bizarre situation. There are about 181 pages of amendments; there are certainly 666 amendments, most of them made in the other place. As has been willingly conceded on both sides of the House, most of the amendments will not be discussed tonight. In fact, most of them have come not from this House but exclusively from that House—although often in response to undertakings given by Ministers, it is true.
    It is truly bizarre that an unelected Chamber should be the source of primary legislation. It is even more bizarre that the unelected House, for which I have great respect, should be the source of primary legislation on political parties and referendums, with which, by definition, they are not so well acquainted as we are. That is an absolute absurdity.
    Mr. Bercow: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is leaving the Chamber, but we have more in line for him.
    Mr. Hogg: I am always glad to see the hon. Gentleman, whether he is coming or going, so let us not try to detain him.
    The remedy is to have elected Members in the other Chamber. We should then be less aggrieved. I would advocate such a policy to the House, but I do not think that I would carry the majority tonight.
    I should like to make another point. Debates on amendments are, in the end, often the hook on which hon. Members articulate the views of their electors, with regard either to the amendment or to the circumstances that have given rise to the legislation. If debate is stripped out by timetabling everything or by using the guillotine—a point that the hon. Member for North Cornwall has already made—elected Members are prevented from expressing their constituents' views, either with regard to constituency matters or to the anxieties that they may have about particular amendments. That cannot be right. The effect is to prevent Members of Parliament from articulating their constituents' views or those of interest groups, which seek to influence Parliament through its Members.
    Shortly before this debate, the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) introduced a ten-minute Bill, which was persuasively argued against by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). One of the questions asked, both explicitly and implicitly, was: why is politics held in such low esteem? Why do not people vote more often? There are many answers—you would call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I tried to trawl through them—but one of them is a sense that Parliament is not performing its function of scrutinising legislation. The lack of independence among Members is a great problem. I am asking not for more independent Members—
    Mr. Martin Bell: Why not?
    Mr. Hogg: 1 shall not get into that argument. I am asking not for more independent Members, but for more independence among Members—a very different matter. It seems wholly plain that if we allow important legislation to slip through without debate or scrutiny, we shall diminish the country's respect for the statutory, legislative and political process.
    Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
    Mr. Hogg: Yes, of course I will, but then I shall come slowly to my conclusion.
    Mr. Bercow: Cannot Parliament's problem be succinctly encapsulated? By truncating and minimising the consideration of important Bills, are we not demonstrating that we have sacrificed our self-respect? If so, how on earth can we expect anyone else to respect us?
    Mr. Hogg: I agree. My hon. Friend makes an important point. I repeatedly hear hon. Members bewailing the difficulties that they face with working practices or
    1020
    whatever, but the truth is that we are the authors of our own misfortune. The solution is within our grasp. Hon. Members should become more independent and tell their Front Benchers and Whips, "We won't put up with this. We do not like the timetable or the policy." I am here to articulate my views and those of my constituents, not those of anyone else. I did not become a Member of Parliament to echo Front Benchers. I want hon. Members to have more independence. If we achieve that, we shall rise in the esteem of the electorate.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Is not the problem that the right hon. and learned Gentleman adumbrates the result of a party system and professional politicians who are determined to maintain their position on the greasy ladder, which involves not behaving independently, but toeing the Whips' line?
    Mr. Hogg: The answer is yes. I have been a career politician. I was pleased and privileged to serve in government for 13 years, and I enjoyed doing so very much, but a great vice of this country's political process is that the Executive is part of the legislature and, moreover, parliamentarians are but the creatures of their parties for the most part. Consequently, we talk about parliamentary sovereignty, but that is rubbish; we are really talking about the concluded opinion of the majority party, provided that the majority of Back Benchers support their Whips. That is not parliamentary democracy as it should be. I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Down; he goes to the root of the matter.
    I shall conclude by reflecting on the fact that we are up against a timetable: the Queen's Speech on 6 December. However, that is an arbitrary timetable and it could be shifted if necessary. That is not really the answer to the question. The answer is that we should not overload the programme—that is what my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire pointed out—which is what happened in this Session. If the programme is overloaded, inevitably, we will end up in the deplorable state in which we have found ourselves this week. That is wrong, and hon. Members who value the parliamentary process and believe in democracy must in our hearts know that that it is wrong.
    I will not embarrass Labour Members by mentioning the empty Labour Benches and saying that they should vote with us tonight. I know that they will not and, in any case, they are not here. People who care about democracy need to watch what is happening. Parliament is falling into disrepute and this sort of measure contributes towards that.
    6.50 pm
    Mr. Alex Salmond: I have two reasons for voting against the guillotine. One is slightly frivolous and one is very serious.
    What would happen if the guillotine motion failed? Given the proximity to the end of the Session, I imagine that the Bill would be lost. Would that be an enormous disaster? I do not think so—indeed, I can see one reason why it might be useful. Given the Home Secretary's conduct in the past few days, the extra time would give him a chance to recover some sense of balance and perspective. I am referring not to the fact that this is the second guillotine motion that he has introduced this week

    1021
    but to his remarkable speech last night when he proposed the abolition of the Scotland football team and its merger into a United Kingdom squad. Some people say that the timing was more than coincidental, with Scotland sitting proudly at the top of group 6 while England is propping up group 9. As the wags say in Scotland, England must be the strongest team in the World cup—it is holding up all the other sides.
    One thing that is certain is that a Home Secretary who thinks that this is the right time for that spectacular own goal in politics does not seem to be the Home Secretary we should trust to guide through controversial legislation. Earlier today, I was on television with the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)—the former Sports Minister—who informed me that when he made such a suggestion—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must bring the hon. Gentleman to order. I am sure that he intends to move on to the allocation of time motion soon.
    Mr. Salmond: I am talking about the allocation of time, and the time that the Home Secretary requires to recover his sense of political judgment, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was merely going to say that the hon. Member for West Ham told me that Alastair Campbell had been on the phone to him. I suspect that that must be why the Home Secretary is absent from our proceedings now—Alastair Campbell is telling him off for announcing such a policy on the day of the launch of the Scottish by-elections.
    The substantive reason why the guillotine motion should be rejected is that the Home Secretary sought to give the impression in his introduction that the Bill is uncontroversial and that the 666 amendments are uncontroversial and do not deal with points of substance.
    Mr. Forth: Wrong.
    Mr. Salmond: The Home Secretary tried to give that impression. That is my clear understanding of what he had to say. The Bill started off as a measure that commanded support across the parties—there was remarkable consensus, as there was on the Neill committee—but it no longer commands that consensus. The Home Secretary was kind enough to remind the House that my party and I have long favoured statutory disclosure of donations, statutory provisions on campaign finance and a statutory limit not only on campaign expenditure but on donations, which is absent from the Bill.
    We have long believed in all those measures, but we now find ourselves totally opposed to a part of the Bill that contains the most extraordinary anomaly that I can think of in any Bill of recent times. It is a sign of the extent to which Ministers are distant from the reality of that loss of consensus that when I raised the matter with the Home Secretary, rather than realising that I was talking about the Northern Ireland exemption in part IV of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman thought that I was talking about chapter IV, which deals with referendums.
    The Home Secretary does not understand the anxieties of the Scottish National party, which sees that, as a result of the Bill, an expatriate Irish person will be allowed to give money to a political party that has been associated with violence for a generation or more, whereas an
    1022
    expatriate Scot will not be allowed to give money to the SNP, which has espoused a peaceful, constitutional road to change for 70 years. If the Home Secretary does not realise that that is grossly offensive to many people of all political parties in Scotland, as well as in Northern Ireland and Wales, and that it is a source of major political controversy in the Bill, and if he justifies the guillotine on the basis of an all-party consensus that no longer exists, I seriously doubt his judgment.
    Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is not merely an expatriate Irishman who can send money back? Someone who is expatriate four or five generations down the line, who still calls himself an Irish American or an Irish Australian can do so.
    Mr. Salmond: I was interested when the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland quoted the late president of the Ulster Unionist party, who was on to a strong point when he seemed to argue—I have checked the evidence of the Neill committee—that it would inconvenience the UUP, which is a peaceful and democratic party, to turn down donations from expatriate supporters, and wanted that provision to be universally applied. Legislation to stop such donations will not inconvenience the men of violence. The last thing that people who engage in violent activities will be concerned about is what is in a Bill in this House. They are already pursuing illegal activities; they will not be legalised by a House of Commons measure.
    The provision will substantially inconvenience democratic and peaceful political parties. That is the anomaly on which the Government are riding in part IV of the legislation. Furthermore, a Northern Ireland Minister—apparently in all innocence—could not cite with any certainty the views of the Northern Ireland parties on that section of the Bill. That should tell the House that the Bill is not in a condition to be guillotined. Indeed, it is not in a condition to be enacted.
    What would happen if the guillotine failed and the measure were lost? We read in the Evening Standard today that the Government are considering an April, as opposed to a May, election. Are they saying that they intend to invoke the full provisions of the Bill before an election in the spring of next year? Or are they suggesting that they will be invoked for the following election? If it is the election after next—I suspect that it is and, judging from the detail of the Bill, one must conclude that it is bound to be—why not carry the Bill on to the next Session and regain the all-party consensus with which the Government started the process but which they have lost, as is well understood from the debates in another place?
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): On a point of information, we have made it clear that we hope that some, although not all, of the key provisions of the Bill will come into effect—depending on what is decided today—on 16 February 2001. The time scale that the hon. Gentleman is discussing is obviously important. It is important that the Electoral Commission should be able to get on with its job.
    Mr. Salmond: I thank the Minister. That makes the point. If the provisions are to be implemented in

    1023
    mid-February, it is an open invitation to rush through whatever needs to be rushed through on political parties before a campaign that could start as early as next March. If the Bill is primarily aimed at general elections and fairness, it should be introduced for the following election, when its provisions can be properly understood and implemented.
    As it stands, the Bill is certainly discriminatory and unfair. I believe that it is undemocratic. It may also be unlawful and may have to be tested elsewhere. Rather than turn down the arguments against the guillotine, the Government would be well advised to think again about the discriminatory aspects of part IV.
    6.59 pm
    Dr. Julian Lewis: This is the first time that I have spoken on a guillotine motion. It is also the first time that I have spoken in the Chamber since you were appointed to your present post, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I sincerely congratulate you. I hope that you will indulge me slightly if I speak not about the general principle of guillotining but about why I am sad that this Bill will be guillotined. I am sure that you will correct me if I stray into too much detail. I shall try to avoid doing so.
    I moved in Committee and on Report in this House an amendment on which some of the Lords amendments have a bearing. My amendment related to a provision in the Representation of the People Act 1983 that makes it a criminal offence deliberately to tell lies about the character and conduct of a candidate for an election with a view to damaging his or her vote in that election.
    As I explained at the time—I shall not do so in any detail now—I was the victim of deliberate lies and someone was criminally convicted on seven charges for making gross, lying accusations about my private life and my sexuality. Even to this day, I believe that they damaged at least one relationship that was particularly important to me. More relevantly to the Bill, which will be guillotined, the accusations remained in circulation throughout the election campaign because they were on the internet. Indeed, they remained in circulation on the internet even after the perpetrator had been convicted, having admitted in court that he had no evidence for the lies, and even after he had died.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman sought my indulgence, and I think that he has had that. However, I must remind him that this is not a general debate about the Bill, but a debate about the timetable motion. I ask him to return to that subject.
    Dr. Lewis: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    It is a matter of great concern that a loophole that was identified in Committee and on Report will not be discussed because of the proposed guillotining of the Bill. The fact is that, in trying to close the loophole that enables such allegations to circulate even though their perpetrator is no longer alive, I had the support of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) from the Government Back Benches, and I received exceptionally kind consideration from the Minister of State, Home
    1024
    Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who I am delighted is here now.
    When referring to the problem on Report, the Under-Secretary said:
    The Government note the broad support on both sides of the House for dealing with this issue, and the strong sympathy that exists for the proposition made, on this occasion, by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).—[Official Report, 14 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 263–4.]
    My proposition was that material uploaded on to the internet before an election campaign should count as an act of publication if it remains on the internet while the election campaign continues.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret having to say this, but the hon. Gentleman must now direct his remarks to the timetable motion.
    Dr. Lewis: I have almost concluded my remarks. The debate will be truncated in such a way that we shall not be able to consider this and many similarly important issues that relate directly to the democratic process and the effect that abuses of that process can have on the lives and electoral possibilities of candidates for membership this House. I have raised the issue because I hope to elicit from the Under-Secretary a commitment that the Government will seek to deal with this problem in the future.
    7.5 pm
    Mr. Martin Bell: I shall, as always, give the shortest speech in the debate. It is in my nature to give short speeches, but I fear that my campaign for shorter speeches has not caught on; if it had, there would be no need for this debate.
    There are measures and there are times when guillotine motions are appropriate. I do not think that this is the right time or the right measure. This is not a technical or non-controversial Bill. It goes to the heart of our democracy and relates to how people vote and how we are chosen and to public perceptions of the Chamber. In many respects, it is profoundly undemocratic and militates against the independent and independent-minded. It will allow vast sums of money to be thrown at the electoral process and it will take us further down the American path. The Bill needs more scrutiny than will be allowed given all the amendments that have been back-loaded on to it.
    When I arrived in this place rather unexpectedly in May 1997, I thought that I was joining the free Parliament of a free people. Increasingly, it seems to be more of a rubber-stamp assembly. I am worried by what we are doing tonight. We shall vote in haste and repent at leisure.
    7.6 pm
    Mr. Robert McCartney: I shall speak against the guillotine motion. Although in some circumstances such motions may be justified, Bills to which a large number of amendments have been tabled—technical, consequential or otherwise—and which include provisions that affect the fundamental principles of democratic government and go to the fundamentals of our constitutional process should not be rushed through without scrutiny. They should be considered for their

    1025
    content and language and they should be subject to careful assessment. As the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) said in his succinct fashion, this place should be a democratic assembly where the principles of democracy and liberty are given the fullest, unrestrained rein when fundamental issues are at stake.
    Recently, I read a quotation from Judge Learned Hand, one of the most distinguished jurists of the 20th century. He said this about liberty:
    What then is the spirit of liberty?…The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weights their interests alongside its own without bias.

    Can anyone, for one moment, suggest that, in the circumstances of this Bill, any of those fundamental principles has been observed?
    Earlier speakers have said that the House is increasingly becoming the creature of parties. There is no question but that the party system and the increasing emphasis in the life of a parliamentarian on having a structured career that leads to office have both militated against the independence of Members. There is perhaps an air of unreality to the debate. We all know that the Whips will give their directions regardless of what any of us say.
    Mr. Hogg: May I amplify the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument? In this debate, the majority of hon. Members have supported the views that he is articulating. We all know that in 40 minutes or so, 320 or 330 hon. Members who know nothing about the debate, have not been present and have not taken part in the argument will flock in.
    Mr. McCartney: I could not agree more with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. When the Division Bells ring, I often think of the analogy of the Pied Piper of Hamelin: "All they come from their various places—fat ones, thin ones, scrawny ones and tawny ones," making their way to their new lodgings at the direction of the respective pipers, and no doubt hoping to benefit later from the cheese.
    Mr. Winnick: It is true that when the Division Bells ring, hundreds of hon. Members—on both sides, incidentally—will come into the Chamber. That has always been the practice, whichever Government were in office. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take into account the fact that when Government Members have strong feelings against a Government measure or a certain aspect of a Bill, as was the case last night, we are present in the Chamber? Many of us listen closely to the debate and usually we know precisely what we will do: vote against our own Government, as a number of us did last night. The hon. and learned Gentleman should not be too cynical. In the main, my colleagues believe that the Government's proposed guillotine is justified. That is why they are not in the Chamber now.
    Mr. McCartney: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not think that I had made a generalisation so overriding as to apply to each and every hon. Member or to groups of hon. Members in parties. In the relatively short period that I have been in the House, I have observed nothing that detracts from the principle that I outlined.
    1026
    When the Whips give their indication, hon. Members pile in and, broadly speaking, do their bidding. We can all say what we like, but elected despotism will be at work. When the Whips call the tune, the matter will be disposed of.
    I shall deal briefly with some of the points that are of particular significance to Unionist Members from Northern Ireland. One is the exemption which has been so eloquently dealt with by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), relating to the special dispensation that is to be given to parties in Northern Ireland. It will benefit only two parties, both of them part of the pan-nationalist front: Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour party, which both claim that a large part of their revenue comes from abroad, principally from the Republic and the United States.
    What is baffling to most democrats in Northern Ireland is the vacillating and cowardly policy of appeasement that is afforded to those parties. Sinn Fein has been described by the Prime Minister and successive Secretaries of State as being inextricably linked with the IRA. They are two sides of the same coin. It is a matter of common knowledge in Northern Ireland that all the highest offices in Sinn Fein and the IRA are occupied by the same people, and that the personnel of Sinn Fein almost wear as campaign medals some conviction for a terrorist offence.
    It has also been the subject of comment on both sides of the Atlantic—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are debating the timetable motion, not the Bill itself.
    Mr. McCartney: I agree entirely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall give the argument some focus.
    I have been forced to stress some of the substance of the argument in order to highlight the circumstances in which matters of fundamental constitutional and democratic principle will be swept to one side and afforded inadequate treatment and scrutiny because of the guillotine. Were it not for the guillotine, many matters that are of the most fundamental importance could be considered.
    As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan pointed out, why should parties which observe the democratic process, eschew violence and attempt to achieve their political goals in peaceful and non-violent ways be penalised by special concessions made to parties which the Government admit are inextricably linked with terrorist organisations?
    I finish by saying that this evening, when the Division Bells ring, when the guillotine motion is carried in favour of the Government, and when, after inadequate discussion and scrutiny of both its content and its language, the Bill is blitzed through the parliamentary process, people in Northern Ireland will have to live with the consequences. Their belief in democracy will be shattered. They will see those who rely on violence raised up and financially fed. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office may smile, but that is what people in Northern Ireland will see.
    7.16 pm
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Secretary of State was disappointed that his benign intent in moving the guillotine motion on Monday night was

    1027
    defeated by the wilful nature of the Opposition, who, in his estimation, subsequently discussed all the wrong amendments.
    That is a measure of the Government's arrogance when they introduce such motions. They decide in their own minds what it is proper for the Opposition to discuss. They tell us that under the terms of their motion, there was time to discuss what in their opinion ought to have been discussed. That was precisely the point made by the Secretary of State—the Government should be scrutinised on their own terms, not according to the estimates of the Opposition.
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to even greater arrogance when he said that the Government, when in opposition, had learned from the process when they began to co-operate with the then Government. We have heard that theme several times this week. No wonder this week has been characterised as national guillotine week.
    Let me make a point that I made earlier this week about what such co-operation means. I recall, as do other Opposition Members, that the Scotland Act 1998 passed through the House with some measure of co-operation. That is exactly the sort of co-operation that was lauded this evening by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). An agreement was reached between the two Front Benches, so that the right things, according to the estimation of both sides, would be debated.
    Again and again, that was used to silence dissent on the Government Benches. What those on my Front Bench thought it proper to discuss was not entirely consistent with what I thought it proper to discuss but, much more important, given his role in that debate, what was discussed was not what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) considered it important to discuss. Again and again, amendments that he considered important were never discussed.
    Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is far too modest. I recall that exactly. The target was not the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Swayne: I thank my hon. Friend, if I may call him that as he approaches his swan song in the House.
    The Secretary of State closed his remarks earlier by saying that he deserved to be kissed. In my estimation, given the damage that the guillotine motion does to the very substance of democracy, those who introduce such motions deserve not to be kissed. Rather, they deserve to be garotted with their own intestines.
    7.19 pm
    Mr. John Bercow: Unless provoked, I shall be brief. Before dealing with a couple of particular concerns, I want to refer to the important issue highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who raised the subject of character assassination on the internet during an election campaign. It was my impression that he was genuinely aggrieved that, as a result of the timetable motion, there would be inadequate time properly to consider that matter. I also had the impression that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), had some thoughts on it.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I do not know whether the timetable will allow us to discuss the points raised by the
    1028
    hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), but I can tell him that although we were unable to deal with his serious concerns in the Bill, the Government do not have a closed mind on such matters, and I shall be happy to discuss them with him if an opportunity arises
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for that observation. It reassures me and, I imagine, is even more reassuring to my hon. Friend.
    I want to address two points made respectively by the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The Home Secretary appeared to advance the novel and pernicious parliamentary doctrine that the greater the amendment of a Bill in the other place, the more compelling the argument for its truncated consideration in this place.
    I utterly reject that spurious doctrine. The rationale behind it would allow all sorts of Bills—ill-conceived, badly drafted, hastily introduced by the Government and duly amended, in a draconian manner, in the other place—to be rushed through the House. That is unacceptable. I hope that the Home Secretary will ponder that doctrine again. I do not know whether he planned to come to the House to defend and advance it, or whether he simply made an off-the-cuff comment that he dreamt up in response to criticism. Either way, it was unsatisfactory and indefensible.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
    Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is quivering in his seat, as well he might, but he must exercise what self-restraint he can muster in the circumstances. I want to deal with him briefly, but with relish.
    The hon. Gentleman provided a charge sheet of alleged parliamentary sins, culled from the historical record of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as though that justified the vicious assault on the rights of Members of Parliament which the Government are perpetrating today. For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat that I could not give a tinker's cuss whether my right hon. Friend has a sinful track record or whether he is the epitome of parliamentary virtue, as I have always imagined him to be. The issue is not how many guillotines there have been in the past, or whether consideration of Bills was truncated in the 1970s, 1980s or the 1990s, but what is proposed now. If the hon. Member for Workington has a half defence of his earlier utterance, I shall readily give way to him.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is a very young man. Will he give an undertaking that if there were a Tory Government in 15 or 20 years' time, there would be no circumstances under which he would go into the Lobby to guillotine a substantial number of Lords amendments?
    Mr. Bercow: No, I will not give that undertaking, and for two reasons. First, it is unwise to say never; secondly, one has to consider particular circumstances. The hon. Gentleman has helpfully brought me on to the relevant matter.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Bercow: Not just yet.

    1029
    The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that we are dealing with the issue of 666 amendments that were made in the other place to this incredibly poor legislation—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. In practice, that amounts to something like 21.6 seconds for the consideration of each amendment if there are no votes, which is, of course, an unrealistic assumption.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: If the number of amendments were cut by 75 per cent., leaving us with 150 to discuss, the hon. Gentleman would have one and a third minutes for each one. Would that enable him to give the undertaking that I requested?
    Mr. Bercow: It is extremely unlikely that I would want to support such a proposition. If the hon. Gentleman wants to hold me to account in future years to judge whether I have stood by the pledge that he believes me to have given, I shall be happy to see what the record demonstrates. The House will have detected that he is keen to divert attention away from the parliamentary vandalism in which the Government are engaged.
    It is offensive that the Government should suggest that the matters for consideration are minor, trivial, insignificant or piddling. They are nothing of the kind. They involve the transfer of functions from boundary commissions to the Electoral Commission and the creation of the parliamentary parties panel. We do not know how that new body, previously not mentioned, will work, who will be involved in it or what level of accountability it will attain. This is a proper time to consider such matters. Another consideration is the obligation of the Secretary of State to consult on the wording of questions in future referendums. Those matters cannot be lightly cast aside.
    We are also dealing with the Disqualifications Bill. I believe that it is an odious, repulsive and disgraceful measure. It is an affront to the rights and integrity of the House that the Government should seek to justify the circumscription of debate on a matter that is so repugnant to so many people. It is especially repugnant when we reflect on the fact, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) suggested, that the debate is being truncated to curry favour with, to appease and to suck up to an unrepresentative minority called Sinn Fein.
    We can learn from some of the great figures who made this place great. Edmund Burke was one of the finest parliamentarians in the history of this country and, as it happens, the father of modern conservatism. What did he have to say about unrepresentative minorities? He said:
    Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the most noise are the only inhabitants of the field.
    The Government are sucking up to a minority; they are praying in aid a minority; and they are seeking to appease a minority. It might be a noisy minority, but it remains a minority; it is not a majority. What they are proposing is in the face of the opposition of the majority of decent, right-thinking, law-abiding people of this country. If the House is not prepared to stand up to such barbarity, but is party to its own castration, it deserves its own fate.
    7.28 pm
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: The debate has been varied, but one point of view has been overwhelmingly expressed, and not just by Conservative Members. Other hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have also said that the decision to guillotine this legislation is a serious mistake.
    Ministers on the Treasury Bench have missed the point that the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill creates 69 criminal offences. They are being justified by the need to regulate what previously was an unregulated activity. When the Bill was before the other place, the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Bassam, said:
    I readily admit that the Bill is cumbersome and bureaucratic.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 October 2000; Vol. 617, c. 272.1
    A piece of legislation which started out in the House to universal acclaim, with the desire to see it properly executed and enacted, has gradually deteriorated under scrutiny.
    That need not have mattered. I found the period that I spent on Committee on the Bill one of the most rewarding that I have had in the course of the three and a half years that I have been in the House. It was an opportunity to look logically and straightforwardly, on a cross-party basis, at difficult issues and to examine them. The difficulty was that, at the end of the process, the theory that had appeared to be so good appeared in practice to be sadly wanting in many areas.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, had the decency to say that the Government would go away and think about that and do their best to remedy the matter, that the matter would be considered carefully in another place, and that every effort would be made to improve it. The sad fact is that that did not happen. Not only did that not happen, but I regret that the Government started to look around for someone else to blame for the fact that the Bill was not working.
    In late May, there was a wonderful exchange of correspondence in which the Minister of State, Home Office sought to suggest, on the letter paper of the Labour party press office over the House of Commons logo, that in some way the Opposition parties were to blame for the difficulties that had come about. He even went so far as to suggest that in some way the Opposition parties were seeking to obstruct the Bill.
    That is far from being the case. We have glowing testimony from Lord Bassam, and Lord Carter said:
    I should like to offer my sincere thanks to the Opposition Chief Whip, the Opposition Front Bench, the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and the Back Benches of all parties. We reached the target that we were hoping for…I am truly grateful for the co-operation that has been demonstrated by the whole House.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 273.]
    That is how the Opposition, and I think that I can speak also for the Liberal Democrats, have approached the issue.
    However, at the end of the day we have ended up with 666 Government amendments and the Bill is a shambles. In the time available, I cannot do justice to explaining the need for time to consider what we are about to do. However, I shall select a couple of amendments which we shall never reach in our consideration of the Bill in a month of Sundays.

    1031
    First, it may surprise some Government Back Benchers to learn that if, during the course of the next general election, a person in their constituency nominates them as a candidate, even if they have not been consulted, as the Bill is currently drafted the election clock will start to tick against their expenses. That is a matter that I should like to address in today's debate, but I cannot because it arises under amendment No. 294, and there is no possibility that that will be reached.
    Then we have the extraordinary fact that, whether one is a Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat, if one's local association treasurer drops dead and one is worried or saddened and wants to visit the widow or widower with regard to the funeral arrangements, if the Electoral Commission is not notified of a replacement within 14 days, a criminal offence is committed. The law will be draconian. There is a sentence of up to one year's imprisonment for failure to comply with the regulations that we are introducing in this gross and cavalier fashion.
    All we ask of the Government is some time for reasoned debate. It is unbelievable that the Representation of the People Act 1983 should be reworded in serious and major ways entirely in the other place, not by ourselves. The Parliamentary Secretary admitted how rewarding it was that Members of Parliament, Back Bench and Front Bench, could attend the Committee and present reasoned arguments based on personal experience. There may be a lot of personal experience in the other place on these matters, but our experience of the practical requirements of running political parties, which are ultimately voluntary organisations—we hope for the public good—means that we can address the practical problems in a way that cannot be done elsewhere. Yet that is the tone of the entire way in which we are approaching the matter.
    We are simply told that we should not worry about all this and that four hours of debate will be sufficient. The fact that we are about to take dangerous and rotten steps—as pointed out by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), eloquently and in short form, by the Liberal Democrats and by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and even by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who made a perfectly valid point about the iniquities and inequalities that we are introducing by not having a single United Kingdom regime—is ignored.
    A Bill that started off as gold has not just ended up as brass but as really base metal. That is a tragedy. The guillotine motion is a reflection of the fact that the Government, when confronted with those difficulties, have simply buried their head in the sand. The motion is unacceptable and I hope that all hon. Members will consider the issue and vote against it.
    7.36 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) knows—the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), made the
    1032
    point in earlier debates—that the Government respect the way in which the hon. Gentleman came to the Bill, giving it much thought and making constructive suggestions. Not only that, but some of those suggestions ended up as amendments. He rightly said that there was a spirit of co-operation on the Bill between those on the Front Benches and all Members of the Committee. Given that spirit, I find it strange that the hon. Gentleman suddenly manages to work himself up into—something of a rage is probably a slight exaggeration, but certainly he seems much exercised by the fact that he feels that there is much still to be resolved.
    The reason why there has been a great deal of debate is that the issue is sensitive and difficult. The reason why people listened intently not only to the hon. Gentleman but to others is that if there is one thing on which hon. Members have a collective expertise, it is elections. For that reason, all contributions were taken seriously and amendments resulted from that.
    The second argument that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) have advanced is the large number of amendments. They have repeatedly and correctly quoted the figure of 666. During the course of the debate, I took the trouble to re-read some of those amendments to try to understand why there should be such concern about their number. What do the amendments do? It is evidently true that there are a large number of amendments.
    I opened a page at random and tried to work through the consequences of the amendments on that page. Amendments Nos. 152 to 156 on page 32, Nos. 193 to 197 on page 38, and Nos. 239 to 243 on page 44–15 in all—all have the same effect. They change the requirement for political parties to produce receipts for expenditure from a sum of £100 to a sum of £200. The perfectly reasonable purpose behind those amendments was that, given our wide experience as members of political parties and of fighting elections, it was felt that to increase the sum to £200 would reduce the administrative burden on political parties.
    Mr. MacKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Howarth: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but he will realise that I do not have much time.
    Mr. MacKay: No one in the Opposition has suggested that the majority of the 666 amendments are controversial and need much debate. However, there are certain groups of amendments that require substantial debate, including those on Northern Ireland. Does the Minister accept that four hours is not enough time to debate those substantial issues? It is irrelevant to talk about non-controversial and consequential amendments, as he has been doing.
    Mr. Howarth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the overwhelming majority of the amendments are non-controversial. However, that is not the tone of contributions from several of his Back-Bench colleagues.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Howarth: No, I simply do not have time.

    1033
    The right hon. Member for Bracknell raised the issue of clause 65. For obvious reasons, I do not want to get into a convoluted discussion, but it is fair to say that the clause generated controversy. However, after coming back from the House of Lords, the clause is in almost entirely the same form as it was when it left the House. Therefore, it cannot have generated the amount of controversy that the right hon. Gentleman claimed.
    Finally, I want to say a word about the Disqualifications Bill which, I accept, has generated controversy. The right hon. Member for Bracknell and others said that they do not like the Bill and that it should not be enacted. Indeed, they feel that it is a constitutional abuse. That is a fair summary of their argument—
    Mr. MacKay: Very fair.
    Mr. Howarth: Fine, but I refer the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to the Bill's Second Reading on 24 January 2000. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said:
    As we recognise that the aim of the Bill is to build on what has already been achieved in Northern Ireland, we will not oppose its Second Reading.—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 34.]
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Howarth: No, there is not time.
    The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald continued—
    Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a fact that the Opposition voted against the Bill unanimously on Third Reading.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Howarth: I was not referring to what happened on Third Reading. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald went on to refer to amendments that had been tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). As I remember, he tabled three amendments, which were mostly to do with extending the disqualification to serving Ministers, Committee Chairmen and one other category. On Second Reading, I gave the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald an undertaking that we would consider those amendments carefully. As the Bill has progressed, we have taken the amendments into account and incorporated them in the Bill.
    When the Opposition started off, they shared certain concerns with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. We took those concerns into account and have acted on them. However, the Conservative Front Bench simply lost control of events at that time—
    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 358, Noes 177.

    Division No. 362]

    7.44 pm

    Ayes

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Ainger, Nick

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Alexander, Douglas

    Corbett, Robin

    Allen, Graham

    Corston, Jean

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Cousins, Jim

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Cranston, Ross

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Crausby, David

    Ashton, Joe

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cummings, John

    Austin, John

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

    Bailey, Adrian

    (Copeland)

    Banks, Tony

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Barnes, Harry

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Barron, Kevin

    Dalyell, Tam

    Battle, John

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Bayley, Hugh

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Beard, Nigel

    Davidson, Ian

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Davis, Rt Hon Terry

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    (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

    Betts, Clive

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Blackman, Liz

    Doran, Frank

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Dowd, Jim

    Blizzard, Bob

    Drew, David

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Borrow, David

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Edwards, Huw

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Efford, Clive

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Ennis, Jeff

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    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

    Galloway, George

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Gapes, Mike

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Campbell—savours, Dale

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Gerrard, Neil

    Casale, Roger

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Caton, Martin

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Cawsey, Ian

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Chaytor, David

    Goggins, Paul

    Clapham, Michael

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Grogan, John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Clelland, David

    Hanson, David

    Clwyd, Ann

    Healey, John

    Coaker, Vernon

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hendrick, Mark

    Coleman, Iain

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Colman, Tony

    Heppell, John

    Connarty, Michael

    Hesford, Stephen

    1035

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hill, Keith

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hinchliffe, David

    Martlew, Eric

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Meale, Alan

    Hood, Jimmy

    Merron, Gillian

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Hope, Phil

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Miller, Andrew

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hurst, Alan

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Hutton, John

    Morley, Elliot

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

    Illsley, Eric

    (B'ham Yardley)

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    (Aberavon)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Mountford, Kali

    Jenkins, Brian

    Mudie, George

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Mullin, Chris

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Jones, Ms Jenny

    Norris, Dan

    (Wolverh'ton SW)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Olner, Bill

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    O'Neill, Martin

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Kemp, Fraser

    Pearson, Ian

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Pendry, Tom

    Khabra, Piara S

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Kidney, David

    Pickthall, Colin

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Plaskitt, James

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Pond, Chris

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Pope, Greg

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Pound, Stephen

    Lammy, David

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Laxton, Bob

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Lepper, David

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Levitt, Tom

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Purchase, Ken

    Love, Andrew

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Quinn, Lawrie

    McCabe, Steve

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Rapson, Syd

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Raynsford, Nick

    (Makerfield)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Robertson, John

    Macdonald, Calum

    (Glasgow Anniesland)

    McDonnell, John

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    McFall, John

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Rogers, Allan

    McIsaac, Shona

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Rooney, Terry

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Rowlands, Ted

    McNuity, Tony

    Roy, Frank

    MacShane, Denis

    Ruane, Chris

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Ruddock, Joan

    McWalter, Tony

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    McWilliam, John

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Salter, Martin

    Mallaber, Judy

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    1036

    Sheerman, Barry

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Sheldon,Rt Hon Robert

    Timms, Stephen

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Tipping, Paddy

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Todd, Mark

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Touhig, Don

    Singh, Marsha

    Trickett, Jon

    Skinner, Dennis

    Truswell, Paul

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Tynan, Bill

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Snape, Peter

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Soley, Clive

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Wareing, Robert N

    Spellar, John

    Watts, David

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    White, Brian

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Stevenson, George

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    (Swansea W)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Wills, Michael

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Wilson, Brian

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Winnick, David

    Stringer, Graham

    Woolas, Phil

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Worthington, Tony

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    (Dewsbury)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mr. David Jamieson and

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Mr. Mike Hall.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Allan, Richard

    Collins, Tim

    Amess, David

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Cotter, Brian

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Cran, James

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Baker, Norman

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Ballard, Jackie

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Beggs, Roy

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Day, Stephen

    Bercow, John

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Blunt, Crispin

    Duncan, Alan

    Boswell, Tim

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Brady, Graham

    Flight, Howard

    Brake, Tom

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Brazier, Julian

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Breed, Colin

    Gale, Roger

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Gibb, Nick

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Burnett, John

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Burns, Simon

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Burstow, Paul

    Greenway, John

    Butterfill, John

    Grieve, Dominic

    Cash, William

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Hammond, Philip

    Chidgey, David

    Hancock, Mike

    Chope, Christopher

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Clappison, James

    Harvey, Nick

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

    Hayes, John

    (Rushcliffe)

    Heald, Oliver

    1037

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Horam, John

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Ruffley, David

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Hunter, Andrew

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Salmond, Alex

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Keetch, Paul

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

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

    (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Key, Robert

    Soames, Nicholas

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Spring, Richard

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lansley, Andrew

    Steen, Anthony

    Leigh, Edward

    Streeter, Gary

    Letwin, Oliver

    Stunell, Andrew

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Swayne, Desmond

    Lidington, David

    Syms, Robert

    Livsey, Richard

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Loughton, Tim

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    McCartney, Robert (N Down)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Thompson, William

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Townend, John

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Tredinnick, David

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Trend, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Trimble, Rt Hon David

    Malins, Humfrey

    Tyler, Paul

    Maples, John

    Viggers, Peter

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Walker, Cecil

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Wafter, Robert

    Moore, Michael

    Waterson, Nigel

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Webb, Steve

    Moss, Malcolm

    Wells, Bowen

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Norman, Archie

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Oaten, Mark

    Willetts, David

    Öpik, Lembit

    Willis, Phil

    Ottaway, Richard

    Wilshire, David

    Page, Richard

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Paice, James

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Pickles, Eric

    Yeo, Tim

    Prior, David

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Randall, John

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Rendel, David

    Mr. Peter Luff and

    Robathan, Andrew

    Mr. James Gray.

    Resolved,
    That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and the Disqualifications Bill:—

    Lords Amendments
    1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.
    (2) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Disqualifications Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
    2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on either Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
    (2) The Speaker shall 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 Bill.
    (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.—(1) This paragraph applies to any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, in relation to either Bill, for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
    (2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on the Motion.
    (3) The Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
    (4) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
    (5) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (4), 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.

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

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

    (a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill,

    (b) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Disqualifications Bill,

    (c) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill, and

    (d) proceedings 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.

    7. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
    8. The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
    9. 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.
    10.—(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.
    11. 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.

    The allotted day
    12. In this Order, "allotted day" means any day on which the Disqualifications Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
Lords amendments considered.
7.58 pm
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 19, 71, 130, 359 to 361 and 637, which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to any of those Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill

  Clause 3
  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: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 12, 357 to 368, 370 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, 371, 372 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, and 373.
  Mr. O'Brien: The amendments are designed to strengthen the independence of the Electoral Commission. Given the commission's wide responsibilities, including, in particular, for the controls on parties' income and expenditure, it is imperative that it should be seen to be scrupulously independent of the Government of the day and of political parties.
  No electoral commissioner should have had a high-profile association with a particular party. The amendments will therefore bar from appointment anyone who is a member of a registered party; has, in the past 10 years, been an officer or employee of a registered party; has held a relevant elective office; or has been a donor to a registered party. Amendments will be made to schedule 1 to ensure that the restrictions will also apply to deputy and assistant electoral commissioners and, save in one respect, the staff of the commission.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I do not know whether the Minister was present in the Chamber earlier, when the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  1041
  (Mr. Llwyd) pointed out that, under amendment No. 1, someone could resign their membership of a political party, tear up his political card one day and become an electoral commissioner the next. Similar provisions would not apply if he was an employee of or donor to a political party, when a 10-year cooling-off period will apply. Was the Minister's real intention to make it possible for someone to become an independent electoral commissioner by tearing up his party card on a Monday and becoming a commissioner on Tuesday?
  Mr. O'Brien: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we cannot cover every single option in detail in legislation. We must allow at least for a semblance of common sense in those who are making appointments. We must also recognise that the way in which the appointments are made must command the respect and support of political parties across the spectrum. We believe that it is necessary to provide clear statutory guidance on our approach. However, in terms of ensuring that we get the best people for the job, we must allow for the common sense of all the political parties.
  If somebody who is appointed to head the Electoral Commission or to take up a senior position on it is seen by a political party—whether it is the Scottish National party or any other—to be biased, that will cause serious concern across the spectrum. All of us must ensure that the Electoral Commission is above reproach. There are limits on how far legislation can go to achieve that, but we must ensure that the body commands respect. I do not think that we need to go as far as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) suggests, but we all have a vested interest in ensuring respect for the commission — respect that can be commanded by the people who hold the senior positions within it.
  Mr. Graham Brady: What does the Under-Secretary believe to be an acceptable period between leaving a political party and being appointed to the commission?
  Mr. O'Brien: To some extent, that will depend on the individual and the circumstances. Mere membership of a political party does not mean that a person forfeits his or her sense of integrity, professional judgment or ability to make a considered and fair decision. Membership of a political party, whether it is the Conservative party, the Labour party or any other, should not be seen as undermining the quality of a person. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) can think of hon. Members on both sides of the House who are regarded with considerable respect. We must ensure that members of all parties and others outside the House can regard the people appointed to the positions as having integrity.
  Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I do not want to give way to the hon. Gentleman again. I should like to make some progress, after which I shall perhaps give way to one or two hon. Members if they want me to do so.
  We have extended the bar on party membership only to the chief executive. As with civil servants, other members of staff will be able to be members of political parties, although I expect the commission to adopt
  1042
  appropriate restrictions on their political activities. In view of the fact that the commission's staff will have access to sensitive financial information relating to parties, it has been suggested that all staff should be subject to the bar on party membership.
  I do not believe that there is sufficient cause to curtail the individual rights of staff in that way. Their position will be no different from that, for example, of Inland Revenue staff, who have access to potentially sensitive information about the financial affairs of individual politicians. Neither will their position differ from that of my Home Office staff, who deal with information from political parties. I expect the commission's staff to discharge their duties in a wholly impartial manner and with complete discretion, whatever their own political affiliations or persuasions.
  In my experience with Inland Revenue and Home Office staff, that impartiality and discretion has been evident at all times. I have no idea what the political persuasions of those staff are, or, indeed, whether they have any. All I know is that I have seen nothing that would justify my making the suggestion that political persuasion would affect their ability to make proper judgments. A clear view on current political membership is needed with regard to one aspect of senior management in the Electoral Commission. However, there is then the question whether we should bar people from doing something that I hope most hon. Members would encourage—to become active in their society. I do not think that there are any grounds for preventing people from exercising their freedom in that regard.
  We recognise that distancing the electoral commissioners from any active association with party politics means that they may not have ready access to experience of operating a party machine or campaigning at elections. Indeed, that issue was raised in previous debates on the Bill. Effective regulation requires the regulator to have a clear understanding of the supervised activity. That applies to the regulation of political parties just as it applies to the regulation of casinos, financial services or anything else.
  To ensure that the commission has ready access to necessary information to enable it to make an impartial and independent judgment on the issue at stake, the new clause inserted by amendment No. 3 provides for the establishment of the Parliamentary Parties Panel. The panel will be composed of representatives of parties with two or more Members of Parliament who have taken the oath. Its function will be to submit representations or information to the commission about such matters affecting political parties as it thinks fit. The commission must give due consideration to any points raised by the panel, but will not necessarily be bound by them.
  I emphasise that the panel is not in any sense an advisory panel. If we were setting up a formal advisory panel, its membership would have to be a good deal wider. It would, for example, have to include representatives of non-parliamentary parties and electoral administrators. I expect the commission to put in place its own arrangements for consulting those wider groups on particular issues as they arise. It will, of course, be open to the panel to comment as a panel on the commission's proposals. However, in such circumstances, its representations must be considered alongside any other comments received in response to a wider consultation exercise.

  1043
  I believe that the Parliamentary Parties Panel will respond appropriately to concerns expressed about the operation of the commission. It will ensure that the commission is made aware when any of its decisions might undermine the ability of political parties to operate within our political system effectively and with integrity.
  Mr. John Bercow: I expressed concerns about that point earlier. I trust that the procedure described by the Under-Secretary will not occur by way of a hole-in-corner operation. Will the Parliamentary Parties Panel be obliged to publish its comments or will the commission be required to do so on its behalf?
  Mr. O'Brien: The Bill contains nothing that would oblige the commission to publish in a particular way. As hon. Members know, however, the Freedom of Information Bill was all too recently considered by the House and will change for the better the behaviour of many organisations and institutions, and create greater openness. The Electoral Commission and the Parliamentary Parties Panel must have regard to the way in which Parliament expects such organisations to operate—an expectation that is demonstrated by its support for the freedom of information legislation.
  I commend the amendments to the House.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: There is much in the amendments that we can welcome. The Government have taken on board a number of points that were made at a much earlier stage in the Bill's progress, and reiterated in another place. We acknowledge that they have responded to our anxieties, and that the Bill has undoubtedly been improved as a result.
  We are particularly pleased about the creation of a Parliamentary Parties Panel. That strikes us as a sensible measure—although I hope that the Minister and, perhaps, the Electoral Commission will note the pertinent comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). It illustrates the fact that, even at this late stage, it is possible to make improvements. We are also pleased about the decision to exclude the commissioner and deputy commissioners from membership of political parties. That too constitutes a lessening of what, at an earlier stage, struck us as a serious problem.
  Nevertheless, we do not think that what has been done goes far enough. The Minister mentioned our amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendments Nos. 370 and 372. Only yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) received an answer to her written question No. 80 about precisely this matter. The Minister made it clear that, while it was expected that the Electoral Commission would require its staff to discharge their duties in a similar way to civil servants, the way in which the commission had been established would mean that there was no requirement for them to do so.
  Another point is noteworthy in the context of Northern Ireland. One argument advanced by the Government—reasonably, in our view—against the disclosure of donations was that even if disclosure was made solely to the Electoral Commission or to officers in Northern Ireland, there was a danger that the information would
  1044
  leak out. The Government were concerned about that—and, in the Northern Ireland context, they were extremely concerned about the personal safety of those who might be donors.
  When, as it were, we come over to this side of the Irish sea we may hope that those who make political donations will not be the targets of assassins. Nevertheless, it seems extraordinary to us that staff may be members of the Electoral Commission—which carries out detailed scrutiny and checking of returns made by political parties—although they may be major participants in the activities of their local political associations. There is no restriction whatever on such membership.
  It is not a question of slipping information to the press, or making use of that information to secure the open embarrassment of some other party. Doubtless the information will emerge, and people will discover who works for the commission. We are concerned about the possibility that a senior member of staff—not one who is currently banned—will be the treasurer of a local association, and could have access to information relating to Opposition or other parties' finances in the same constituency. If that happened, the system would be brought into serious disrepute.
  In Committee, we spent a long time discussing the problems of disclosure. In particular, we discussed where the ceiling should be in relation to small or larger associations, and the danger that political parties might derive an unfair advantage from obtaining information about other parties while not disclosing information themselves. I can think of a telling example. Let us suppose that it became known—even if no harm resulted—that an officer in the Electoral Commission, carrying out sensitive work, could obtain access to information relating to political parties, not his own, and that it might be to his personal advantage simply to have that information at the back of his mind.
  We think that the Government should have gone further. The Bill will leave the House and be given Royal Assent—that, after all, it is what will happen to it after this evening —in an unsatisfactory form. I regret that. I also regret the fact that, by virtue of the extraordinary way in which the amendments have been grouped, there is no possibility of putting the matter to the vote. Let me tell the Minister that if there had been such an opportunity, we would have availed ourselves of it.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: The Liberal Democrats also welcome the improvements in the Bill. We still think it is capable of further improvement, but we recognise that not too much will happen during the next five or six hours.
  The balance between the purity and isolation of the commissioners and their knowledge of the real world must be struck carefully. In Committee, we said a fair amount about poachers and gamekeepers. I think there are some advantages in having commissioners who know what poaching is about: it may be a mistake to choose those who are pure as the driven snow and have no connection with the real life of political parties, to the exclusion of people with some awareness of the wool being pulled over their eyes. We should not necessarily seek to remove such people entirely from the political sphere.

  1045
  I welcome the improvements making it explicit that commissioners must not have active and immediate party political associations. However, I do not regard it as a disadvantage for them to know what the real world of politics is about, as a result of their experience of voluntary and other work.
  I also welcome the creation of the Parliamentary Parties Panel. It formalises, and perhaps makes more transparent, a process that in any event takes place to some extent in relation to the political parties collectively and the Home Office, in the context of electoral and boundary issues and a range of other matters relating to the exercise of functions by political parties.
  The concerns of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) are probably misplaced in that regard, because we will have a more transparent and open system. I hope the Minister will not just concede that the Freedom of Information Bill may have a bearing on the matter, but be inclined to give an assurance that the Home Office will bear that aspect very much in mind when establishing the commission and looking at the commissioners' draft terms of reference and action plans. After all, the Minister and the Home Secretary will have to have regard to all those matters.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) spoke of the possibility of information leaking at local party level if we allowed people both to be members of political parties—perhaps office holders—and to work for the Electoral Commission. Only a few months ago, a party that I attended—not a political party—came to an abrupt, hushed halt when a perfectly normal member of the party-going population said, when asked what she did, "I am a VAT inspector". It changed the context in which discussions were taking place, and I suppose it is just possible that certain employees of the Electoral Commission might have the same effect. However, I am certain that the VAT inspector would neither have, nor for a moment consider using, information that was relevant in the wider world. Surely, the British experience of public service is that we are remarkably successful at walling off our professional duties from our social and recreational duties. No one supposes that income tax or VAT inspectors will be particularly prone to spook their neighbours, or to take unfair advantage of information that they come across. I would have thought that we might be able to rely likewise on employees of the Electoral Commission.
  Again, I make the point about poachers and gamekeepers. I am not by any means advocating that most employees of the Electoral Commission should finish up as treasurers of one or other political party, but it is not necessarily wholly bad that the people employed by the commission know what the real world of political activism is about. Again, as we discussed in Committee on several occasions, the reality is that most politics is not big politics, carried out with mega-millions. It is carried out in people's back rooms with post office accounts, small trustee savings accounts and co-operative bank accounts. If the total income is in three figures, it is a success. For that world of political activity, it is wholly desirable that the Electoral Commission should have its feet on the ground and know where real party political activity takes place.
  Therefore, we believe that the Bill has been improved. Some more improvements need to be made, but we need to recognise that, throughout its passage, there has been
  1046
  good co-operation between the political parties, both at this end of the building and at the other. I hope that future improvements—a new generation of the Bill—will in due course emerge, based on practical experience, but, in the meantime, we wish the Bill well in its move forward.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I thank the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) for their indications that they believed that the Government had listened and moved. It is important, in so far as we can, to agree how to frame the legislation; it should have broad cross-party support.
  I agree with both those hon. Gentlemen and with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The Electoral Commission will recognise that each of the main parties in the House has indicated—I am sure with the support of those from Scotland and Northern Ireland—that the operation of the Electoral Commission and, indeed, of the Parliamentary Parties Panel should be conducted in a way that has due and proper regard for the need for openness, so that those who may be interested in their affairs will know what is happening. I am sure that those bodies will read the text of the debate and recognise that that view is shared throughout the House.
  Comments were attributed to Lord Bassam. If I recollect rightly, what he was saying was that, in relation to Northern Ireland, there would be a perception, because of the circumstances there, that the information that was given to a particular state organisation might get into the wrong hands; he felt that there would be a fear of that and a perception that it was likely, even though it may not be either likely or possible. As far as I am aware, he did not suggest that commission staff would act other than with appropriate honesty, integrity and impartiality.
  Mr. Grieve: To make the matter clear, I did not welcome the Government's stance on Northern Ireland. Indeed, the whole thrust of the Bill is about disclosure, but it seemed that there was an inconsistency between the Government's viewing that matter with anxiety and not viewing the matter here with anxiety, in terms of staff getting hold of information that they should not have. I accept that staff may not misuse the information, but if there is a perception that there are members of staff working for the Electoral Commission who see sensitive material who are themselves officers in their local associations, it will bring the commission into disrepute. The Government seem to be anxious about that in the Northern Ireland context, even though, as I have stressed, in the Northern Ireland context, I am not happy with what the Government are doing about not having disclosure.
  Mr. O'Brien: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The Northern Ireland context is, as with all too many issues, somewhat different and particular, but we have no reason to believe that an ordinary member of staff who happens to carry a party membership card for whatever political party is likely to behave improperly, any more than we have to believe that a civil servant is likely to behave improperly. Indeed, on all the evidence that we have, they are very unlikely to behave in that way.
  To reassure the hon. Gentleman, a member of the commission staff cannot be an officer of a party. That is a high-profile position. He certainly cannot be a treasurer or a senior person who has responsibility for accounting the activities of a political party. It would be against the

  1047
  restrictions that, I hope, the Electoral Commission will place—just as they are placed on many civil servants—on political activities. There is a distinction between someone who is in a lesser position and someone who is politically active; that includes being a member of a political party's official bodies—its senior bodies, a constituency association or constituency party—and being an officer of that organisation.
  That is political activity. It seems to be straightforwardly political activity, but if someone happens to carry a party or an association membership card, that does not compromise their integrity. Indeed, in many ways, it suggests that that person has an active interest in ensuring that democracy is sustained and progressed. It should not be a disqualification for believing someone has integrity that they be a member of a political party; otherwise, hon. Members would have a lot of problems, which some journalists might say we do have. However, I suspect that most hon. Members would take the view that the House, by and large, behaves with much integrity, honesty and also political affiliation.
  As I have said, we are not persuaded that there is any compelling reason to bar commission staff other than senior staff from being a party member. Barring them would be a large step and could come into conflict with the European convention on human rights, as was indicated by Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish during debates in another place.
  Although I appreciate that, at first glance, the functions of the commission bring into sharp relief the question of the political affiliations of its employees, on reflection, I doubt that the issue is any more acute in relation to the Electoral Commission than it is in relation to the work of any number of Government Departments or other public sector agencies.
  Under the civil service code, public. servants are expected to observe strict standards of probity and confidentiality in their work. It will be for the Electoral Commission itself to determine the standards of conduct that apply to its staff. However, I have absolutely no doubt that the commission's rules on participation in political activities and the duty to be impartial in the discharge of its functions will be at least equivalent to those applying to civil servants.
  I therefore urge hon. Members not to press their amendments in this group.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

  Clause 3

    APPOINTMENT OF ELECTORAL COMMISSIONERS AND COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 46, at end insert—
    ("(3A) A person may not be appointed as an Electoral Commissioner if the person—

    (a) is a member of a registered party;

    (b) is an officer or employee of a registered party or of any accounting unit of such a party;

    (c) holds a relevant elective office (within the meaning of Schedule 6); or

    (d) has at any time within the last ten years—

    (i) been such an officer or employee as is mentioned in paragraph (b), or

    (ii) held such an office as is mentioned in paragraph (c), or

    (iii) been named as a donor in the register of donations reported under Chapter III or IV of Part IV.")

Clause 5

  REVIEWS OF ELECTORAL AND POLITICAL MATTERS
  Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 3, line 36, after ("17(1)") insert
  (", (Transfer of functions of Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland)(1)")
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 11, 13 to 25, 331, 337, 346, 369, 374, 375, 637, 659, 660 and 662.
  Mr. Tipping: The amendments in this group relate to the commission's general and electoral boundary functions. However, the changes to clauses 13 to 18 are perhaps the most significant. Their purpose is to strengthen the independence of the Electoral Commission in discharging its boundary review functions and to ensure that the full benefits arising from the transfer of those functions are realised.
  8.30 pm
  When the Bill left the House, it provided for the functions of the various parliamentary and local government boundary commissions to be transferred to the Electoral Commission, and required the commission to make arrangements for those functions to be exercised by the relevant territorial boundary committee. The amendments considerably improve on those arrangements.
  Previously, the arrangements placed responsibility for the discharge of all boundary review functions in the hands of the four boundary committees and not the Electoral Commission as a whole. However, it is essential that the commission should exercise effective strategic oversight of the work of its four boundary committees. It is only by so doing that the full benefits of the merger of the parliamentary and local government commissions—improved efficiency, and greater effectiveness and coherence in the review of all boundaries from ward level to Westminster constituencies—can be realised.
  The amendments also deal with the relationship between the Electoral Commission and Ministers. In establishing the commission, we have sought to make it as independent of the Government of the day as our constitutional arrangements will allow. In keeping with that status, the commission should be allowed to get on with its boundary review functions with a minimum of interference from Ministers.
  To remedy those deficiencies, the amendments give effect to a number of changes. First, they allow for clearer allocation of responsibilities between the Electoral Commission and the four boundary committees. The commission as a whole will have overall responsibility for keeping parliamentary constituencies and local government electoral arrangements under review. It will then fall to the boundary committees to undertake the detailed task of conducting boundary reviews in accordance with any statutory rules and any directions issued by the commission.
  On completion of a particular review, a boundary committee would make its recommendation to the commission. The commission then would have the power to accept those recommendations in whole or in part, or to reject them in whole or in part, and to require the boundary committee to undertake a further review or part review. It will also be open to the commission to modify the recommendations of a boundary committee with the agreement of the committee.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is a study in emollience, and his mellifluous tones are usually sufficient to reassure most, if not all, right hon. and

  1049
  hon. Members. A moment ago, he referred to the minimum of ministerial interference. I am a suspicious fellow, and I should be grateful if he elaborated on that minimum.
  Mr. Tipping: I shall try to be emollient and move on to the next part of my speech, which I hope will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
  The second main change is the removal of the Secretary of State's power, under section 4(1) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, to modify the recommendations for changes to parliamentary constituency boundaries. It would remain a matter for both Houses of Parliament to accept or reject those recommendations. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will see that, in parliamentary constituencies, we are taking this opportunity to remove the Secretary of State from the equation. I think that an important step forward.
  The third step forward is for the Electoral Commission to have full responsibility for making changes to local authority electoral boundaries. In particular, the commission itself would make the necessary statutory instrument to give effect to recommendations made by one of its boundary committees. That is a further distancing of ministerial involvement.
  Finally, structural or administrative reviews of local authority boundaries would be undertaken by the Electoral Commission in response to a request from the Secretary of State. In such cases, the decision whether to implement the commission's recommendations will remain with the Secretary of State, in recognition of the Government's legitimate interests in ensuring that there is effective local government.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Lords amendment No. 11 quite sensibly specifies that the boundary committees should have a member from the appropriate country who has some experience of local government. If the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 are not amended, any changes to Westminster parliamentary constituencies in Scotland would automatically apply also to constituencies for the Scottish Parliament. Equally, we should insist that a member of the commission should have some experience of Scottish parliamentary matters.
  Mr. Tipping: That takes me back to a point that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made earlier this evening. To only a limited extent can we prescribe in regulation—in law—what needs to be done. However, I am mindful of the hon. Gentleman's point. It is the intention to ensure that electoral bodies have a wide range of membership involving local government and the various parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that that will satisfy him. I shall ensure that his views are drawn fairly soon to the attention of the new commission when it is established, if Parliament agrees.
  I thought that the hon. Gentleman would take me on to some Scottish questions, and I shall deal with them now. The new clause that would be inserted by Lords amendment No. 20 confers powers on Scottish Ministers to transfer to the commission one or more of the functions of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. The new clause broadly mirrors the equivalent arrangement for England and Wales. I doubly emphasise
  1050
  that, as local government is a devolved matter, the decision whether or to what extent to exercise the powers in the new clause will rest entirely with Scottish Ministers. Likewise in Wales, responsibility rests with the National Assembly for Wales.
  The only significant changes made to the general functions of the commission are made by Lords amendments Nos. 6 and 9. These amendments confer on Scottish Ministers the power to extend the commission's functions in clauses 9 and 12. These are the functions of providing advice and guidance and of undertaking voter education programmes so that they cover local government elections in Scotland. I emphasise again that it is a matter entirely for Scottish Ministers.
  Mr. Grieve: We welcome the amendments. We welcome especially the fact that measures have been introduced to allow the Scottish Executive and Parliament, if they so wish, to sign up. We discussed the matter in Committee, and it seemed to make eminent sense. This is an example of the Government having listened carefully to various representations, and the Bill has undoubtedly been improved in the process.
  Mr. Salmond: It is interesting that the Minister gracefully introduced the Scottish sections of the amendments but without substantial explanation. That makes it all the more surprising that a Scottish Officer is not present to explain them, in addition to the Home Office Minister. One of the Ministers in the Scotland Office, whose functions and roles are hard to define now, might have come along to add his or her voice to those of Scottish colleagues.
  We have been told by the Minister that these are matters for the Scottish Executive and Scottish Ministers in Edinburgh. That is of scant consolation when the same Ministers and the same Executive have recently changed unilaterally the date of the next Scottish local government elections. It is the first change of its nature, without consultation, that I can remember in recent political history.
  I shall focus on the role of Scottish Ministers and that of the Electoral Commission in taking on board the Scottish role and Scottish sensitivities. I advance the argument that the amendments take us down the wrong track. We should be following the track that would lead to a separate Scottish electoral commission. We have had some experience of an electoral commission functioning. There was a voluntary commission, chaired by Professor Anthony King, which supervised the Scottish elections last year. It tried to bring into effect the recommendations of the Neill committee. It provided for the first time some of the measures that are outlined in the Bill in terms of disclosure of donations to the various political parties.
  I have here the returns relating to various political parties, as contained in the disclosures. They show why the Government have chosen to go down the wrong road of trying to make a UK electoral commission sensitive to Scottish issues, when the right road would have been to create a separate Scottish electoral commission.
  The returns show that, of the major donations to the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party, two came from London, two from Doncaster, and one each from Essex and Birmingham. The returns for the Scottish Labour party show that four substantial donations came from London, and one from Kent.

  1051
  Most remarkable are the returns for the Scottish Liberal Democrats. They show that out of total donations of £216,500 made in the course of the Scottish election campaign, no less than £200,000 came from the Liberal Democrat party's London headquarters in Cowley street. The only donation from Scotland that the party managed to raise in the entire election campaign was £16,500 from Mr. Maitland Mackie, of Rothienorman in Aberdeenshire. That gentleman produces excellent ice cream, and had the distinction of running a poor third to my good self in Banff and Buchan in the election. It hardly seems that his money was well invested.
  I make that point to show that, if the Government's logic were consistent, they would establish a separate Scottish electoral commission. The logic of the Government—although not of the Neill Committee—as set out in the Bill is that the qualification for being a donor is to be on the electoral register. Applying that logic to a Scottish election means that there should be a Scottish electoral commissioner making sure that all donors to parties in a Scottish election should be on the Scottish electoral register.
  The Government may have chosen not to go down that path with the Bill for a number of reasons. Perhaps they want to maintain the subsidies that the London branches of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties give to their Scottish appendages. Those party appendages might be called subsidy junkies, but they are the only ones that exist in Scotland.
  Mr. Brady: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's remarks with interest. Has his own party ever received significant donations from any famous actors who, for tax purposes, were not resident in Scotland?
  Mr. Salmond: My party has declared the donations that it has received from Mr. Sean Connery—
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Sir Sean Connery.
  Mr. Salmond: Discussing the process by which Mr. Connery eventually became Sir Sean Connery could take me down a completely different path. However, we disclosed the contributions that he made voluntarily, and we are proud of that. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is wrong to suppose that Sir Sean Connery does not pay tax in this country: on the contrary, he pays tax on his earnings in this country. I was going to say that I estimate that he probably pays a lot more in tax than all Labour Members combined, but the truth is that he probably pays more than all hon. Members in total.
  My party has always argued that people who openly declare an interest—as Sir Sean certainly has in Scotland—should be absolutely entitled to give donations to the political party of their choice. Furthermore, I can assure the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West that that was the opinion of Lord Neill too. I asked him a question on that point in a recorded conversation, and he said that he did not intend to prevent people such as Sir Sean Connery from giving money to the Scottish National party.
  1052
  If the Government intend to prevent that from happening, the Minister representing the Home Office should say so. Any remarks to that effect would get an interesting reception in Scotland, which might even parallel the reception of the Government's previous attempt to deprive Sir Sean of his knighthood.
  If the Government argue that anyone with an interest in Scottish politics should be able to make donations in a Scottish election—as the London offices of the main political parties have done—that would be fair enough. However, the same argument would have to be made about United Kingdom elections and people with a legitimate interest, regardless of whether they were in the European Union or elsewhere in the world. The Government cannot have the bun and the penny. If the qualification is to be on the electoral register, there should be a separate electoral commission for Scotland. We should end the process by which the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are subsidised to the hilt in Scottish elections from their London headquarters.
  8.45 pm
  If the Government want to pursue the argument that these organisations have a legitimate interest in a Scottish election, they must open up the UK process to people with a legitimate interest, as originally proposed by Lord Neill. He did not argue that people had to be on the electoral roll, merely that they could be on the electoral roll as UK citizens if they chose to exercise that right.
  Why does the Minister believe that this attempt to direct Scottish Ministers—to influence a commission to make it more sensitive to Scottish requirements—is a better route to take than having a Scottish electoral commission which will be able to set its requirements under the direction of the Scottish Parliament?
  Mr. Tipping: First, I welcome the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). He has pursued this issue before, and recognises that this is an improvement to the Bill. He said that Scottish Ministers could use the provision "if they so wished". In a sense, that is the essence of the argument—nothing in these amendments prohibits or restricts the Scottish Ministers. This is a purely enabling matter; it will be up to Scottish Ministers whether they take the matter forward.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made a number of points in his interesting contribution. Let me take the underlying point first. He made it clear that things might be done differently in Scotland. I say hooray—that is what devolution is about. If political parties in Scotland have had a good experience with a voluntary electoral commission, we should look, listen and understand.
  My position is clear: I think that this traditional Parliament will have a lot to learn from the new emerging Parliament and Assemblies. There will be differences, and I am not ashamed or surprised to say that eventually the distance between the way in which we work will diverge. In a sense, that is what devolution is about.
  Mr. Salmond: The Minister, in his typically generous and friendly way, is attempting to disarm the argument. The point remains, however, that even if every member of the Scots Parliament voted to establish a separate Scottish electoral commission, that would not be allowed under

  1053
  the discretion in the Bill. The discretion applies not to establishing a separate commission but to affecting the commission prescribed in the Bill. Is that not the case, despite the Minister's generous words?
  Mr. Tipping: That is clearly the case. I was coming to the harder point second. The hon. Gentleman accused me of trying to disarm him; I was giving him the soft punch before the hard punch. The hard punch is quite clear—the bulk of the commission's work is around reserved matters. That is why we have chosen to go this way.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is not the power in the Bill for an electoral commission for Scotland. If I were to look into my crystal ball, I think that I would see us returning to this discussion at some point in time. The hon. Gentleman's party might want to discuss the speed and rate of change and movement towards that objective.
  I cannot satisfy the hon. Gentleman any further. These are discretionary matters. The Scottish Ministers can ask the commission to act in local government matters but there is no prospect, as the hon. Gentleman clearly recognises—and as the Bill recognises, because these are reserved matters—for a separate electoral commission for Scotland.
  Mr. Salmond: If the qualification for being a donor is inclusion on the electoral register, is there not an anomaly if, in a Scottish election, a person is not required to be on the Scottish electoral register in order to be a dominant donor to three of the political parties in the House?
  Mr. Tipping: At the end of the day, Scottish elections are a matter for the Scottish Parliament and for the Scottish parties; it is not a matter for Westminster. The Bill is about establishing the Electoral Commission. My strong point to the hon. Gentleman—as he clearly realises—is that the bulk of the commission's work will be on reserved matters.
  Mr. Salmond: The Minister's views and mine are going to diverge. The Bill is not merely about establishing an Electoral Commission; it sets out in statute who is and who is not a qualifying donor. As the Bill states that a qualifying donor must be on the electoral register, will the Minister tell us why, in a Scottish election, a person is not required to be listed on the Scottish electoral register?
  Mr. Tipping: The amendments are about the Electoral Commission. That is what we are discussing. The Electoral Commission's work is on reserved matters. I realise that I cannot satisfy the hon. Gentleman on that point, although he clearly understands the situation. Things will change over time. I suspect that, as devolution continues, such matters will be re-examined—indeed I have no doubt about that. Whether we shall ultimately reach the point that the hon. Gentleman wants—and at what speed—is a matter for the crystal ball of other people.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 25 agreed to, one Special Entry.

Clause 20
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 33, 40, 41, 46 to 51, 53 to 55, 57, 61 and 62, 68 and amendment (a) thereto, 69, 71 and amendments (b) and (a) in lieu thereof, 73 to 79, 81 to 83, 97 and 131, 132 and amendment (a) in lieu thereof, 133 and amendments (a) to (g) thereto, 134, 142, 149, 213, 214, 218, 265, 267, 329, 333, 339, 343, 345, 376 to 378, 380, 390, 407, 436, 437, 487, 488, 541, 542 and 642.
Mr. O'Brien: The changes made by this group of amendments to the arrangement for the registration of political parties are primarily the result of the special provisions made for Northern Ireland in clause 65. Accordingly, to understand the amendments, it may be of help to the House if I set out why the Bill contains such special provisions.
I realise, of course, that some hon. Members will have concerns about certain aspects of the provisions that we are discussing. I understand that; on many Northern Ireland issues, it is extremely difficult to secure agreement across the spectrum of opinion in that part of our country. In those circumstances, Parliament must always consider the arguments with great care, to try to find a way—honestly and with integrity—to establish a set of provisions that can command support in the House.
In an ideal world, we should not need special provisions for Northern Ireland parties. However, as the House and Northern Ireland know, we have to face the realities of politics in Northern Ireland. It is undoubtedly true that the peace process has made several welcome advances since the Neill committee reported in October 1998, but the special factors identified by the committee have not disappeared during the intervening two years.
The Committee considered at some length the impact in Northern Ireland of its proposals for the disclosure of donations of more than £5,000 and the ban on foreign funding. At the Committee's public hearings in Belfast, it heard evidence on disclosure from both sides of the community that, notwithstanding the Good Friday agreement, it would be unsafe to disclose the names of donors to Northern Ireland political parties.
Public disclosure of donations would be likely to have one of two consequences. The first possibility is that donors might face intimidation, discrimination or worse. The second and perhaps more likely possibility is that party supporters would simply stop making donations for fear of the consequences. I emphasise that such fears were voiced by nationalists and Unionists. John Stephenson of the SDLP told the Neill committee:
You should be aware that already many potential donors to political parties here do not donate due to fear. Even with the huge endorsement of the Good Friday Agreement, the problem with public declaration will still exist.
That is reported at paragraph 6548 of volume II of the Neill committee report.

1055
Much the same sentiments were expressed by Jack Allen of the Ulster Unionist Council. At paragraphs 6667 and 6717 of the Neill committee report, he said:
Over a number of years, because of the political situation in Northern Ireland, people did not want to be identified with political parties… because of the risk factor in Northern Ireland…We are happy enough to put forward those people who give us donations of £5,000 or more but it would be important for them that it was kept private or confidential to an electoral committee or something like that, rather than be made public in the press.
Such considerations appear to have led the Neill committee to recommend a temporary exemption from the reporting requirement for donations made to political parties in Northern Ireland.
The committee separately considered the effect of a ban on foreign funding in the context of Northern Ireland. They concluded that citizens of the Republic of Ireland must be able to continue to make donations to parties in Northern Ireland. They took the view that it was consistent with both the Ireland Act 1949 and the Good Friday agreement for Irish citizens to be able to contribute to Northern Ireland parties. As a result, the Neill committee recommended that
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 1997.
We have run with the spirit, rather than the letter, of that recommendation.
We concluded first that it would not be practicable to require a United Kingdom party to satisfy itself that a donor complies with legislation in a separate state. Secondly, it is the Government's view that such a safeguard would not amount to much. The Neill committee recognised that there could be no effective way to prevent funds from outside the republic, where there is no ban on foreign donations, from reaching parties in Northern Ireland. It would be pointless to imagine that confining the exemption to citizens of the republic would prevent donations from the United States or elsewhere reaching parties in Northern Ireland.
In the light of that very clear analysis by the Neill committee, the Government remain firmly of the view that Northern Ireland parties should be exempt from the controls on donations in part IV for an initial period of four years. We fully accept that any such exemption should be regularly reviewed. That is why we tabled amendment No. 128 in another place to limit to four years the duration of any order made under clause 65.
Having concluded that there is a continuing need for those special provisions for Northern Ireland, it was necessary to find a satisfactory definition of a Northern Ireland party. The Bill as introduced in the House defined a Northern Ireland party as a registered party with either one or more Members of the House elected for a Northern Ireland constituency, or with one or more members elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. We recognise that that definition is too narrowly drawn.
Any registered party that contests elections in Northern Ireland should be able to benefit from the exemption from the provisions in part IV. In extending the definition of a Northern Ireland party for the purposes of clause 65, we need to ensure that a party that operates throughout the
1056
United Kingdom does not use the exemption from the controls on donations that will operate in Northern Ireland to circumvent a ban on foreign funding operating in the rest of the United Kingdom.
9 pm
If we simply provided that any party or part of a party operating in Northern Ireland was exempt from controls on donations, a Northern Ireland constituency association of a United Kingdom-wide party could accept a foreign donation and pass it to its London headquarters. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) alluded to that possibility during our consideration of the Bill earlier this year.
To guard against Northern Ireland parties acting as a conduit for foreign donations making their way to Great Britain, it has been necessary to create what has been called a fire wall between parties operating in Northern Ireland and those operating in the rest of the United Kingdom. The majority of the amendments in this group are primarily dedicated to that end. They provide for the existing register of political parties maintained by Companies House to be replaced by the new registers—one for parties contesting elections in Great Britain and one for those contesting elections in Northern Ireland. Any UK-wide party would need to be on both registers. The fire wall to which I referred is provided by amendment No. 128, which prevents a party on the Great Britain register from accepting a donation from a party on the Northern Ireland register.
The changes in the registration scheme also deal with what has been referred to as the Scottish Green party problem. Owing to the way in which the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 operates, the Scottish Green party, which is separate from the Green party in England and Wales, has been unable to register. Under the new registration scheme, a party registered on the Great Britain register could confine its registration to one or two parts of Great Britain. Another party with a similar name could then register in the other part of Great Britain.
The circumstances in Northern Ireland have required this Parliament to accept less than entirely satisfactory solutions to complex problems. We appreciate that some people would have preferred other options. We have, as honestly and straightforwardly as we could, tried to provide laws that deal with the particular circumstances of the political funding of parties in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I commend the amendments to the House.
Mr. MacKay: You will have noted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there are amendments in my name and those of the Leader of the Opposition and of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), on behalf of the Ulster Unionists, on the amendment paper. We can outline our position simply and straightforwardly. Wherever possible, Northern Ireland should be treated exactly the same as the rest of the United Kingdom. It is part of the UK and the Belfast agreement, which we support, underpins that fact. So, for electoral purposes, it should be treated in the same way as the rest of the UK.
We would always need to be persuaded of any change from what is the law in Scotland, England and Wales. We are persuaded in respect of disclosure. As the Minister pointed out, and as the evidence submitted in Belfast confirms, there is a potential security danger in identifying

1057
donors to certain political parties. Doing so might put those people at risk. While there is still a terrorist threat in Northern Ireland and there is still violence, it is important that full disclosure, which we would normally prefer, does not apply to Northern Ireland.
We see no reason for foreign donations to be allowed in Northern Ireland when all the main political parties in the House have agreed—following the Neill recommendations—that they are no longer appropriate. As the Minister knows, the Conservative party stated clearly, ahead of Neill, that it would no longer accept donations from overseas. We believe passionately that that approach should be adopted in the rest of the United Kingdom, including by all the Northern Ireland parties. With the greatest respect to the Minister, he said nothing in his opening remarks to persuade me or my colleagues that we should take a different view.
I regret to reach the conclusion that members of the Northern Ireland Office have put pressure on the Home Office to ensure that exemptions are available for Northern Ireland political parties. They have done so as yet another sop to Sinn Fein-IRA. Make no mistake about it, the sole reason for treating Northern Ireland differently is so that Sinn Fein-IRA and others can receive dirty money from the United States of America. I believe that that is wrong.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacKay: I will when I have finished my point, because the hon. Gentleman knows a lot about this money.
I believe strongly that Sinn Fein should be treated in exactly the same way as every other party in the United Kingdom. It claims to be now a non-violent party, and I hope that that is true and that it will fully implement the Belfast agreement, which it is not doing at the moment. If it wishes to be considered by the House and other observers as part of the body politic and as a proper political party in the United Kingdom, it should have the same rules applied to it as apply to all the other parties in the House.
Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman referred to dirty money. To whom is he applying his remarks? Is he suggesting that they apply to the SDLP and also to the other nationalist parties that are represented in the House and that have obtained funds from the United States? He must be careful about the terms that he uses and about the implications that they have for the United States Administration. The United States has been most careful and scrupulous under both Republican and Democrat Administrations to ensure that no money to support violence comes from the United States.
Mr. MacKay: If the hon. Gentleman really believes that there is no money flowing out of the United States to support paramilitaries—both republican and so-called loyalist—he is a less close observer of the scene than he claims. There is absolutely no doubt about it; it is beyond refutation. Successive Republican and Democrat American Governments have done their best to persuade fund raisers not to pass money on, but he, I and the House know that it happens. Money that comes from the United
1058
States to Sinn Fein, the IRA, the Real IRA and various so-called loyalist paramilitary parties and their terrorist associates is, in my view, dirty money. I know that the overwhelming majority of American citizens, the American Government and the overwhelming majority of Members of Congress are deeply embarrassed and appalled that this money comes. Many of them have done valiant work to try to ensure that it is not channelled in that way.
Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the point that I made about moneys going to the SDLP and elsewhere. How does he define "dirty money"? He has used a very broad brush. He should be more specific, giving us examples of cases and so on. He is condemning not only political parties in Ireland, but the American Administration for failing in their duties.
Mr. MacKay: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman failed to listen. Perhaps if I spell out my reply again in more simple terms and a little more slowly, he might pick it up this time. I clearly said that I believe that money that flows from America to paramilitary organisations and their political associates—Sinn Fein, the so-called loyalist paramilitaries and others—is dirty, tainted money. It embarrasses the American Administration, the overwhelming majority of Congressmen and the overwhelming majority of the American public. I said that last time, and I have said it again. The hon. Gentleman is at last nodding, so finally I am getting through.
Mr. McNamara rose—
Mr. MacKay: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not listen more attentively to what I said originally and to my reply. Anybody reading Hansard will see clearly what I said.
Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman address specifically the point about the SDLP—I hope that I said that slowly enough for him—and say that he is not defining that as dirty money from the United States?
Mr. MacKay: I am happy to do so. I never mentioned the SDLP and 1 specifically defined those whom we were discussing. Everybody knows who those are. Everybody is aware that dirty money comes, particularly from the east coast of America, through to paramilitary and related parties. That money is bad money. By agreeing to the Bill tonight, we will encourage that money to flow—
Mr. John McDonnell: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that any donation to Sinn Fein is dirty money?
Mr. MacKay: When the IRA has been committing awful atrocities in this country, any donation to Sinn Fein is most certainly dirty money. I am delighted to respond to the hon. Gentleman. I could not make that clearer. I thought that I had made it clear right from the beginning.
I was responding to the Minister and asking him to reconsider and understand why we believe that parties in Northern Ireland should be treated in exactly the same way as parties elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

1059
I cannot but believe that the measure is another sop—another appeasement of republicans and so-called loyalist paramilitary groups. It is a huge mistake. As has been seen in the past, the more we give, the more they take. That process has not built confidence in the Belfast agreement, which we supported. If we go ahead tonight and treat Northern Ireland differently, the great majority of people in Northern Ireland will again feel that they have been let down and are being treated differently.
A further comfort measure and a sop will have been given to the men of violence. That is harmful to the process that the Minister and I very much wish to move forward. He should consider again tonight whether it is wise to treat Northern Ireland differently. We strongly believe that it is not.
I shall deal briefly with the funding of referendums. We believe that the same should apply as applies to political parties. Referendums will take place from time to time—inevitably, in Northern Ireland, on the border. That used to be called the border poll. We believe that money should not flow in from abroad for that referendum. That would be a great mistake.
The same applies to United Kingdom-wide referendums, which will have as much impact in Northern Ireland as elsewhere. Neill has been clear that, for referendums, it would be wrong for overseas money to be used. We believe that there should be consistency.
I end as I started, by saying that Northern Ireland should be treated in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. Those of us, including the Minister and me, who support the Belfast agreement and passionately want the process to work would do a favour to that process if we treated all the parties in Northern Ireland in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. To do otherwise would further undermine the process.
Mr. Trimble: It was clearly signalled during the debate on the allocation of time motion that this was likely to be the most significant topic for discussion and the most significant group of amendments. As has been suggested in the discussion so far, on the part both of the Government and of the Opposition, this group of amendments essentially deals with Northern Ireland, although a few other matters are covered. In light of that fact, it is remarkable that no representative of the Northern Ireland Office is on the Treasury Bench. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made a similar point when we discussed an earlier group of amendments. I sympathised with his comment then, but it applies in spades to the serious issues covered by these amendments. I venture to suggest that Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office have fled the field because they are well aware of the weakness of the Government's argument. They have passed what is a poor brief on to Home Office Ministers and left them to manage as best they can.
9.15 pm
Members of different Opposition parties referred in our earlier debate to the emollient character of the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North
1060
Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), is hoping that he will get away with imitating his hon. Friend's manner, especially given the structure of his argument: he began with the one aspect of the Government's policy that has substance or ground for defence, but as he gradually moved away from that and got towards the enormity of the final result, he quickly speeded up and dashed to the finishing line in the hope that no one would notice the weakness of the arguments.
The one part of the Government's argument with any merit is the problem that the continuing threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland poses for donors who are identified. They might be intimidated or be reluctant to contribute, with the consequence that the political process in Northern Ireland—and certain parties in particular—would suffer. We understand that concern, and the Under-Secretary was right to mention it. In our evidence, my party and others drew attention to that problem, but we proposed a modest solution. We suggested that the identity of the donor should be disclosed only to the commission; it would go no further and would not be published.
We are prepared to trust the commission even though we are aware of the danger of official bodies being penetrated by the agents of terrorist organisations for the purpose of obtaining information that would enable them to threaten people. We are prepared to have a degree of disclosure that would satisfy the public need without exposing people to risk.
Rather than a solution that is proportionate to the reality of the problem, however, we have been given a set of proposals that is wholly disproportionate, which leads me to suspect that there is another reason for the measure. I am pretty certain that the genuine problem of likely intimidation or scaring off of donors has been used as an excuse to do something wholly different—to set in place an exceptional set of arrangements for Northern Ireland simply to advantage Irish nationalists.
Let me observe parenthetically that that is discriminatory. It discriminates between nationalist and non-nationalist parties in Northern Ireland, and between nationalist parties in Northern Ireland and nationalist parties in Wales and Scotland. It was said in our earlier debate that the Scottish National party has prominent and well-known donors who are resident outside the United Kingdom for most of the time. There is a Scottish diaspora, a Welsh diaspora and an Irish diaspora. Why is one treated more favourably than another? There is a serious point there.
It is not that I am arguing for further exemptions to be provided for Welsh and Scottish nationalist parties. I am simply pointing out that the Government's proposal is flawed and unfair and treats people unequally. As the Government's obligations under human rights and related legislation apply throughout the United Kingdom, and as there is an obligation under international law to treat all people within the United Kingdom equally, and as those obligations extend to political participation in elections—
Mr. Salmond: And Governments.
Mr. Trimble: Precisely. In view of those matters, the Government need to think seriously about whether their proposals can be sustained.
What justification has been offered tonight for treating Northern Ireland differently? As has been said, Northern Ireland is being treated in an exceptional manner.

1061
I listened to the Minister and heard two things mentioned—the Ireland Act 1949 and the Belfast agreement of 1998. The Ireland Act is interesting in that it declares that Ireland is not to be treated as a foreign country. That is unusual. The substance of that legislation was that the United Kingdom refused to recognise the independence of the Republic of Ireland. Until then, the Irish free state, as it was then called, was part of Her Majesty's dominions and part of the Commonwealth. In effect, in 1949, the then Labour Government said that they would not recognise that Ireland was different and foreign and that they would treat people from Ireland as if they were British citizens the moment they entered the United Kingdom.
One might wonder whether it is appropriate today to continue to say that we do not really regard the Republic of Ireland as a foreign country, particularly in view of the constitutional provisions in the Belfast agreement, in which there is a recognition that there are two states—the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. From my point of view, one of the good things about the Belfast agreement is the fact that the Republic of Ireland recognises the existence of the United Kingdom and the territorial integrity of the entire United Kingdom. I do not say that one should rush into a precipitate re-examination of all the aspects and ramifications of the Ireland Act, but I do suggest that that is rather shaky ground on which to rely.
I see that desperate efforts have been made to rustle up another Northern Ireland Minister. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), has now staggered through to the Front Bench, but he will have to operate bereft of support from the Northern Ireland Office. No doubt pleas for assistance are proceeding in that direction. My point was that the Ireland Act 1949 is not a particularly good basis for the Home Office to rely on.
The other point on which the Home Office relied was the Belfast agreement. I am at a loss to understand why the Minister believes that there is anything in the Belfast agreement that in any way justifies the treatment of Northern Ireland in this legislation. The Belfast agreement explicitly recognises British sovereignty in Northern Ireland, and that is also recognised by the Republic of Ireland in that agreement. Therefore, there is no clear basis for such treatment.
It is the case that the Neill recommendation was that, in relation 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 of Ireland, subject to compliance with the Republic's local Act. Neill did suggest that the donations should be extended to the Republic of Ireland but no further. Neill did not recommend foreign donations generally. Because of what Neill saw as a problem, and particular circumstances with regard to the Republic of Ireland—a matter on which I disagree—Neill suggested that the Republic of Ireland could be included among permissible sources of donations. The Minister then went on to demonstrate in his argument that the Neill recommendation was unworkable. That is the substance of what the Minister said. He said that it would be impossible for a political party in the United Kingdom to determine whether a donor in the Republic of Ireland that had sent money to it had complied with the Irish electoral
1062
Act. Furthermore, it would be impossible to tell whether money forwarded by a donor resident in the Republic of Ireland was from the Republic or had been laundered elsewhere. The Minister therefore proved that the Neill recommendation is unworkable.
The report made a recommendation which, on closer examination, turns out to be unworkable. The sensible solution would be to drop the recommendation but, having found unworkable a recommendation that was to extend to the Republic of Ireland, the Government have extended it to the whole world. That is wholly incompatible with the spirit of the Neill report. It is wrong of the Government to pray in aid the Neill report, given that they subvert it extensively in their proposals. An attempt was made to dress up as a reasonable argument a wholly unreasonable result. The Government's argument is flawed and thoroughly indefensible.
I accept the views of Members who said that the provision has been introduced simply to benefit Sinn Fein-IRA. Of course it will do that, but in fact it confers more benefit on the Social Democatic and Labour party, which may be why the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was so anxious to defend the SDLP in that context.
Mr. McNamara: And on every issue.
Mr. Trimble: I am interested to see a Labour Member crawl out and say that his object is to defend the SDLP in every context.
Mr. McNamara: Given the SDLP's support for constitutional measures and its derision for people who indulge in violent acts to advance their policies, and given that its members are concerned with social democracy, I would be prepared on any front, on any occasion, to defend the SDLP and other parties that are prepared to do the same thing.
Mr. Trimble: I am happy to have given the hon. Member for Hull, North an opportunity to qualify and limit his blanket support for the SDLP, and to hint that that support might be available to other parties. I am glad that he is broadminded about that and we look forward to evidence of it in his future conduct.
Sinn Fein-IRA undoubtedly benefits from foreign funding, and the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) was completely justified in his comments about that, even though a misleading construction was placed on them. The money that Sinn Fein receives from foreign donations is only a small proportion of its total funding. Indeed, the greater part of its funding is very dirty money derived from racketeering in the British Isles—and possibly elsewhere. It ought to be a principal object of the Government to deal with that racketeering, if only because it produces a loss to the Treasury of at least —200 million per annum. The Government are treating the matter rather jovially, but they ought to tackle that racketeering. In that context, one is sorry to see that, some years ago, they stood down the terrorist finance unit and are only now moving in an extremely dilatory way to redeem their claims that they will act to try to deal with the finances derived from racketeering. They ought to see that the flow of dirty money into the hands of Sinn Fein-IRA and other paramilitary organisations is staunched.

1063
The money that comes to Sinn Fein through declared channels is only a small proportion of its overall funding. By contrast, the money that the SDLP receives from the Republic of Ireland is a significant proportion of its income. However, that does not justify the provision. I say that with full respect to SDLP Members and would repeat it if any of them were in the House tonight. That party contests elections in Northern Ireland. It is organised as a Northern Ireland party and competes with other Northern Ireland parties—mine and others. I believe that I am right in saying that we are entirely dependent on money raised from voluntary membership and donors in Northern Ireland. Finding ourselves competing with parties that raise funds overseas would involve the creation of a very unlevel playing field. That is why I find the proposals extremely objectionable. They have the potential to distort the operation of the democratic process in Northern Ireland.
9.30 pm
My point may become clearer if we consider the position with regard to referendums, to which the provisions will apply. There could be a referendum on Northern Ireland's constitutional future, which we used to call a border poll—a poll to decide whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or become part of the Republic of Ireland. In such a referendum, from which many consequences would flow, my hon. Friends and I, and those in other Unionist parties, would campaign on one side with what limited financial resources we have. And on the other side? Why, the parties and persons arguing for an all-Ireland state would be supported by money from the Irish Government and from other interests in the Republic of Ireland and perhaps further afield. In terms of finance, that would create an extremely unfair situation. I wonder whether the Government have specifically considered that.
I have not followed closely the arguments made in another place, and I do not know whether that point was developed or whether the Government had any answer to it. I want to establish tonight whether they have any clear answer to the wholly unfair situation that would pertain in the event of a border poll. Inevitably, substantial Government money would flow from the Irish Government campaigning for a particular result, but there would not be equivalent assistance on the other side. Or would there? We want an answer from the Government, because that would draw out the unfairness of the proposals.
A further objection goes to the heart of the matter. I referred earlier to my exchange with the Under-Secretary about who said what and when. Way back in June 1998, when my party first gave evidence to the Neill committee on this matter, we made it clear that we wished to be treated in the same way as parties in the rest of the United Kingdom. There is a fundamental point at stake here. Two registers have been created—the GB register and an NI register. Parties that extend to the whole of the United Kingdom are told that, as a matter of law, they must now be chopped in two or treated as two parties and that there will be elaborate controls on the movement of funds and separate reporting requirements. In terms of party organisation, a barrier has been put up
1064
across the Irish sea. We are being treated as if we are not part of the United Kingdom. That is fundamentally wrong and deeply offensive to us. I cannot stress that strongly enough.
Insult was added to injury when, in another place, the noble Lord who has the misfortune to speak for the Government tried to justify the proposals by saying that
politics in Northern Ireland is not yet conducted on quite the same basis as it is in Great Britain.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 October 2000; Vol. 617, c. 246.]
That is an interesting turn of phrase. It suggests that it is rather a bad thing that politics in Northern Ireland is not yet conducted on the same basis as in Great Britain. Furthermore, the phrase "not yet conducted" implies that the speaker wished that it was. That person, who by implication suggests that it is a bad idea that politics in Northern Ireland is not yet conducted on the same basis as in Great Britain and that it would be a good thing if it were so conducted, introduced and defended proposals that will put obstacles in the way, deepen the difference and make resolving that difference more difficult.
I would love politics in Northern Ireland to be conducted on the same basis as in the rest of the United Kingdom. I would like social life generally to be conducted on the same basis as that of the rest of the United Kingdom. I should like the special circumstances that necessitate exceptions in measures in order to protect individuals from threat to disappear. Consequently, my hon. Friends and I must treat with abhorrence provisions that drive a deeper wedge, because they are contrary to the spirit of the agreement that the Under-Secretary prayed in aid when trying to slip the proposals under our noses. The proposals, which are thoroughly bad, are inconsistent with the Good Friday agreement.
Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) spoke as though his party and the situation that he represents were normal in the United Kingdom. They are not. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where a sizeable proportion of the population identifies with a culture and a Government who are different from those of the rest of the United Kingdom. Scottish and Welsh nationalists may support an independent Scotland or an independent Wales, but they do not look to a country that is outside their boundaries. Northern Ireland is different because a large part of the population looks to Dublin as much as an even larger part looks to Westminster.
Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make an unsustainable distinction. There is a separatist party in Northern Ireland and a separatist party in Scotland. I am not sure whether that is true of Wales; I shall leave Welsh Members to speak for themselves. It is therefore baloney to try to distinguish between one lot of separatists and another on the grounds that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. McNamara: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman misses my point. Nationalists in Scotland and Wales look to their own boundaries. However, as a result of events in Ireland in the 1920s—I shall not go into them in great detail—Northern Ireland is different. A group looks outside current boundaries in Northern Ireland to Dublin as the place to which they direct their allegiance, while the current majority offer their allegiance to Westminster. Consequently, legislation to deal with the position in Northern Ireland must be very different.

1065
I mentioned the SDLP earlier. By all accounts, which no one has challenged, that party supports constitutional measures and does not support violence; its members argue for consent. Nevertheless, they do not see the future of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. We have to deal with parties that hold that view. We shall examine that in detail later when we consider another amendment.
On raising money, the SDLP is a small party in the United Kingdom. It does not share the advantages of other parties. Perhaps the Ulster Unionist party does not share them—I doubt that; it has the support of The Daily Telegraph. Nevertheless, the SDLP has a point of view that it must advance. Its members therefore look for support outside the United Kingdom. If we know that the support comes from the Republic of Ireland or the United States, and it is properly monitored and declared, there is no point in our saying that it should not be received.
Irish nationalism has traditionally been able to sustain itself in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries through support from the Irish diaspora.
I agree to some extent with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, in that moneys have been raised by dubious means—through robberies, falsification and fraud. That, of course, should be jumped upon immediately.
I believe that the Government of the United States, and the Governments of many other countries where there is an Irish diaspora, have been active in preventing money from being used to support violence and the incorporation of violence in Northern Ireland or, indeed, the Republic. When countries such as the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Canada use their means to prevent money from being used for the perpetration of violence, they should be supported, as should their populations. If it is for beneficial means, or constitutional means, why should not people be able to support a degree of change in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Robert Walter: Does the hon. Gentleman fundamentally disagree with Lord Fitt, the former SDLP leader who sat in the House of Commons as a representative of that party? He said in the other place the other day:
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…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.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 1119.]
Mr. McNamara: Alas poor Gerry, I know him well. He is still a friend, I hope. I have great admiration for a man who stood up to what Unionism was doing in Northern Ireland in the 1960s and 1970s, and who stood up to the violence perpetrated against him by elements of the provisional IRA. Not a word of what the hon. Gentleman quoted. however, attacks my argument.
I do not believe that the money coming to the SDLP would break the exchequer. Moreover, I believe that at a time when Sinn Fein has been recognised by Her Majesty's Government, and indeed by the Opposition, as a legitimate party in Northern Ireland, and at a time when we are trying to gain support—in different ways—for the continuation of Sinn Fein's constitutional activities, we should not try to confuse the past with the present. We should recognise
1066
the role that some Sinn Fein members are taking, very courageously, in opposing such organisations as Continuity IRA and Real IRA, and trying to ensure that their own organisation honours its undertakings to observe and maintain the ceasefire. Rather than attacking them, the Opposition should support them.
Mr. Salmond: Do the hon. Gentleman's arguments about the legitimacy of donations from the Irish diaspora also apply to the Scottish diaspora?
Mr. McNamara: Yes, and also to the Welsh diaspora.
The real problem in regard to the Bill is that the sleaze, crime and filth that have been associated with all sorts of organisations seeking to influence Government, appointments and decisions have caused a lack of recognition of those in the Scottish diaspora, the Welsh diaspora, the Irish diaspora and, indeed, the English diaspora, who want ordinary, decent politics to be conducted without huge corporations—great organisations—seeking to influence decisions with the money they put into political parties' purses. That applies as much to the Opposition parties as it does to my party. I say as a former sponsored Member of the Transport and General Workers Union that, when we put in our money, we knew where it was going. What is more, everyone else knew where it was going. We do not know at present—it is why the legislation is necessary—what money is going where, who it is seeking to influence and what it will do.
9.45 pm
Mr. Grieve: I take it, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman does not support the main thrust of the Bill. It is designed, with exceptions, to close off foreign funding; there are some odd exceptions, such as European companies.
Mr. McNamara: On balance, I support the Bill, but in dealing on principle with foreign funding from individuals, as opposed to corporate organisations, in some ways we have taken a sledgehammer to prevent, for example, a Scotsman living in Anguilla, an Irishman living in Australia or even an Englishman living in Bermuda from giving something to someone. Sadly, however, foreigners in Hong Kong and in other countries have brought in money—people who are not resident here and have no connection with this country or with the British islands generally have sought to use that money to gain influence. We must support the Bill, but I accept that we are using a broad brush.
Mr. Salmond: I will start with a point of levity, as much of the rest of what I have to say is by no means light-hearted. I was interested in the Minister saying that there was a specific amendment to solve what he called the Scottish Green party problem. Apparently, according to him, it was unable to be registered as a political party in 1998. I find that remarkable because it succeeded in having a Member elected to the Scots Parliament, which is one of the biggest successes that it has ever had, so the obvious lesson that we must draw is that not being registered as a political party did it absolutely no harm.
That is the only point of levity that I can find in the amendments. The Minister described them as less than satisfactory. The Government's solution to the untenable nature of the Neill committee's recommendations with

1067
regard to the Republic of Ireland has produced what is a less than satisfactory solution. He is showing one of the greatest talents for understatement that I have ever seen in the House of Commons. He should go far with that ability if he goes on to higher office. They are not less than satisfactory—they are a total dog's breakfast.
We were told in the guillotine debate that much of the Bill was uncontroversial. This particular aspect succeeded in the other place on Monday by only 167 votes to 148, and only then because the Liberal Democrats in the other place seemed to turn turtle on what the Liberal Democrats had done in this place at earlier stages. If the other place had voted differently, the Government could have found that it was not just the air traffic control issue that was forcing them to a crisis at the end of their legislative programme.
The reason why that aspect of the Bill is so controversial has become obvious in this debate and in the earlier one. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said about the conduct of political parties. He touched on the distinction that we should draw in considering the legitimacy of political parties. The issue should not be the politics of Northern Ireland, or whether the Government want to appease one group or another. It should not even be the politics of Scotland, Wales or England. It should be the nature of the political parties involved. The key qualification in legislation to clean up politics should be the conduct and nature of the political parties—whether they go about their business in a peaceful, democratic and constitutional manner.
What the Government have managed to do in recognising that the Neill committee was untenable is to produce legislation that will make it legal for an expatriate Irishman from the United States or elsewhere to donate money to Sinn Fein—a party that has been associated with violence—but illegal for an expatriate Scot to donate money to the Scottish National party, which has had a 70-year record of impeccable constitutional credentials. How on earth can that be fair, just or right?
If it were the Government's intention to discriminate against the Scottish National party or against Plaid Cymru, they should have said so at the outset, when the legislation was introduced and the Neill committee was formed. Moreover, the Neill committee was formed largely on the basis of the type of open declaration that the Scottish National party has consistently—for generations—supported.
The Government should have said that the committee was being formed not because Ministers were worried about the activities of Asil Nadir, Hong Kong money flowing into the Conservative party, or a million pounds going like a ping-pong ball between Bernie Ecclestone and the Labour party, but to discriminate against the Scottish National party—which, relatively, is one of the most underfunded political parties. As I said, last year we had to compete in an election with United Kingdom, London-subsidised Tory and Labour opponents who were able to spend many times what we were able to spend.
This type of legislation is the most sensitive legislation of all. It encompasses how the political process is conducted. The lesson and the message that the Government are sending out in this part of the legislation is very clear indeed.
1068
I have known Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish for many years. I have known him as John MacKay and debated with him many times, as I am sure you have, Mr. Speaker. I cannot recall many occasions on which I have agreed with him. However, I agreed with him on Monday when he said:
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.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 1114.]
That is an unarguable and uncontestable point. Ministers should be thoroughly ashamed that they are sponsoring this part of the legislation.
Taking a reasonable view of these issues, and accepting that it was not really the Government's intention when establishing the Neill committee—as I said, I have this directly from Lord Neill himself—to discriminate against the world's most famous Scot, by preventing Sir Sean Connery from giving money to the SNP, I simply ask whether the legislation was not intended to clean up Conservative politics and Labour politics.
Even my worst enemy—believe it or not, I have one or two in this place—has never accused the Scottish National party of being subject to bought influence from mysterious donors. The SNP has never been accused, not even by the Labour party, of taking cash for questions or being embroiled in the acquisition of influence. We have arrived at this unjust position because the Government have twisted the Neill committee's recommendations so that they are not only untenable, but discriminatory.
The Government's position is not only unjust, but undemocratic. I agree with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that their position may well be unlawful. I most certainly suspect that it will be tested as such. Every Bill in this place is no longer mistress of its own destiny, but must carry a declaration that it conforms to the European convention on human rights. Consequently, legislation should not be discriminatory between citizens of the state. Are the Government really confident that the legislation, despite carrying that declaration, is not discriminatory in the points that we are discussing? The legislation may well be unlawful.
Even at this very late stage, rather than make a mockery of the Neill committee, our trust in democratic politics and the human rights convention, the Government should think again about this aspect of the legislation.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: The Minister said that it is a slightly unsatisfactory and difficult situation. What is satisfactory is that there are Members in their places who are genuinely willing to listen to the arguments, and, I hope, willing to change their position on the basis of strong arguments. I have such arguments and I am sure that the official Opposition will not feel obliged to oppose what the Government are doing, although what they are proposing is somewhat risky.
The tricky thing about Northern Ireland is that a different sort of politics is involved. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who is sadly not in his place, said, "Wherever possible, Northern Ireland should be treated as part of the United Kingdom." I think that I quote him quite closely. That is absolutely right. I completely agree. I think that no one in the Chamber

1069
would feel otherwise. He also said that he always needs to be persuaded when there is to be a variation from the United Kingdom law. Again, I do not think that anyone in the Chamber would question that.
Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman cited an example salient to the debate where, in his judgment, an exemption was valid, and that was disclosure. We have had an extensive debate about that, and it seems that no one would question the importance of protecting individuals who choose to make financial contributions to political organisations in Northern Ireland, given the specific and particular threats that they might or would experience were their identities to be revealed. That was a clear and current example of an exemption from how things are done in the rest of the United Kingdom.
As I understood it, the right hon. Member for Bracknell drew a distinction between that and the international funding of parties. Although there is no difference in principle over the aspiration to have commonality in political treatment across the United Kingdom, a difference arises when it comes to judgment. In my view there is a justifiable position on pragmatic grounds that international funding should not now be banned or prevented in Northern Irish politics.
I stress that we are not talking about an exemption for Sinn Fein. That point has almost been ignored. It may work out in practice that Sinn Fein and perhaps the Social Democratic and Labour party benefit, but any political party in Northern Ireland can benefit from the exemption. It is not a pedantic point because we must recognise that in practical terms Sinn Fein, and perhaps the SDLP, have managed to secure international funding. That happens to be the reality, but there is nothing to stop any other political party in Northern Ireland from doing the same.
Having agreed that the strategic intent of what the right hon. Members for Bracknell and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) have said is in alignment with the great majority of Members in the Chamber, we need to consider why there may be justification for one area to be handled differently in terms of international funding.
The analysis is different because there is a degree of emotive language, which is difficult to justify when challenged. When the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) challenged the right hon. Member for Bracknell about what he meant by dirty money, it was my perception that there was not a clear response and that there was some shifting of position. There are people in the United States and elsewhere who probably fund organisations that I would not, who do so in the sincere belief that they are supporting the peace process or a certain political aspiration.
It is unhelpful and irrelevant if we describe that funding as dirty money. We already have a mechanism to manage the concept of dirty money. It is called the rule of law, the courts, the police and international legal co-operation. The purpose is to try to hunt out the money that is being gleaned from drug-running and extortion, for example. It is not an absolutely effective technique in the sense that there is dirty money—we all accept that paramilitary organisations on both sides in Northern Ireland have benefited from organised crime. However, that is different from saying that every penny of international money that goes into the Northern Irish political environment is acquired through ill-gotten gains. I believe that a number
1070
of parties in Northern Ireland have benefited from money that has been donated—sincerely—to Northern Irish political organisations.
Leaving aside the obvious connections between the north and the south of Ireland, I maintain that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann was right to point out that nationalist and republican organisations have benefited more from international funding than have unionists and loyalists. However, my second point on this subject is that the political and financial environment would not be distorted by the Bill, which would simply maintain the status quo. That status quo might not be desirable in the long run but it has existed for some time.
My third point has to do with the nature of the funding. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann rightly described the present situation as an imbalance. Although he did not say so in so many words, his implication was that the system favours nationalist and republican political groups.
However, I do not believe that the Bill presents additional obstacles that would make it harder for Northern Ireland to matriculate in the rest of the British political system. Conversely, I believe that it represents the beginning of convergence in an important area: at long last, we are enshrining in law an acceptance that things are different when it comes to political funding in Northern Ireland, compared with the rest of the UK. The crucial point is that we are imposing a time scale during which the situation must be normalised.
It is worth recalling that the Government initially intended to establish a 10-year review period. I hope that Liberal Democrat Members were to some extent influential in reducing that review period to four years. That means that there is a maximum of four years in which the question of international political funding for parties in Northern Ireland must be normalised.
In four years, if the Government want to renew the exemption, they must come to the House and justify that decision, given that allowing it to fall would normalise the situation in Northern Ireland with regard to the rest of the UK. That is a crucial point, as the default position is normalisation and convergence—not the indefinite maintenance of differentiation with regard to the rest of the UK.
Mr. Walter: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House regarding his conversion on the road to Damascus? On Third Reading in March, he and his party leader voted with Conservative Members against the proposals. Has the Liberal Democrat party fundamentally changed its policy on this matter?
10 pm
Mr. Öpik: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Bill's Report stage, rather than Third Reading. What has changed is that the Government have moved on this matter. We have caused them to move from a 10-year review period to one of four years—in other words, we have reduced by six years the period during which convergence should be achieved. Those hon. Members whom I can hear praising the Liberal Democrats for securing that reduction—and they include the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), whom I thank—are right to do so.
Mr. McNamara: I, too, congratulate the Liberal Democrats on that achievement. After the great fury that

1071
Conservative Members displayed on this matter, no Conservative Back-Bench Member is present to support the three hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench. I leave it for the House to decide whether it was secured through boredom or the power of their arguments, but I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on what they have managed to achieve.
Mr. Öpik: No doubt Conservative Back-Bench Members are busy putting out press releases to thank the Liberal Democrats, just as the Scottish National party has done.
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) spoke on Report on 14 March, and set out eloquently why his party took the view that the Conservative party now takes. He said:
I do not want terrorists parties on either side of the argument in Northern Ireland to flourish, but I recognise that a significant amount of funding of some of those parties, on both sides of the divide, comes not from foreign sources but from rampant protection rackets in the Province. There are other sources of money flowing into the political body.
The hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that he would vote against the Government on the amendment that was being debated. How can the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) explain that complete volte-face?
Mr. Öpik: I may be a simple country boy with Estonian parents, but for the second time in seven days I find myself giving official Opposition Front-Bench Members a brief lesson on the politics of third alternatives and evolving a position. The difference between the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats is that sometimes we try to negotiate for a better resolution than the one brought before the House.
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Öpik: I am on a bit of a roll, and I do not want to be interrupted. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for 30 seconds, I will give way to him then.
I recognise that that is a difficult concept for such a confrontational party as the official Opposition to acknowledge. I am here to do whatever is best for Northern Ireland. Sometimes that means developing one's position if, in our judgment, it is in the greater interest of peace in Northern Ireland and, more to the point, it helps it to normalise Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom, according to a time scale. History will show whether we are right or wrong. I do not need to hide that fact, because I have made the point before.
Mr. Grieve: I have noted very carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove actually said of the matter:
This clause is based on the wrong underlying philosophy and the wrong legislative theory.—[Official Report, 14 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 196.]
That seems to have nothing to do with the changes or the cosmetic adjustments presented by Government. Are we to understand that the Liberal Democrats have completely changed their view of the Bill's philosophical basis?
Mr. Öpik: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman is scared of the almost irresistible force of reasonable
1072
politics coming from the Liberal Democrats. However, as the hon. Gentleman is being a little naughty with regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), I will now give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Stunell: It is always good to have one's words of wisdom drawn to the House's attention, not just once but twice. I said very clearly on Report that the proposals then in front of the House were not satisfactory, and we voted against them. Let us be clear: they have been changed and improved on their return to the House. Let us also be clear, however, that the Minister has acknowledged that the change is not the best job that could possibly have been done. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that some progress is better than no progress, and nowhere is that more true than in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Öpik: I cannot say how pleased I am that my hon. Friend is explaining his position and the points that were made on behalf of us all on the previous occasion—an evening when I was busy and unable to be here to influence the debate in person.
Mr. William Thompson: Instead of the hon. Gentleman arguing that we have got a great concession and that there will be a review in four years, not 10, does not he agree that it would have been better for the Minister to come to this House and say that the arrangement will end in four years, after which there will be normality throughout the whole of the United Kingdom? The chances are that when the review takes place, the Government will argue that matters should continue as they are.
Mr. Öpik: There are two answers to that. First, I said that the default position, as I understand it—the unusual and exceptional arrangement, the exemption in Northern Ireland—will fall unless it is reaffirmed by the House. I hope that the Minister will confirm that in his summation.
Secondly, these matters could well be in the Liberal Democrats' hands. There will be an election, at which point I confidently believe that the new Liberal Democrat Prime Minister will consult me, should he provide me with the Northern Ireland Cabinet position that I hanker for, and we will look at it again. However, the serious point—one that the general public should realise too—is that the default position is that this is an interim arrangement and that it will fall unless it is reaffirmed by the House. If that is incorrect, perhaps the Minister will intervene.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: To clarify the matter, the four-year period is an initial one. After that, we want to review the situation; I very much hope that we could move to what the hon. Gentleman describes as a greater default position—to a process of greater convergence. It remains to be seen whether the peace process will enable us to do that.
Mr. Öpik: At the moment, I cannot confirm the exact details in the Bill, but my interpretation of the Minister's response is that that would be the desired outcome. In four years, the Government, whether red, yellow or—conceivably—blue, will have to work extremely hard to justify to the House the idea that international funding for

1073
Northern Irish political parties should continue as it is—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) assures me that in the event of the Conservatives forming a Government, they will not continue it. As they have told me many times that they will win the next general election, I do not know what they are so worried about. If they win, I shall make a lot of money out of Ladbroke.
I have enormous respect for the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. He expressed the justified concern that in a referendum—for example, on the unification of Ireland or the disconnection of Northern Ireland from the UK—there could be an unfair funding bias in favour of those who received international funding; let us assume that it would help the nationalists. That assumes that, between now and such a referendum, the funding arrangement would be maintained.
I do not think that there will be a referendum in four years. In the light of both the debate so far and the Minister's inference, we shall review the arrangement after four years with the presumption of eliminating it. If such a referendum were to be held in about 20 years, there would be five opportunities to eliminate the preferential funding arrangement. I stress that, meanwhile, there is nothing to stop those who are against unification from putting forward their case and receiving international funding to make it.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann expressed the valid concern that the differential in funding arrangements requires slightly different treatment of parties that might otherwise choose to operate UK-wide. That is correct. However, my interpretation of that point is that, at long last, there are convergence criteria; we are recognising present reality, while setting up a process whereby the differences can be resolved and eliminated.
Those people who are concerned about the money imply that the increase in beneficial funding to republicans or nationalists would convince many people to vote for them. However, if I gave the right hon. Member for Bracknell or the hon. Member for Beaconsfield £1 million, I do not think that they would vote for a republican or nationalist party. The general public in Northern Ireland are extremely well informed politically; they tend to make judgments based on their varied points of view.
There has been enormous progress in Northern Ireland. Individuals whose participation in the political process we might never have anticipated have laid down their guns and tried to participate. The objections of the official Opposition are reasonable—these are matters of judgment—but they put an unnecessary and distracting strain on a process that has, to date, shown signs of leading to a lasting peace. History will prove whether we are right.
I respect the views of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, but it is exciting that we at least have the opportunity to resolve the key issues—to park issues such as these and not introduce them now, and make a commitment to return to them in four years. If those of us who accept that the pragmatic outcome of our deliberations should be to leave the funding issue as it is for now and return to it in future are right, history will prove it. If we are wrong, I shall be the first to say so.
1074
10.15 pm
We happen to agree with the Minister on this matter of judgment. We have secured a change. I hope that the Minister accepts that the reduction in the review period from 10 years to four was partly due to Liberal Democrat influence on the Government. We have now chosen to support the Government's proposal. I thank the House for listening to my arguments.
Mr. Walter: I presume the hon. Gentleman is speaking on behalf of the Liberals, who have tabled an amendment in this group. Will he speak to that amendment as well?
Mr. Öpik: If my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he will speak to that amendment, but I am limiting myself to the matters that I have discussed.
I ask those who are not inherently sympathetic to the Government's proposal to think about what we are trying to do. Politics in Northern Ireland is an extremely complicated business, and the proposal deals with the realities, strains and tensions not just between communities, but within them. If we are serious about acting in good faith, once in a while we may have to do what seems out of kilter in the short-term interest; but in my judgment, it will lead to a promising convergence in the long term.
Mr. William Ross: I have listened with interest to the last two or three contributions, but living as I do in Northern Ireland and knowing exactly how such proposals are put into effect there, I shall not use the gentle words that some hon. Members have used in an effort to persuade the House of the rightness of their cause. Frankly, at this stage in the consideration of any Bill, the chances of changing the Government's mind are somewhat less than nil, and we all appreciate that.
The bottom line and philosophy of the Bill was that the Labour party wanted to prohibit the foreign funding of political parties. That is what Labour said, and I believe it was in its manifesto. That is the thesis underlying the Bill, yet an exception is being made that will primarily help Sinn Fein/IRA—a murderous, terrorist and thuggish organisation, which is responsible for many thousands of deaths; for untold misery, damage and pain not only in Northern Ireland, but throughout the kingdom; and for racket after racket, intimidation, violence, beatings, thuggery and mutilation, which continue day by day.
By and large, hon. Members—except those who live in Northern Ireland—await stories about road accidents, mild crimes or something that the Government have or have not done, or problems with their local councils, but when my radio goes on in the morning, the first thing I hear is that a young man of 21 has been beaten up in the night by several people who broke into his house; that a young man has been found shot through the elbow, wrists or knees and found bleeding in an alley; or that someone has been beaten up. That is terrorism in action, and it does not happen once a week or once a month, but every flipping morning.
The Government tell me that we must make a concession, but we all know that the concession is being made at the behest of Sinn Fein/IRA. The concession is nothing more nor less than a capitulation to its demands, backed up by its weapons, its thuggery and its willingness

1075
to return to violence if it does not get what it wants. For that reason in this matter, as in others, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends would prefer it if Northern Ireland parties were part of the United Kingdom system.
If the Government really want to know what to do, the Minister should consider the fact that the Bill contains a system called "accounting units", which could have been used in constructive, clever fashion to enforce the law and make Northern Ireland parties ring-fence their accounts. Primarily, Sinn Fein, which claims to be an all-Ireland party, could be made to ring-fence its accounts in the United Kingdom. Perhaps that would not stop the inflow of money from the rackets and intimidation and the money that is collected by folk rattling boxes on street corners in Boston. A friend of mine lives there. He told me that some years ago he was accosted in the street and asked to give a dime to shoot a British soldier.
That is the reality of where that dirty, bloody money comes from and what the money handed over into the boxes and in pubs and raised in all Sinn Fein/IRA's fund-raising activities is aimed at. It is aimed at changing the constitution and the territory of this nation—at diminishing the area of this nation and the writ of law. Ministers and many Labour Members exhibit a total unwillingness to understand that reality and to do what is necessary to thwart the activities of those people.
We should demand clarity about where money entering the United Kingdom political system from abroad comes from—not necessarily by publishing names, although the Opposition have tabled an amendment that would accomplish that. We could have a secret register if we wished. At least those in authority would have some idea of what was going on. Perhaps that could be done. I would prefer more clarity and transparency, but that said, 1 would be satisfied with that solution.
Where does most of the Sinn Fein/IRA money come from? My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred to the amount of money that the Social Democratic and Labour party got and the fact that the proportion of Sinn Fein/IRA money coming from abroad was quite small. Where does the rest of it come from? It comes from rackets and drugs, but above all from fuel smuggling.
This week, I received a written answer to a parliamentary question from the Minister responsible. The question was: what was the Chancellor's estimate of the loss to the Revenue as a consequence of fuel smuggled into Northern Ireland? I was referred to a written answer given on 20 March, which said that the loss was estimated to have been £100 million in 1998. Am I to understand from that answer that the Government have cravenly decided not to estimate the loss in 1999, never mind in 2000? That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the answer. The Government do not know what the loss to terrorism due to fuel smuggling is, and they do not want to know. If the loss were determined and became public knowledge, there would be an outcry in the House, in newspapers and throughout the country about the amount going straight into the hands of terrorist organisations which is used not only for political, but for all sorts of matters.
1076
A large Mafia-type society has been created as a result of Government willingness—it did not start with this Government, I regret to say—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should deal with the amendments. They have nothing to do with the criminal element in society; they concern political parties.
Mr. Ross: I appreciate what you are saying, Mr. Speaker, but there is a fine line. I think that "inextricably linked" is the term that is applied to Sinn Fein/IRA, so what is political and what is terrorism in that respect?
Rev. Martin Smyth: Has my hon. Friend noticed that one hon. Member said that Sinn Fein had turned away from violence? Does he remember that when a bomb was apprehended in County Fermanagh, the local councillor said that the council was not in the process of condemnation?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) are straying from the matters in hand. We are considering the Lords amendments.
Mr. Ross: I accept that, Mr. Speaker, but my hon. Friend has drawn attention to political links and to the political protection that Sinn Fein offers to the terrorist organisation to which it is inextricably linked. In those circumstances, the links are not just terrorist but political.
I have said enough about fuel smuggling and the amount of money that is lost through that. If the Minister thinks that it is a laughing matter, perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not. The Chancellor could do quite a lot with the £100 million, £200 million, or God knows how many hundreds of millions that have gone missing. However, the money is not really missing; someone has got it. I conclude my remarks on this issue, but we shall return to it time and again in other debates until we get a sensible answer or, more importantly, sensible action from the Government.
The Conservative party tabled amendment (a) in lieu of amendment No. 132, which would mean that the exemption will apply not to all Northern Ireland parties, but only to some of them. When the Minister moved the amendments, I thought that he was trying to tell us that all the parties would be covered. However, clause 65(2) says that a Northern Ireland party means:

(a) a registered party of which one or more members are members of the Northern Ireland Assembly; or

(b) a registered party of which one or more members are Members of the House of Commons elected for constituencies in Northern Ireland.

So if one starts a new party, one is not covered. One would have to declare the donations made to it and produce the facts and figures. If that is true for new parties, why should it not be true for existing ones? That is another inequity to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who spoke for the Scottish National party, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann referred.
The Minister mentioned the four-year period. However, as he well knows, that involves the pious hope that the provision will not be necessary at the end of four years.

1077
In reality, at 11 or 12 o'clock one evening, an order will be introduced in the Chamber that will be accepted on the nod. The period will be extended for another four years, and then for another four years after that. It is an endless process. The arrangement will not end after four years. It is one of those temporary arrangements that tend to become permanent.
The way out of the problem is to ring-fence the United Kingdom for the purposes of this part of the Bill. We should treat Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland as an accounting unit. Although I would not be prepared to go to court to stand by any figures that it produced—I do not trust it that far—we should try our best to make the financing of that party as transparent as possible so that we have an idea about where it and other parties get their money from. It would be interesting to find out whether other Governments are funding the parties. Many people in Northern Ireland would like to have a clear idea of where the various nationalist parties receive their money from. Above all, the real solution to the problem is to destroy terrorism, not to give in to it.
Mr. Stunell: This group contains about 60 amendments, and the majority of them do not relate to Northern Ireland. I hope that the House will not mind if I address my remarks to two other issues. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) had the opportunity to speak on Northern Ireland on this occasion, just as I know that he was delighted that I had the opportunity to speak about it on Report.
I draw the House's attention to amendment No. 39 and to several related amendments. The Minister will recall that, in the House and in Committee, I drew his attention to the grave difficulties that the Bill's original drafting had for the Liberal Democrats, as a federally organised and structured party.
I pointed out that in the form in which it then was, the Bill would have made it illegal for a political party to practise federalism. Although I accept that it is not popular to be federalist, for us that is a philosophical concept that we are keen to maintain. I acknowledge that, despite the bafflement of the Minister, the Committee and various civil servants at one time or another, my noble Friends at the other end of the building have worked with the Minister to produce sensible ways forward on the issue.
10.30 pm
I know that federalism is still misunderstood, but at least it is now not illegal for a political party. It will still be somewhat clumsy for us to operate, but as we made clear from the beginning, we are keen to implement the legislation fully and comprehensively and seek no special loopholes. All we sought was a structure that allowed us to practise our federal principles. I thank the Minister for moving some way to allow us to do that.
I shall comment on amendment No. 71 and the related amendments, which were the subject of the intervention by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). These amendments deal with the funding of the transitional arrangements, and the amount of money that could, should or might be made available for political parties to implement the changes.
The situation is complex. When the Bill left this place on its way to the House of Lords, £500,000 was the ceiling of the transitional amount available. In the other
1078
place, that ceiling was raised to £700,000. We have before us three proposals, two from the Conservatives—one that the ceiling should revert to £500,000, and another that would reduce it to nil but allow access to an electronic register—and one from my right hon. and hon. Friends and me, which would raise the ceiling to £1 million. As far as I know, the Government still have on the table the sum of £700,000, so there are four figures—zero, £500,000, £700,000 or £1 million—as the possible ceiling for the transitional spending.
The Liberal Democrat view is that implementing the Bill will entail significant transitional costs for all the mainstream political parties. The Bill is drawn in such a way that the money is not dished out willy-nilly. It is to be paid only against claims for actual spending, so it will be necessary for any political party to justify the sum that it is claiming against actual activity completed.
Why is transitional spending necessary? The first reason is that the Bill requires quick implementation. The Government want it in place for the general election, and the political parties are anxious to make sure that various loopholes are blocked. The provisions must be implemented carefully, as they entail many snags, difficulties and novelties for all the main political parties, which are essentially based on volunteer effort.
In Committee we spoke a good deal about the volunteer nature of politics; that applies as much to the Conservative and Labour parties as to the Liberal Democrats, and no doubt to others. We are not, on the whole, a professionalised and fully paid party. That is certainly the case at the constituency and branch level. We will need quick, careful implementation in hundreds of locations throughout the country by volunteers with different skills and qualifications. To ensure all that, we will require training and equipment, and careful deployment of resources.
If we had two years to implement the Bill, the transitional costs might be less, the training burden might be smaller and some equipment might be acquired as part of the normal replacement programme. However, that is clearly not the case, so we were keen for the House to consider the ceiling imposed by the Bill. We certainly agree with the increase that the House of Lords has introduced, and we have tabled an amendment that would place an even higher ceiling on the amount. Judging by events so far this evening, that amendment will not come to the attention of the House for a vote. However, I want to make it clear that we support the transitional arrangements and believe that they are an important and valuable way of ensuring that the Bill is implemented quickly, effectively and accurately throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Walter: We have had a serious debate about the Northern Ireland provisions, and latterly we have come on to other subjects that were dealt with in a point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) earlier today when he said that the order of amendments is not always especially logical. Amendment No. 71, which I am sure we will come to vote on later, after amendment No. 70, must be debated now. In a moment, I shall sum up the position on the amendments affecting Northern Ireland, but I shall deal first with amendment No. 71 and the amendments in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

1079
I correct the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who said that our amendments would reduce the figure for assistance to zero. They would bring it down to £500,000, which was the Bill's original provision.
There is a serious point here. The Bill will require all political parties to verify that all donations over £200 come from permissible sources, and that will place a heavy burden on political parties. The Bill will require them to verify that the individual donor appears on an electoral register. That might sound simple enough, but it is not, because there are hundreds of electoral registers throughout the country which are handled by different electoral registration officers.
My party raised the issue with the Home Office in June when we wrote to ask what plans it had
to provide parties both locally and nationally with a central, collated and up-to-date version of the electoral register.
On 11 August, the Home Office responded positively and said that it was working with the Association of Electoral Administrators to commission a study. It said that it would keep us in touch with developments.
We then realised that the Labour party had also written to the Home Office on the subject. It had received a reply dated 3 October, which is in the public domain and was copied to us. It said:
The simplest solution would be some form of "on line" access so that parties and the Electoral Commission could check whether a donor was on a register when the donation was made.
The letter continued:
The aim would be to have such a system in place for next October—
that is, October 2001. Unfortunately, the restrictions on donations will come into force eight or nine months before that. We look to the Minister to reassure us or to accept our amendment (a), which would replace amendment No. 71.
I come now to our interesting debate on the amendments affecting Northern Ireland. In response to the Under-Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), in a moving speech, made the point that Northern Ireland political parties should be treated on an identical basis with parties in the rest of Great Britain. We had a key speech, particularly on the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers, from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionists, who went on to express his concerns about referendums.
The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) gave a rather unacceptable justification for the separate treatment of Northern Ireland political parties. Then we had what I can only describe as a slightly amusing contribution from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) about the anomalous position of expatriate Scots compared with the expatriate Irish, which he saw as discrimination, particularly against the Scottish National party, a matter which led him to threaten to take the Bill to the European Court of Human Rights because he felt that it was unjust. I look forward to that action.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman will have studied the proceedings in the other place and he will be fully
1080
aware that I was repeating an argument used not just by Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish, but by Lord Rees-Mogg, who I think carries the Tory Whip in the other place. The hon. Gentleman is aware of that, is he?
Mr. Walter: I am informed that Lord Rees-Mogg is a Cross-Bencher, but Lord MacKay led for the Opposition on the matter. As I and some of my hon. Friends have pointed out throughout, the Bill contains enormous contradictions when it comes to the human rights convention. They will be tested, particularly in referendums, when foreigners will be able to spend as much as they like, while poor British people will be limited by this legislation.
We then moved on to what I can only describe as the completely contradictory position of the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) told us that he supported the Government position. On Report, when the Opposition disagreed with the Northern Ireland provisions, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove said:
I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter).
He went on to say:
The Government have finally bitten the bullet and, through this Bill, have introduced provisions that will control national expenditure on elections. It is perverse therefore that we should say that there is one part of the United Kingdom where we cannot find a way of getting on top of the problem and that we need clause 63—
as it then was—
to run away from it. This clause is based on the wrong underlying philosophy and the wrong legislative theory.—[Official Report, 14 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 195-6.]
I leave the House to decide where, at the end of the day, the Liberal Democrats—
Mr. Öpik: In that case, is the hon. Gentleman opposed to the fact that we have achieved some form of convergence criteria in the four-year upper limit?
Mr. Walter: I shall come to that in a moment, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient.
We had a passionate speech from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) about real life on the ground in Northern Ireland, and I was delighted with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, who, in Committee, supported the Opposition on many issues.
Opposition amendments (c) and (d) to Lords amendment No. 133 concern the four-year limit that has just been raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. I refer the Minister to a statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office when we raised the matter in Committee and tabled an amendment that would have restrict any exemption made by the Secretary of State to a period of not more than 12 months. The Parliamentary Secretary said:
I do not discount the period suggested in the amendment, but I would ask the Committee to reject it at this stage, so that we may see what emerges from the discussions.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 27 January 2000; c. 183.]
10.45 pm
The spokesman for the Liberal Democrats in the other place was Lord Goodhart, who had been a member of the

1081
Neill committee and had detailed knowledge of the matter. The Neill committee originally proposed a statutory four-year maximum exemption period, but Lord Goodhart came round to our view that we should look at a one-year period. We have had a lot of discussions and there has been much cross-party discussion. We have heard about views expressed in the other place and in the House. Will the Minister reflect on those discussions and accept amendments (c) and (d) to Lords amendment No. 133 at this late stage?
We have spent many hours in other debates discussing the situation in Northern Ireland. Both sides of the House agree on the necessity of the peace process. We also agree that we wish to see a normal economic and political climate return to Northern Ireland. While I do not wish to go into the Northern Ireland debate again, I must say that the fragile nature of the peace process—which is part of what we are debating—would be damaged if we were to make special provision for those who support and sympathise with terrorism. It is an affront to political parties in Northern Ireland that are represented in the House of Commons, whose members have taken the oath and taken their seats, to allow others who are the friends of terror special privileges that are denied to parties in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The basic premise of our amendments is that, as far as possible, there should be no special provisions for Northern Ireland. Lord Neill suggested that provisions should exist because there were special circumstances in Northern Ireland, but I do not accept all his arguments because the game has moved on since the Neill report was published in October 1998. It reached us before Sinn Fein—to name but one Northern Irish political party—became an effective part of the political process. The rest, as they say, is history.
If Great Britain is to be subject to the requirements for financial propriety and transparency that are enshrined in the Bill, it is unacceptable that part of the United Kingdom with a vivid history of political corruption should be excluded from the provisions of the Neill report. I do not want to go over Northern Ireland's political history, but it would be wrong to turn a blind eye, in effect, to practices that have been declared unacceptable in the rest of the United Kingdom.
There are many contradictions in the way in which the Bill deals with Northern Ireland. Will the Minister confirm, as I believe that he did in a written parliamentary answer yesterday, that political parties in Northern Ireland can use foreign money in a referendum campaign, but that other organisations registered in Northern Ireland as third parties in a referendum cannot use foreign money in such a campaign? Is that fair, and is the Minister prepared to live with that contradiction?
Finally, on Tuesday 30 May 1995 The Daily Telegraph stated:
Labour has made clear that if it wins the next election it will outlaw contributions to party funds from overseas donors. While this would not prevent Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams raising funds for their new Washington office, it would stop his party using the money in Northern Ireland.

The article added that
senior party sources have confirmed that
the gentleman who is now Home Secretary
believes that these rules would apply to any party contesting elections in the United Kingdom.
1082
Sources have indicated that Mr Straw is "relaxed" about the fact that it would now extend to the republican party.
The Opposition have tabled a number of amendments and we are considering amendments from the other place. I give notice to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Opposition would like Lords amendment No. 32 to be treated as separate from the other amendments.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: We have had a good debate on some difficult issues and have heard closely argued and sensible contributions from a number of distinguished sources. I shall deal first with the speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and then with those of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and of Conservative Front Benchers.
Mr. Bercow: What about the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross)?
Mr. O'Brien: I hear a sedentary comment from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Where I can, I shall pick up other contributions of equal importance.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire made an important and good contribution, and I thank him very much for his support on this issue. His arguments were sound. I also thank the Liberal Democrats—in particular, Lord Goodhart, for his contributions in the other place. The Neill committee did not recommend a specific maximum period for the different approach in Northern Ireland to apply. Lord Goodhart suggested four years. The Government considered that and were able to agree that that approach most commended itself to us. I can confirm to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire that amendment No. 133, which, I think, was tabled by the Conservatives, refers to four years. In a sense, that is the default position—we are seeking convergence. The hon. Gentleman deserves great congratulations for the fact that, during his speech, for the first time in the House, I heard a reference to convergence criteria that was not met with a sharp intake of breath by Conservative Members; he has achieved that tonight, if nothing else.
The hon. Gentleman also made the important point that we all want to ensure that, in due course, the situation for political parties in Northern Ireland is the same as that in Great Britain. We want to ensure that the same controls on political funding operate throughout the United Kingdom. In our view, however, we have not arrived at that situation, although the Bill contains a default approach and there is an assumption that we will move towards convergence. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that, should it be necessary, we intend that the Government should come to the House to demonstrate that the period of difference needs to continue. The House would have to be convinced that that was the right approach.
I shall deal with several other points. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) mentioned clause 65, and quoted the definition that it contains. I refer him to amendment No. 134, which sets out a different approach that may result in a change to clause 65.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was worried that the Bill would discriminate against the Scottish National party. He knows that that is not the

1083
Bill's intention. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) regretted that we had to pass a Bill to prevent the diaspora of England, Scotland and Wales—never mind Northern Ireland—from contributing to political parties. I understand his arguments. However, donations from abroad caused great public disquiet about standards in public life. We therefore believe that it is necessary to enact such a measure.
Although the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has some anxieties, I am sure he accepts that when we entered government, there had been a period of serious concern about standards in public life. The way in which donations from abroad were made to some political parties caused the public to feel that the standards that they had a right to expect were not being maintained.
Mr. Salmond: The most controversial donations were not from the diaspora but from people with no connection with Scotland, England, Ireland or Wales, who sought to gain advantage in the United Kingdom political system.
Will the Under-Secretary answer a straight question? Why, under the Bill, is it right for an expatriate Irishman to support Sinn Fein financially, but illegal for an expatriate Scot to support the Scottish National party, which has a 70-year record of attachment to the peaceful democratic process? How can that be right?
Mr. O'Brien: There is public anxiety about foreign donations, even when the donors have some contact with Scotland, England or Wales. We are trying to tackle that and to improve standards in public life. We therefore need to pass measures such as those in the Bill. The debate has made it clear that circumstances in Northern Ireland are manifestly different from those in Scotland, England and Wales.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan also asked whether we were satisfied that the Bill complied with the European convention on human rights. We are satisfied; we have certified the Bill to that effect. The House remains master of its own destiny; it will not automatically be overruled by the Human Rights Act 1998. Courts may issue a declaration of incompatibility but the House remains sovereign in relation to the legislation that it passes.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
Mr. O'Brien: I shall not give way; I want to make progress, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
I want to consider the important contribution of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. He asked several questions, and I shall do my best to deal with some of them. He asked what was the basis in the Good Friday agreement for treating Northern Ireland differently. I accept that his understanding of the agreement in general, of the specific detail and of the subsequent negotiations is much greater than mine. However, there is recognition of the need for the southern Ireland Government and the UK Government to accept that, whatever the issues of sovereignty, southern Ireland is clearly interested in the future of Northern Ireland, including its political process.
Mr. McNamara rose—
Mr. O'Brien: I shall not give way, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
1084
There are special circumstances in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann is First Minister in a Government that includes Ministers who have close links with the south.
11 pm
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister keeps referring to "southern Ireland". Does he mean Clare island, or does he mean the Republic of Ireland, as he should in terms of recognition of an independent country?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): That is a matter for general debate, not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. O'Brien: I assure my hon. Friend that I am referring to the Republic of Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann asked whether it was feared that the Government of the Republic would provide money to influence the outcome of a referendum. Let me make it clear that we would not welcome an attempt by any Government to influence the outcome of a referendum in the United Kingdom—whether on the euro or on any other issue—by giving large amounts to a particular political party.
May I deal with the matter in a slightly different way? Clause 105 provides for the Electoral Commission to allocate a grant to a designated umbrella organisation on each side of any referendum campaign. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there would be limits on expenditure in any referendum in Northern Ireland. The impact of any foreign donations would therefore be limited to some extent. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Gentleman somewhat, although I realise that I have not been able to convince him on every point.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said—and to an extent I do not disagree—that we should seek to treat Northern Ireland like Great Britain, except when the case is proved for treating it differently. Whether the case is proved for the right hon. Gentleman or for me may well be a point of difference between us. We say that particular circumstances must apply there; the right hon. Gentleman does not necessarily accept all the arguments.
I think that, in terms of the long-term aim, we would want the same sort of rules to apply across the United Kingdom, but we do not accept that we have reached that point. I have explained why we take that view, and I do not think that I need rehearse the arguments. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's serious concerns, but we have relied on the way in which the Neill committee has told us we ought to proceed.
Mr. MacKay rose—
Mr. O'Brien: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment. First, let me quote from a letter that we received from the Neill committee, dated 15 October 1999, which relates to the Northern Ireland issue. The committee said:
We are pleased that you have felt able to accept our recommendation in relation to an exemption from the reporting requirements in respect of donations made to political parties in Northern Ireland.

1085
It then set out some of the arguments. It continued:
One matter of concern arises…The protection afforded by clause 63 of the draft Bill is to be made available only to those political parties which have succeeded in winning seats either in the Northern Ireland Assembly or in the Westminster Parliament…We are concerned for two reasons. First, your proposal implies that a political party which, for example, achieves only one seat in an election and loses it in the next will, in losing that seat, lose the clause 63 protection. We believe it to be unsatisfactory that the protection should, in these circumstances, vary in this way. Second, we believe that as regards those parties which have (so far) unsuccessfully fielded candidates at elections, their exclusion from clause 63 would place them at an unfair disadvantage.
I hope that, in due course, both the right hon. Gentleman and I will be able to accept a situation in which circumstances in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom are fairly much the same, but we are not there yet.
Mr. MacKay: Before that long quotation, the Minister said that there were particular circumstances in Northern Ireland that made it fine for political parties there to accept foreign donations, whereas that was not the case here. Will he explain what those particular circumstances are?
Mr. O'Brien: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman needs me to set out the circumstances that prevail in Northern Ireland. They are well known both to him and to me. We need to ensure that we do not treat this as a party political debating point. I accept that, up to now, the right hon. Gentleman has not done so, but it is important that we recognise that we are debating the proposals against a background of serious violence in Northern Ireland and a peace process that has developed from the Good Friday agreement. We hope that that peace process will develop further. That is a shared wish. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the circumstances are difficult. I have already set out with some clarity the arguments as to how we have reached the conclusions that we have, and the Neill committee has indicated that special circumstances do, indeed, apply in Northern Ireland.
Mr. MacKay: I do not believe that there are particular circumstances that affect the situation in such a way as to allow foreign donations to parties in Northern Ireland and not to parties elsewhere. What are those particular circumstances? As far as I can tell, all the Minister has said is that there is paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland. I agree, but that is not a reason for allowing foreign donations.
Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are arguably two reasons. There are two political parties that have close links with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) calls the Republic of Ireland and others call southern Ireland. Certainly, there are close links across the border. Therefore, a special circumstance applies in Northern Ireland which does not apply in Scotland, England or Wales. In those circumstances, we believe that it is appropriate to take the action that we have taken.
Let me deal with amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 132, which puts forward an alternative to exempting Northern Ireland parties from the disclosure requirements in part IV. Under the amendment, Northern Ireland parties would be required to disclose recordable donations to the
1086
Electoral Commission in the normal way, but the information would not then be put into the political domain.
That is a solution that the Government themselves have previously considered. It may be a halfway house that could be put in place in due course but we do not see it as an acceptable way forward at present. Concerns have been expressed that any external reporting of donations, even if confined to reporting to the Electoral Commission, would not provide sufficient reassurance to donors that their names would not fall into the wrong hands. That is not to suggest, as has been argued, that there is reason to doubt the discretion of the Electoral Commission. It is simply a matter of perception.
As the situation improves, we will certainly look again at the option of the disclosure of donations to the Electoral Commission and not to the wider public. However, such an option should be seen as additional to, and not a substitute for, the wider powers in clause 65.
The amendments to Lords amendment No. 133 address two further aspects of clause 65: the time limit on any order that is made under subsection (1); and the effect of the exemption in respect of the ban on foreign funding in a referendum campaign.
Amendments (b), (c), (d) and (e) relate to the time limit on any order that is made under subsection (1) of clause 65. Amendment No. 133 limits the life of such an order to four years. It is right and proper that an exemption should be subject to regular review. We believe that once every four years or so is about right.
Amendments (c) and (d) would require an annual review. That is too frequent. We hope that the political climate in Northern Ireland will continue to improve year on year, but that is not the same as saying that the political situation will have changed sufficiently one year after another to justify an annual review of a clause 65 order. I invite the House to stick to four years, albeit with the possibility of an interim review should the climate materially change, in which case the order in force could, if appropriate, be revoked.
I cannot support amendment (e), which seeks to create a sunset provision in the clause. There may come a time when we can repeal the provisions in the clause, but it is premature to be thinking of that now. Of course, if no order is in force, the clause would effectively be dormant. One would hope that it would not have to be reawakened, but we should not burn our boats now.
Amendments (f) and (g) are concerned with the impact of a clause 65 order on a referendum campaign. I think that, to some extent, I have addressed the issues with which they deal.
I shall attempt to address the issues raised by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). The Government are entirely sympathetic to the idea that both the political parties and the Electoral Commission should have easy access to the electoral register, and, if we were starting from scratch, a national register would be one way of achieving that. Currently, however, legislation places the duty of maintaining a register of electors on local registration officers. Altering those arrangements would be a significant legislative task, and this Bill is not the place to do it.
That means that checks will have to be carried out on up-to-date registers maintained locally but, given the nature of the controls provided in the Bill, it would make sense for

1087
there to be a central access point to all 600-plus local registers. The Electoral Commission project team is in discussion with the Improvement and Development Agency for Local Government and the Association of Electoral Administrators about the way in which online access to all local registers for the commission and the political parties can be arranged. Ensuring the compatibility of local registers is likely to assist in making those registers more accessible. However, that is no small undertaking, and, as the hon. Member for North Dorset said, the arrangements will not be in place before next October.
We are trying to determine whether, as the hon. Member for North Dorset suggested, an interim solution could be in place in time for commencement of part IV of the Bill. It has not, however, proved possible to find a value-for-money solution that could be relied on to be in place for next February. Instead it has been agreed to increase from £500,000 to £700,000 the total sum available to meet parties' start-up costs, including the costs associated with making extra checks locally against the electoral register.
I fully expect, in the long-term, to return to the commission's role in the registration of electors, but it is not a matter to be resolved in the context of this Bill. I therefore urge Opposition Members to accept the Government's view that the Lords amendments are the best way of approaching the matter. I commend the Lords amendments to the House, and ask Opposition Members not to press theirs.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 31 agreed to.

Clause 20
  PARTIES TO BE REGISTERED IN ORDER TO FIELD CANDIDATES AT ELECTIONS
  Lords amendment: No. 26, in page 12, line 4, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A),")

After clause 20
Lords amendment: No. 32, insert the following new clause—
("The registers of political parties
Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
The House divided:— Ayes 380, Noes 143.
Division No. 363] [11.13 pm

Ayes

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Ainger, Nick

Bradshaw, Ben

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Breed, Colin

Alexander, Douglas

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Allen, Graham

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Browne, Desmond

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Buck, Ms Karen

Atherton, Ms Candy

Burden, Richard

Atkins, Charlotte

Burgon, Colin

Austin, John

Burnett, John

Bailey, Adrian

Burstow, Paul

Baker, Norman

Butler, Mrs Christine

Ballard, Jackie

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Banks, Tony

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Barnes, Harry

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Barron, Kevin

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Battle, John

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Bayley, Hugh

Caplin, Ivor

Beard, Nigel

Casale, Roger

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Caton, Martin

Begg, Miss Anne

Cawsey, Ian

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Bennett, Andrew F

Chaytor, David

Benton, Joe

Chidgey, David

Bermingham, Gerald

Clapham, Michael

Berry, Roger

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Best, Harold

Clark, Dr Lynda

Betts, Clive

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Blackman, Liz

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Blizzard, Bob

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Clelland, David

Borrow, David

Clwyd, Ann

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Coaker, Vernon

1089

Coffey, Ms Ann

Healey, John

Coleman, Iain

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Colman, Tony

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Connarty, Michael

Hendrick, Mark

Corbett, Robin

Hepburn, Stephen

Corbyn, Jeremy

Heppell, John

Corston, Jean

Hesford, Stephen

Cotter, Brian

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Cousins, Jim

Hill, Keith

Cranston, Ross

Hinchliffe, David

Crausby, David

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Hood, Jimmy

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Cummings, John

Hope, Phil

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

Hopkins, Kelvin

(Copeland)

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Hoyle, Lindsay

Dalyell, Tam

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Darvill, Keith

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Hurst, Alan

Davidson, Ian

Hutton, John

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Illsley, Eric

Davis, Rt Hon Terry

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

(B'ham Hodge H)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Dawson, Hilton

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Jamieson, David

Denham, John

Jenkins, Brian

Dismore, Andrew

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Dobbin, Jim

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Donohoe, Brian H

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Doran, Frank

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Drew, David

Jones, Ms Jenny

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

(Wolverh'ton SW)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Edwards, Huw

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Efford, Clive

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Ennis, Jeff

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Feam, Ronnie

Keeble, Ms Sally

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Flint, Caroline

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Flynn, Paul

Keetch, Paul

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Kemp, Fraser

Foster, Don (Bath)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Khabra, Piara S

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Kidney, David

Galloway, George

Kilfoyle, Peter

Gapes, Mike

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Gardiner, Barry

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Kingham, Ms Tess

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Kirkwood, Archy

Gerrard, Neil

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Gibson, Dr Ian

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Gidley, Sandra

Lammy, David

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Laxton, Bob

Godman, Dr Norman A

Lepper, David

Godsiff, Roger

Levitt, Tom

Goggins, Paul

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Linton, Martin

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Livsey, Richard

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Grocott, Bruce

Love, Andrew

Grogan, John

McAvoy, Thomas

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

(Makerfield)

Hancock, Mike

McDonagh, Siobhain

Hanson, David

Macdonald, Calum

Harvey, Nick

McDonnell, John

1090

McFall, John

Roy, Frank

McIsaac, Shona

Ruane, Chris

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Ruddock, Joan

McNamara, Kevin

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McNulty, Tony

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

MacShane, Denis

Ryan, Ms Joan

Mactaggart, Fiona

Salter, Martin

McWalter, Tony

Sanders, Adrian

McWilliam, John

Sarwar, Mohammad

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Savidge, Malcolm

Mallaber, Judy

Sawford, Phil

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Sedgemore, Brian

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Sheemian, Barry

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Martlew, Eric

Shipley, Ms Debra

Meale, Alan

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Merron, Gillian

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Singh, Marsha

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Skinner, Dennis

Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Miller, Andrew

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mitchell, Austin

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Moffatt, Laura

Smith, Miss Geraldine

Moonie, Dr Lewis

(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Morley, Elliot

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

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

(B'ham Yardley)

Snape, Peter

Mountford, Kali

Soley, Clive

Mudie, George

Southworth, Ms Helen

Mullin, Chris

Spellar, John

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Steinberg, Gerry

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Stevenson, George

Norris, Dan

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Oaten, Mark

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Stinchcombe, Paul

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Stoate, Dr Howard

O'Hara, Eddie

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Olner, Bill

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

O'Neill, Martin

Stringer, Graham

Öpik, Lembit

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Organ, Mrs Diana

Stunell, Andrew

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Palmer, Dr Nick

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Pearson, Ian

(Dewsbury)

Pendry, Tom

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Perham, Ms Linda

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Pickthall, Colin

Temple-Morris, Peter

Plaskitt, James

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Pollard, Kerry

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Pond, Chris

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Pope, Greg

Timms, Stephen

Pound, Stephen

Tipping, Paddy

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Todd, Mark

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Primarolo, Dawn

Touhig, Don

Prosser, Gwyn

Trickett, Jon

Purchase, Ken

Truswell, Paul

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Quinn, Lawrie

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Rapson, Syd

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Raynsford, Nick

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Tyler, Paul

Rendel, David

Tynan, Bill

Robertson, John

Vaz, Keith

(Glasgow Anniesland)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Walley, Ms Joan

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Ward, Ms Claire

Rooney, Terry

Wareing, Robert N

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Watts, David

Rowlands, Ted

Webb, Steve

1091

White, Brian

Winnick, David

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Woolas, Phil

Wicks, Malcolm

Worthington, Tony

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

(Swansea W)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Wyatt, Derek

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Willis, Phil

Mr. Jim Dowd and

Wills, Michael

Mrs. Anne McGuire.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Hunter, Andrew

Amess, David

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Key, Robert

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Beggs, Roy

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Lansley, Andrew

Bercow, John

Leigh, Edward

Beresford, Sir Paul

Letwin, Oliver

Blunt, Crispin

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Body, Sir Richard

Lidington, David

Boswell, Tim

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Loughton, Tim

Brady, Graham

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Brazier, Julian

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Browning, Mrs Angela

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Mackay, Rt Hon Andrew

Bums, Simon

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Butterfill, John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Cash, William

Malins, Humfrey

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Maples, John

(Chipping Barnet)

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Chope, Christopher

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Clappison, James

May, Mrs Theresa

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

Moss, Malcolm

(Rushcliffe)

Nicholls, Patrick

Collins, Tim

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Ottaway, Richard

Cran, James

Page, Richard

Curry, Rt Hon David

Paice, James

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Pickles, Eric

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Day, Stephen

Prior, David

Duncan, Alan

Randall, John

Duncan Smith, Iain

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Robethan, Andrew

Evans, Nigel

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Fabricant, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Fallon, Michael

Ross,William (E Lond'y)

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Ruffley, David

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

St Aubyn, Nick

Fox, Dr Liam

Salmond, Alex

Fraser, Christopher

Sayeed, Jonathan

Gale, Roger

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Garnier, Edward

Shepherd, Richard

Gibb, Nick

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Gill, Christopher

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Soames, Nicholas

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Gray, James

Spicer, Sir Michael

Green, Damian

Spring, Richard

Greenway, John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Grieve, Dominic

Steen, Anthony

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Streeter, Gary

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Swayne, Desmond

Hammond, Philip

Syms, Robert

Hawkins, Nick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hayes, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Horam, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Thompson, william

1092

Townend, John

Willetts, David

Tredinnick, David

Wilshire, David

Trend, Michael

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Trimble, Rt Hon David

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Walter, Robert

Yeo, Tim

Waterson, Nigel

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Wells, Bowen

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Tellers for the Noes:

Whittingdale, John

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

and

Wilkinson, John

Mr. Peter Luff.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 27 to 33 agreed to.

After clause 20

  THE NEW REGISTERS
  .—(1) In place of the register of political parties maintained by the registrar of companies under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, there shall be the new registers of political parties mentioned in subsection (2) which—

  (a) shall be maintained by the Commission, and

  (b) (subject to the provisions of this section) shall be so maintained in such form as the Commission may determine.

  (2) The new registers of political parties are—

  (a) a register of parties that intend to contest relevant elections in one or more of England, Scotland and Wales (referred to in this Act as "the Great Britain register"); and

  (b) a register of parties that intend to contest relevant elections in Northern Ireland (referred to in this Act as "the Northern Ireland register").

  (3) Each party registered in the Great Britain register shall be so registered in respect of one or more of England, Scotland and Wales; and the entry for each party so registered shall be marked so as to indicate—

  (a) the part or parts of Great Britain in respect of which it is registered; and

  (b) if the party is a minor party, that it is such a party.

  (4) A party may be registered under this Part in both of the new registers, but where a party is so registered—

  (a) the party as registered in the Great Britain register, and

  (b) the party as registered in the Northern Ireland register, shall constitute two separate registered parties.

  (5) In such a case—

  (a) the party shall for the purposes of this Act be so organised and administered as to secure that the financial affairs of the patty in Great Britain are conducted separately from those of the party in Northern Ireland;

  (b) the financial affairs of the party in Great Britain or (as the case may be) Northern Ireland, shall accordingly constitute for those purposes the financial affairs of the party as registered in the Great Britain register or (as the case may be) the Northern Ireland register; and

  (c) any application for the registration of a party in accordance with subsection (4) shall similarly be made and determined by reference to the party's organisation and activities in Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively.

  (6) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the transfer to the Commission of any property, rights and liabilities to which the registrar of companies is entitled or subject in connection with his functions under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998; and an order under this subsection may in particular provide for the order to have effect despite any provision (of whatever nature) which would prevent or restrict the transfer of the property, rights or liabilities otherwise than by the order.")

Clause 22

  OFFICE-HOLDERS TO BE REGISTERED
  Lords amendment: No. 34, in page 13, line 31, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
  ("(4) The person registered as a party's treasurer shall be responsible for compliance on the part of the party—

  (a) with the provisions of Parts III and IV (accounting requirements and control of donations), and

  (b) unless a person is registered as the party's campaigns officer in accordance with section (Parties with campaigns officers), with the provisions of Parts V to VII (campaign expenditure, third party expenditure and referendums) as well.

  (4A) In the case of a party with accounting units the person registered as the party's treasurer shall, in relation to the provisions of Part III, be responsible for compliance on the part of the party's central organisation (rather than of the party).")
  Mr. Tipping: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 35 to 39, 42 to 45, 52, 56, 58 to 60, 63, 64 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, 65 to 67, 147, 148 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, 150, 312 to 317, 379 and 381 to 389.
  Mr. Tipping: This group of amendments deals with various points relating to the registration of political parties. Amendment No. 34 is concerned with the responsibilities of the registered treasurer. Clause 22, as considered by this House, requires the registered treasurer to have overall responsibility for the financial affairs of the party and for ensuring compliance on the part of that party with the provisions of the Bill—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister must be heard. Will Members remaining in the Chamber please be quiet?
  Mr. Tipping: We accept that it is not essential that a registered treasurer perform the former role as well as the latter. What is needed is a compliance officer, who may or may not have overall responsibility for the financial affairs of the party.
  Amendment No. 34, taken with amendment No. 39, also addresses concerns that the Liberal Democrats have expressed about the impact of the Bill on their federal party structure. The amendments provide for the registration of a campaigns officer with responsibility for

  1093
  compliance on the part of the party with the provisions of parts V to VII, namely, the controls on election and referendum expenditure. Where a party appoints a campaigns officer, the responsibilities of the registered treasurer would be confined to compliance with parts III and IV. In another place, Lord Rennard welcomed these amendments as addressing his party's concerns. Earlier, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who has pursued the matter fairly vigorously, acknowledged that the amendments would satisfy his party's concerns.
  11.30 pm
  Lords amendments Nos. 52, 56 and 63 require the Electoral Commission, when it refuses an application under clauses 25, 26 or 27, to give the party concerned a notification in writing of the reasons for such refusal.
  The new clause inserted by Lords amendment No. 64 ensures that a party's registered entry is kept up to date. A change to one of the party's registered officers would need to be notified to the commission within 14 days; all other changes to a party's entry in the register would need to be notified within 28 days.
  Although I favour the amendments, I note that there is dissent in the House on the matter. I note carefully the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) and his colleagues. Indeed, in an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made it clear that the Conservatives had real anxieties about these matters. I do not want to pre-empt them, but the argument is not about principle, but about practice.
  The Government's view is fairly straightforward: we believe that the 14 day and 28-day provisions are commensurate. In the example cited earlier—of a death—the appropriate course would not necessarily be for the party to find a new treasurer immediately, but to ask another of its officers to take the position temporarily until a permanent replacement could be found.
  I ask the House to accept the Lords amendments.
  Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his brevity. The matter was touched on earlier, but it is, nevertheless, one to which we must return.
  The Minister is right—the bulk of the amendments are sensible. They command agreement and are an illustration of the operation of the good aspects of the passage of the Bill. However, there is a point of detail that cannot be ignored. One feature of the Bill is the extent to which it places onerous burdens of compliance on local constituency associations and, as I pointed out earlier, with draconian penalties if such compliance is not forthcoming.
  I ask the Minister, as I did earlier, to consider the position of a small constituency association—possibly of a minority party—that does not have a huge input from the centre, and whose treasurer drops dead. Given the mechanisms that have to be employed to replace a treasurer—the fact that one has to remember all those matters—is it reasonable to expect that association, within 14 days, to select someone else and to put the name forward to the Electoral Commission?
  The Minister kindly informed us that the local association should have a replacement available—someone who could easily step into the breach. However,
  1094
  we know that the Bill places onerous burdens on treasurers; not many people will be willing to take on that task. Indeed, that is one of the anxieties that has been frequently expressed during the passage of the measure. In those circumstances, our proposal—to lengthen the period to 21 days in the event of a death and to 42 days otherwise—is reasonable, prudent and sensible.
  I cannot believe that the Electoral Commission's principles of control will founder as a result of that provision. Although it may appear to be a detail, it is upon such detail that the Bill's success as law will rest. We consider that our amendments—especially our amendment to Lords amendment No. 64—should be pressed to a vote; they offer a better course of action than that proposed by the Government.
  Mr. Stunell: I shall not rehearse the points that I have made about the Bill's adaptation to accommodate the philosophical viewpoint of the Liberal Democrats on federalism, except to say that it is appreciated that a lot of work has been done on topics with which civil servants and Ministers were not especially familiar initially. I should like to give credit to Lord Rennard for the work that he has done in the other place.
  I want to say a few words about the amendments to which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has spoken. We feel strongly that a tremendously burdensome, bureaucratic requirement will be placed on local party officers, especially small-scale branch treasurers and the smallest fry in the political arena. On hearing the hon. Gentleman, a colleague of mine said, "Well, it is not surprising that the first treasurer dropped dead, considering the burdens created under the Bill." Many treasurers will be reluctant to take office and people will be reluctant to come forward if a vacancy arises.
  The suggestion that there could be acting treasurers is a little fanciful. Accounts would not be changed and the necessary resolutions would not be passed at formal meetings in the time scale that would allow such appointments to be made. I suspect that in the average branch, the cheques would collect behind the clock until the new treasurer was appointed. There would be serious difficulties in the unhappy circumstance of a vacancy occurring during an election, when the treasurer's role might be more acutely focused. Parties will be required to live with those difficulties under the Bill.
  I spoke earlier about the transitional, training and preparatory arrangements necessary to make all this happen. If people are told that they must have another treasurer in place within 14 days—the funeral, the inquest or whatever will have hardly taken place—and that they will be in default if they have not, the dominoes will start to topple as the offences mount.
  Mr. Tipping: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), both of whom have been talking about the treasurers of accounting units. Of course the provisions on those units are for a replacement within 28 days, but Lords amendment No. 34 deals with the replacement of national treasurers within 14 days. If the real concern is about the treasurers of accounting units, I believe that there is no disquiet or argument across the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Stunell: I thank the Minister for that helpful intervention, which perhaps clarifies some of the issues. I was making a general case by reference to a particular example. If that example is not appropriate, I am happy to move on.
  Any organisation faces difficulties when such a tragic vacancy occurs. I should like the Minister to explain why he thinks it so important to refer to two weeks. What would be the effect on the Bill's effective implementation if 21 days were adopted? What control would be lost? What offence or abuse do the Government fear would be created by an interregnum of three weeks rather than two? Without a treasurer at any level in the party, there will be no authorisation, so there can be no illegal or unmonitored expenditure. Such decisions will be delayed until the vacancy is filled.
  If a vacancy occurs in the middle of an election, there will be every pressure on the party to make an alternative appointment so that progress can be made. There is a requirement for reporting at seven-day intervals during elections, so 14 days is insufficient to ensure that that occurs. I want to press the Minister on that point. Why does the time scale have to be 14 days? Why not 21 days? What abuse are the Government trying to stop? Given the grave difficulties that a party will face in such an unfortunate circumstance, why is it essential to include such a barrier? I will join the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and his colleagues. If the matter is put to the vote, we will support the extended deadline—not because it creates a loophole, but because it prevents a major disincentive to political parties delivering the goods.
  Mr. William Ross: I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), which is widely supported by Opposition Members. I suspect that if Labour Members thought about it, they would also support it.
  Frankly, we always have difficulty getting people to take on the onerous task of being secretary. One will always get a chairman, or a vice-chairman—he figures that he will not have to do much—but one needs an enthusiast or a fanatic to take on the job of secretary. In the case of a treasurer, one needs someone who is extremely careful with money and who enjoys the trust of the whole party. In a small party, it is difficult to find people to do such jobs in a voluntary capacity.
  Organisations the size of the major parties—the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party, the Conservative party—can employ full-time officials. I suspect that the treasurer in the larger parties is merely a figurehead, who can be replaced at short notice with another figurehead. That is not the case with a smaller party, where the person does the work. Frankly, my party and the other parties in Northern Ireland consider the time limit proposed by the Opposition to be modest. We would prefer a longer period.
  I agree with those who have said that they see no dangers in the extension. I see great merit in it, and I beg the Government to think seriously about the difficulties in which they are placing the small parties with their proposals. Will the Government please accept the Opposition amendment on this occasion?
  Mr. John Redwood: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye at this late hour, when we have made so little progress on this substantial rewrite of the Bill.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: Get on with it!
  Mr. Redwood: I have been speaking for all of two sentences. The hon. Gentleman should be a little more patient. What I am about to say is of considerable importance to the way in which the Government conduct their business, draft sloppy and rotten legislation, and do not give us proper time to consider substantial rewrites.
  The amendments in the group run to many pages and represent a comprehensive rewriting of the clauses to which they refer. The Bill was made up of 181 pages. There are now 127 pages of amendments, which is a disgraceful ratio.
  We have just reached clause 22—due to the detailed rewrite of the preceding clauses—and we find that 73 lines of amendment have been tabled to straighten out the original 43-line clause, which went through its due processes in both Houses. We are being asked to approve 73 lines of amendments that completely change the mechanism by which this part of the legislation will be implemented.
  The main substance of the amendments to clause 22 that we are invited to approve is to allow in a new person—a party's campaign officer—to take on the responsibilities that were originally to go to the treasurer.
  Amendment No. 39 would insert a new clause after clause 22. The new clause uses stumbling phraseology to define a campaign officer, to explain that he may have 12 deputies because he may find the task too onerous and to point out that responsibilities are split between the campaign officer and treasurer, depending on the different parts of the legislation for which compliance is being requested or sought. This is an enormously bureaucratic and complicated set of procedures and the more titles and registration requirements the Bill introduces, the more difficult judgments will have to be made when deciding when a party can comply, will comply or has complied. Mistakes, controversy and disagreement will therefore be more likely.
  11.45 pm
  The Minister must realise that these issues will be hard fought. They go to the heart of our party political process. He is inviting us to agree to amendments that make the detail even more complicated, greatly increasing the scope for genuine dispute. What should be a relatively straightforward regulatory matter will be caught up in a deeply political process. It is not a good idea deeply to politicise regulation, and the complexity proposed for clause 22 makes that much more likely.
  I should have liked to have time to talk about the split of responsibilities between local and national political organisations and about the element of discretion by considering units, as they are called, as well as the national hierarchy. It is more normal to ask for national responsibility in such matters, but there will not be time to examine the issue because my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has draw attention to an issue that he thinks is even more important and on which

  1097
  he would like a ministerial reply. [Interruption.] I am glad that Labour Members think that this is a suitable occasion for snoring, but they must understand that their elections and constituency organisations could be tied up in the very disputes to which I am drawing attention and about which they appear to have no knowledge whatever. They now seem to think that our parliamentary democratic system—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must he heard in silence.
  Mr. Redwood: It is very rare for me to be heard in silence. I would think that something had gone wrong if Labour Members listened to me in silence. The more they barrack, the more worried they are. The looks on their faces reveals it all. They know that it is another piece of botched legislation and that it is an appallingly badly drafted clause. The Minister is nonchalantly recommending a comprehensive rewrite of the clause and of most of the rest of the Bill without having a clue as to how it will work and without having any answers to the disputes that will doubtless arise when we try to implement such nonsense.
  I have skipped many important amendments to reach amendment No. 64, which would add a new clause to the Bill after clause 27. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield pointed out that the timing allowed would be tight for a national treasurer let alone a unit treasurer. I understand the Minister's point that we shall be allowed double the short period of time for the unit than we are for the national situation, but many other features of the registration process in the new clause worry me considerably.
  Even though there is so little time, I will give the Minister time to reply. I hope that he will explain why registered officers of a party have to register themselves not only as registered officers and register the address of the party headquarters—that is entirely reasonable—but have to register their own address. A political party knows where its registered officers live and would know how to find them if it needed to. However, is it a good idea to put their addresses into the public domain? At times in Britain, security is a worrying issue and that might become a problem not just for elected representatives, but for volunteers in a voluntary party system.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield made a good point when he said that it was not always easy, particularly in small minority parties—not the Conservative party or even possibly the Labour party—to find people to carry out such jobs. Subsection (2)(a) to (f) of the new clause contains the requirements for registration, and they will make some people think again. People have to make a great voluntary effort to exercise the eternal vigilance that party organisation and democratic debate require. We know, however, that the audience out there is walking away from the Government and the kind of politics for which they stand. They cannot get their own supporters to vote in elections.
  Is it right to make it so much more bureaucratic, cumbersome and difficult to organise in parties and to go through the party political process, as the Government seem to wish to do? They are making a rather out-of-date political point relating to events long ago, instead of understanding that the modern problem is the lack of
  1098
  engagement by many people in the democratic party political process. Given the way in which the Government are going, they will make it even more difficult to get those missing voters back and to turn them into Labour party activists.
  With great regret, I sit down before I have made three or four more points that need making, because we need the benefit of the Minister's reply on these crucial weaknesses in amendment No. 64, which inserts a new clause after clause 27. I hope that he will also explain why we have faced such a huge rewrite of the Bill. The Government's incompetence in the original draft was obviously overwhelming. Does he regret not giving us more time this evening to consider what is, in effect, a completely new Bill?
  Mr. Tipping: I listened with great interest, as I always do, to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). Madam Deputy Speaker asked the House to listen to him in silence. Some right hon. Members listened to him in somnolence. I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has played an active part in our debates this week. I hope that, after his exertions, he becomes a late convert to programming. I trust that his exertions will not get the better of him, and that he will be enthused by the comments of the right hon. Member for Wokingham.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham complained about the split between the responsibilities of treasurer and compliance officer. He described it as bureaucratic and unhelpful. I remind him that that is similar to an amendment from his hon. Friends which we accepted on Report. He asked us to be a listening Government. We are a listening Government, and we heard what his hon. Friends said on Report. In the light of their complaints about the onerous duties that would be imposed on the party treasurer, we accepted their view that it might be better to split the post between the treasurer and a compliance officer.
  The right hon. Gentleman complains that that has made the terms of the Bill wider and more difficult. I hope that his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench will welcome the steps that we have taken to ensure that the voice of his party is heard in the Bill.
  The same applies to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who during the deliberations on the Bill pursued the need to make arrangements so that parties with a federal structure could have a fair deal. Earlier in the debate this evening, he complained about the looks of astonishment and the difficulties that Ministers and officials perceived in solving the problem.
  I am pleased that we have been able to resolve the problem. I gently chide the hon. Gentleman and remind him that there have been a number of meetings with him and employees of his party to try to find a solution. It ain't been easy, and I am delighted that we succeeded. I am sorry to say that that has complicated the Bill, but I firmly believe that it is right for us to ensure that the provisions meet the needs of the third major party in the United Kingdom.
  I do not think that we should be criticised for doing that. We should be commended for it. We listened to his hon. Friends and made adjustments to suit them. We listened to the representations from the Conservatives and made adjustments to suit them. Both parties complained

  1099
  that the Bill would not work, but we have taken steps to ensure that it will. I suspect that it may be necessary to divide the House, and I am disappointed about that because discussions throughout the Bill's passage have generally been constructive and helpful.
  The hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Hazel Grove talked about the branch treasurer, the constituency treasurer and the treasurer of the accounting unit. The amendment applies to the national treasurer. If there is a need for a new treasurer for a new, smaller accounting unit, the Bill provides 28 days for such a person to be appointed.
  Mr. Grieve: The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that in Committee we agreed that many registered political parties are very small and localised. Many are no bigger than the accounting units of the larger parties. It was in relation to the concerns of small parties in particular that I made the point that 14 days was insufficient.
  Mr. Tipping: That is right, and the Bill has been amended to provide 28 days for a replacement to be made in such cases.
  Amendment No. 64, which is under dispute, concerns a 14-day period for replacement. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are pressing us to extend that to 21 days. The provision applies exclusively to the national treasurer. The hon. Gentleman has followed the debate closely and, dare I say it, influenced it and brought about changes. He was kind enough to acknowledge earlier that this has been a valuable and helpful experience. He knows that the national treasurer is the linchpin of the Bill's provisions. We cannot allow that linchpin to be removed and not replaced within a reasonable period.
  I point out to the hon. Gentleman, who is normally very helpful, that the difference between 14 and 21 days is not large. I suggested earlier that if one of the party's officials were unable to continue their duty, perhaps because of death, the appropriate step would be for one of the other national officials temporarily to hold the post. That is not unreasonable. If an election were approaching it would be vital for the Electoral Commission to have a responsible person in post, and 14 days is not an unreasonable period in which to appoint such a person.
  Mr. Grieve: We may be slightly at cross-purposes. I understand that the amendment relates to national treasurers, but there are national treasurers of registered political parties that are absolutely minute, and they stand to be criminalised.
  Mr. Tipping: I have some sympathy on that point, which was raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). He said that his party was relatively small and might have difficulty in finding a national treasurer. However, the mechanism will ensure that such a party can proceed. As the treasurer acts as a linchpin, it is not unreasonable to say that in an unexpected case, such as a death, another national officer should temporarily take the treasurer's place, and that is what would happen in practice. As I said, I hope that it will not be necessary to divide the House on that point.
  1100
  On a relatively minor point, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield asked me why it was necessary to have the name and address of the treasurer on the record. It is important that the Electoral Commission should be able to check whether someone is on the electoral register, and giving the name provides the opportunity to do that.
  It being Twelve midnight,
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.

After Clause 64
Lords amendment: No. 130, to insert the following new clause—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—

After Clause 64

  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."")
  Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment. — [Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
  The House divided: Ayes 343, Noes 172.

  Division No. 364]

  [12.1 am

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Ainger, Nick

  Crausby, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Allen, Graham

  Cummings, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  (Copeland)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dalyell, Tam

  Austin, John

  Darvill, Keith

  Bailey, Adrian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Barnes, Harry

  Davidson, Ian

  Barron, Kevin

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Battle, John

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Beard, Nigel

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dawson, Hilton

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Denham, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dismore, Andrew

  Benton, Joe

  Dobbin, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Best, Harold

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Betts, Clive

  Doran, Frank

  Blackman, Liz

  Drew, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Eagle, Angela (wallasey)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Edwards,Huw

  Borrow, David

  Efford, Clive

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Flint, Caroline

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Flynn, Paul

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Michael J(Worcester)

  Burgon, Colin

  Galloway, George

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gapes, Mike

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Caplin, Ivor

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Casale, Roger

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Cawsey, Ian

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Grocott, Bruce

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hamiltion, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Healey, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hendrick, Mark

  Coleman, Iain

  Hepbum, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corbett, Robin

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hill, Keith

  Corston, Jean

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  1103

  Hood, Jimmy

  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

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

  Hurst, Alan

  (B'ham Yardley)

  Hutton, John

  Mountford, Kali

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mudie, George

  Illsley, Eric

  Mullin, Chris

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jamieson, David

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  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

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pearson, Ian

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pendry, Tom

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Plaskitt, James

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pond, Chris

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pope, Greg

  Kidney, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Purchase, Ken

  Lammy, David

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Laxton, Bob

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lepper, David

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Levitt, Tom

  Rapson, Syd

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Linton, Martin

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Robertson, John

  Love, Andrew

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Rooney, Terry

  (Makerfield)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rowlands, Ted

  Macdonald, Calum

  Roy, Frank

  McDonnell, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McFall, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Salter, Martin

  McNulty, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  MacShane, Denis

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sawford, Phil

  McWalter, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWilliam, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mallaber, Judy

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  1104

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Snape, Peter

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Soley, Clive

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Spellar, John

  Tynan, Bill

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Vaz, Keith

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stevenson, George

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Watts, David

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  White, Brian

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Stringer, Graham

  (Swansea W)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Wills, Michael

  (Dewsbury)

  Wilson, Brian

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Woolas, Phil

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Worthington, Tony

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tipping, Paddy

  Touhig, Don

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trickett, Jon

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Truswell, Paul

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Amess, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Nigel

  Ballard, Jackie

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Fallon, Michael

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bercow, John

  Flight, Howard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Boswell, Tim

  Fraser, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Garnier, Edward

  Brady, Graham

  Gibb, Nick

  Brazier, Julian

  Gidley, Sandra

  Breed, Colin

  Gill, Christopher

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gray, James

  Burnett, John

  Green, Damian

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Grieve, Dominic

  Butterfill, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hammond, Philip

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Hancock, Mike

  Chidgey, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Hayes, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  (Rushcliffe)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Collins, Tim

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Horam, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cran, James

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Day, Stephen

  Keetch, Paul

  1105

  Key, Robert

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Salmond, Alex

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Sanders, Adrian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lensley, Andrew

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard

  Letwin, Oliver

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

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

  Lidington, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Livsey, Richard

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spring, Richard

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Loughton, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Streeter, Gary

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stunell, Andrew

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Swayne, Desmond

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Syms, Robert

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Maples, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Townend, John

  Moore, Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Trend, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tyler, Paul

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walter, Robert

  Oaten, Mark

  Waterson, Nigel

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Webb, Steve

  Öpik, Lembit

  Wells, Bowen

  Ottaway, Richard

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Page, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Paice, James

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Pickles, Eric

  Wilkinson, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Willetts, David

  Prior, David

  Willis, Phil

  Randall, John

  Wilshire, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Rendel, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Ruffley, David

  and

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mr. Peter Luff.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment disagreed to.
  Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the remaining Lords amendments:—
  The House divided: Ayes 370, Noes 141.

  Division No. 365]

  [12.14 am

  Ayes

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Battle, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Beard, Nigel

  Alexander, Douglas

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Allen, Graham

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Benton, Joe

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Berry, Roger

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Best, Harold

  Austin, John

  Betts, Clive

  Bailey, Adrian

  Blackman, Liz

  Ballard, Jackie

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Banks, Tony

  Blizzard, Bob

  Barnes, Harry

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Barron, Kevin

  Borrow, David

  1106

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Efford, Clive

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  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, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Burnett, John

  Galloway, George

  Burstow, Paul

  Gapes, Mike

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gardiner, Barry

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gidley, Sandra

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Casale, Roger

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Caton, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cawsey, Ian

  Goggins, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Chaytor, David

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Chidgey, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  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, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Clwyd, Ann

  Healey, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Colman, Tony

  Hendrick, Mark

  Connarty, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Corbett, Robin

  Heppell, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corston, Jean

  Hill, Keith

  Cotter, Brian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cranston, Ross

  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 (Knowsley N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  (Copeland)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Darvill, Keith

  Hurst, Alan

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hutton, John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Jamieson, David

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dawson, Hilton

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Denham, John

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Donohoe, Brian H

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  1107

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Keetch, Paul

  Pearson, Ian

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pendry, Tom

  Khabra, Piara S

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Kidney, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Plaskitt, James

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pollard, Kerry

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Pond, Chris

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Pope, Greg

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Pound, Stephen

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lammy, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Laxton, Bob

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lepper, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Levitt, Tom

  Purchase, Ken

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Linton, Martin

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Livsey, Richard

  Rapson, Syd

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Love, Andrew

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rendel, David

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Robertson, John

  (Makerfield)

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  McDonnell, John

  Rooney, Terry

  McFall, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rowlands, Ted

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Roy, Frank

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ruane, Chris

  McNulty, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  MacShane, Denis

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McWalter, Tony

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McWilliam, John

  Salter, Martin

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Sawford, Phil

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Martlew, Eric

  Sheerman, Barry

  Meale, Alan

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Merron, Gillian

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Singh, Marsha

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Moore, Michael

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morley, Elliot

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

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

  Snape, Peter

  (B"ham Yardley)

  Soley,Clive

  Mountford, Kali

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mudie, George

  Spellar, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Stevenson, George

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Norris, Dan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Oaten, Mark

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O"Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O"Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Strang, Rt Hon Gavin

  O"Hara, Eddie

  Straw,Rt Hon Jack

  Olner, Bill

  Stringer, Graham

  O"Neill, Martin

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  öpik, Lembit

  Stunell, Andrew

  1108

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Ward, Ms Claire

  (Dewsbury)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Watts, David

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Webb, Steve

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  White, Brian

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Timms, Stephen

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Tipping, Paddy

  (Swansea W)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Touhig, Don

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Trickett, Jon

  Willis, Phil

  Truswell, Paul

  Wills, Michael

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wilson, Brian

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Woolas, Phil

  Tumer, Neil (Wigan)

  Worthington,Tony

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wright,Tony cannock)

  Tyler, Paul

  Wyatt,Derek

  Tynan, Bill

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Vaz, Keith

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Mr.Jim Dowd.

  NOES

  Anisworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Amess, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gray, James

  Atkinson, David (Bour"mth E)

  Green, Damian

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Greenway, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Bercow, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hammond, Philip

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hawkins, Nick

  Boswell, Tim

  Hayes, John

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bottomely, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Brady, Graham

  Horam, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bums, Simon

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Butterfill, John

  Key, Robert

  Cash, William

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Leigh, Edward

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  (Rushcliffe)

  Lidington, David

  Collins, Tim

  Liley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lioyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Cran, James

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Loughton, Tim

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Day, Stephen

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Mackey, Rt Hon Andrew

  Duncan, Alan

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  malins, Humfrey

  Evans, Nigel

  Maples, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Fallon, Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fraser, Christopher

  O"Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gale, Roger

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gamier, Edward

  Page, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Paice, James

  Gill, christopher

  Pickles, Eric

  1109

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Prioe, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Randall, John

  Taylor,John M (Solihull)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tyalor,Sir Teddy

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thomas,Simon (Ceredigion)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Townend, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Tradinnick, David

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Trend, Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Walter, Robert

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Waterson, Nigel

  Salmond, Alex

  Wells, Bowen

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Whittingdale, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Wilkinson, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wiletts, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wilshire, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congletion)

  Spring, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Steen, Anthony

  Streeter, Gary

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Syms, Robert

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Remaining Lords amendments agreed to [some with Special Entry].
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to Lords amendment No. 130 to the Bill: Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mr. Colin Pickthall, Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and Mr. Robert Walter; Mr. Mike O'Brien to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendment No. 130 reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): 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

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 70) on Threshold Payments (House of Commons Paper No. 963), which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 71) on Leadership Group Payments (House of Commons Paper No. 964), which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
    That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and the Swiss Confederation on the Free Movement of Persons) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.-[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Question agreed to.

    SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
    Motion made,
    That, for the next Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
    Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
    Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
    Line 48, at the end insert the words:
    '(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.—[Mr. Mike Hall.
    Hon. Members: Object.

    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.-[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    Hon. Members: Object.

  PETITIONS

    Lady McAdden Breast Screening Unit
    12.30 am
    Mr. David Amess: I have the honour to present a petition that has been signed by more than 21,500 people. The level of support for the petition demonstrates the very high esteem in which people have held the Lady McAdden breast screening unit for more than 24 years. The petitioners wish to express their concern at the way in which changing patterns of health care have impacted on the viability of the unit.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to investigate and resolve the problems the Lady McAdden Breast Unit is experiencing within the South Essex Health Authority; to facilitate the restoration to the Unit of full access to appropriate facilities and referrals to the Southend Hospital NHS Trust and Southend Breast Unit; to facilitate the restoration to the Unit of the ability to screen all women by palpation with full consent from the Royal College of Nursing, the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing and women themselves without fear of litigation; to review the conclusions of the 1998 White Paper on the availability of breast screening services to women under the age of 50 and the method of screening by palpation; to include screening for women under the age of 50 in the NHS screening programme; and to guarantee that the present activities of the Unit and its staff may continue without interference pending the Commission for Health Improvement's consideration of cancer services.
    And your petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

Mixed-Sex Hospital Wards
Ms Debra Shipley: It is a great honour to present a petition generated in my Stourbridge constituency on behalf of members of the West Midlands Federation of Townswomen's Guilds. The petitioners declare that they dislike mixed-sex hospital wards because they are an affront to dignity and decency. I wholeheartedly agree with them.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to make swift progress towards the removal of mixed-sex wards in hospitals.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Flood Management (Somerset)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
12.32 am
Mr. David Heath: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise again the issue of flood prevention in Somerset. I am particularly grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who I know was in Somerset today—at the village of Norton Sub Hamdon, not more than two miles outside my constituency, and at a school which I believe that I opened, as chairman of education, a few years ago.
The Minister will recall that we last debated the subject on 3 May 2000. It was an excellent debate in which we addressed some of the basic issues. He and I broadly agreed that, in flooding, prevention is better than cure. We also agreed on the need to address the issues of environmental sustainability and sustainability of the resources applied to flood prevention. We also recognised that the Somerset levels is a unique and internationally important environment that needs to be protected.
I have sought this debate, first, to alert the Minister to some of the events of the past few weeks; secondly, to report the very substantial progress towards the objectives that we set ourselves in the previous debate; and, thirdly, to express some serious concerns about financing land drainage.
Somerset has not experienced floods with the dramatic overtones of those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), or in the Severn valley, or around the Ouse, in Yorkshire. Flooding has, however, affected a number of properties in my constituency. It has not been confined to the levels area, where we expect annual winter flooding. It has taken place in areas of the upper catchment and in areas detached from the Parrett catchment. There have been problems in my constituency in the areas of Ilton; Yeovilton, where the Yeo burst its banks; Queen Camel, where the Cam and Henshall Brook caused problems in the middle of the village; Shepton Montague; and near Frome in Old Ford and Vobster. There have been several separate incidents, and they all represent tragedies for the families involved. There is also the common thread that there are insufficient resources to do some of the things that are necessary to protect the people of Somerset adequately, given the huge demands on services.
Although the Environment Agency has performed extremely well over the past few months, there are still some questions that I shall be putting to it. I shall be seeking answers from it and local authorities if I do not receive satisfaction from the Minister. My questions will relate to the warning system, the maintenance of culverts and drainage canals, local government funding and the uninsurable risk that many householders are facing.
I move on to progress on the River Parrett catchment project, as it is now termed. When we last debated the subject, the Minister effectively challenged me and the people in Somerset to get our heads together to combine the interests of local authorities, the Environment Agency, landowners, farming interests, environmentalists and the wider community in an endeavour to ascertain whether we could arrive at a common solution to the problems.

1113
Substantial progress has been made to that effect. A seminar was held on 30 October, paradoxically when the River Tone was within inches of bursting its banks in Taunton. It was an apposite moment for the seminar to take place. It was attended by 60 representatives of all the interests involved. They were able to reach common ground—it was a significant breakthrough—in terms of the scale of the problem, the need to address the flood defence system urgently, and some of the things that could be done in terms of management of the upper catchment, where it was felt that there were ways of ensuring that when heavy rainfall took place the time that it takes for water to reach the main streams and rivers could be extended.
That could perhaps be done by land management, by cropping practices that help to maintain more water in the soil and reduce the speed of overland flow, by reducing flow rates in the tributary water courses and head water streams by creating baffles and meanders, by developing a strategic approach for retaining storm water from developed areas so that it does not add to the peak flows in streams and rivers, and by developing on-farm flood water storage areas through agreement with local farmers. That agreement is crucial because it will require some changes in agri-environmental schemes so that there are proper incentives. Farmers must be encouraged to participate in schemes.
The use of the flood plain needs to be considered in a different way from that in which it is now managed. Perhaps we should consider a more equitable distribution of flood water across the moors, and use some parts of the flood plain more frequently so that settlements are protected. There should be greater use of gravity drainage systems on parts of the flood plain, which can enable the water to drain effectively.
There have also been discussions on the proposals for a barrage or barrier across the River Parrett downstream of Bridgwater. I know that the Minister is concerned about that proposal. I ask him to examine what eventually emerges and objectively to assess it. It may represent a way of reducing some of the severer impacts of floods, and it may be cost-effective in reducing silt and thereby dredging.
A holistic approach along the lines that I have set out has the potential to pay dividends. Much progress has already been made. I pay tribute to the work of the county council, whose chairman, Humphrey Temperley, has played a leading role. Given the level of agreement that has been reached, I have considerable confidence that the major debate on these matters to be held early next year will agree on concrete plans that deal with prevention rather than cure, and which we will be able to bring to the Minister.
My plea to the Minister is to respect what he has said on earlier occasions and to look at those plans objectively. In that way he will be able to determine where it is possible to co-ordinate Government policy in this regard, and where it is possible to take a positive view.
I must also address the issues of finance and of the costs involved in land drainage in Somerset. I shall give the House some idea of the scale of the problem. In Somerset, 36,000 homes are identified as at risk, and very extensive protections are given to them. The county has 125 km of sea and tidal raised-bank defences, and 366 km of raised river bank defences. Of the latter, 17 km are in
1114
poor condition and 189 km need some work to bring them up to an acceptable standard. That is a substantial backlog of work.
The county also has 21 pumping stations. Most of them are elderly and date back to the 1940s, with the newest built in 1968. Many are obsolete and unreliable, none have a proper planned maintenance programme, and 10 require urgent upgrading.
It is clear that the county faces a significant problem, the financing for which is shared among a relatively small population. The Minister knows that the Somerset flood defence committee has an annual budget of about £6 million. Most of that total comes from a levy, and most of the levy is paid by Somerset county council taxpayers—a cost of £26 per annum for each band D property in the area. That is the highest in the country, and amounts to a significant impost on the people who have to pay it.
Over recent years, there have been large increases in the precept. Two years ago, it was raised by 11.5 per cent, and last year by 8.2 per cent. The present backlog of work, the council's need effectively to borrow ahead to deal with significant capital projects, and the effects of this year's flooding all mean that the Somerset flood defence committee now faces a precept increase of something like 28 per cent.
As the Minister knows, the system of finance is extremely complicated. The sums involved can be recovered through the revenue support grant and the standard spending assessment, but only in the following year. That does not prevent local authority finances undergoing a major distortion.
Even before the current full review of flood defence funding is in a position to report, local authorities in Somerset have advanced a cogent case for what must be done to reform the system. First, they say that flood defence spending should be disregarded for the purposes of council tax benefit subsidy limitation. That is what happens with the police authority precept, and there is no logic in placing the flood defence precept—which is also substantial—within that limitation.
Secondly, the authorities say that there is a need to ensure that the SSA or revenue support grant pass-through mechanism operates on a current-year basis, rather than a year in arrears. They also say that it is necessary to provide for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions control figures to be increased on a current-year spending basis. In addition, they say that, when the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food grants aid capital, revenue funds are needed so that maintenance moneys are not diverted to support those capital schemes. Finally, they consider that it is necessary to treat flood defence spending by the unitary and district councils in the county on the same basis as the Environment Agency levy spending.
I realise that the Minister is not in a position to say that all those proposals will be accepted this evening. However, I ask him seriously to consider the distortions caused by these unique circumstances. We have an internationally important wetland area in which people are uniquely vulnerable to floods and that is likely to continue in the foreseeable future. As the area is sparsely populated, it does not have enormous revenue income or capital sums available. Does the Minister agree that those factors, put together, represent a special case?

1115
Secondly, can the money that is available be used more effectively in the sort of way that those at the Parrett catchment project suggest? Rather than building higher and higher walls to keep the water out, we should try to manage the floods in Somerset in a way that is effective, environmentally sensible and more responsive to the needs of the local community. I suggest that what is happening in gestation in the project in Somerset, provided it has Government support in due course, could act as a pilot study for other parts of the country.
There is a wider view—we have tested it in the Chamber, and I know that the Minister has some sympathy with it—that we cannot go on dealing with floods in the way that we have done hitherto. We need to address the problem in a different way, and the way that is being developed here has great merit. It will require departmental co-ordination, and it will be necessary to mobilise funding that is not automatically provided for these purposes. However, I think that any cost benefit analysis will show that this is a sensible application of funds to a defined and positive outcome, preferable to wasting funds on developing a solution that is not sustainable in the long term. That is why I am so strongly in favour of what is being discussed.
When we last spoke about this issue, the Minister said at the end of his speech:
However, I stress that local people should come together and agree a long-term management plan based on river catchments…I shall be only too willing to examine the proposals and respond as positively as I can.—[Official Report, 3 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 274.]
Those words were of great encouragement to the people who are working on this project. The Minister displayed the openness to reasonable and rational debate that we have come to expect of him. I hope that that view is shared by the civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I hope that we can ensure that discussions take place at the highest level on some of the issues and stumbling blocks. Most of all, I hope that the Minister will look very carefully and positively at what emerges from Somerset, as he said he would.
If the hon. Gentleman's all-too-brief visit to Somerset today has whetted his appetite —perhaps that is an inappropriate word to use—to see what is happening on the levels and talk to some of the people there, I would be delighted to welcome him to my constituency to look at a forward-thinking project. I hope that in doing so he would take away a favourable impression which would encourage him to mobilise the resources to enable the project to take off.
12.49 am
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on obtaining this debate and on putting his case in such a persuasive way. I get all sorts of offers in this job, but to go to the hon. Gentleman's constituency and discuss these issues is an attractive offer. He has rightly made the points that, because of its wetlands, the area that he represents is of international importance, and that there are serious flood management issues.
1116
I acknowledge his point that the Somerset levels have experienced regular flooding for some years—it is almost an annual occurrence. Although it is a flood plain, people live and work there, so we must strike a balance between the needs of an internationally important wetland and those of people in the area, who need to use its roads and who need to work there.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out in a previous debate, I gave strong encouragement to local people who were working together to try to address some of the issues and some of the long-standing and potential conflicts between the demands of conservation and those of local people and of agriculture. I am glad that a meeting was held on 30 October and I welcome the high-level conference in February. They represent attempts to make progress on those matters.
I have read some of the submissions made by local organisations—the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Environment Agency. Those organisations are finding common ground and coming to a common agreement on dealing with the issues. I strongly endorse the point made by the hon. Gentleman that the approach to flood and water management in Somerset must be integrated, holistic and sustainable. That is the key objective that we must work towards.
I welcome the development of management catchment plans. I pay tribute to Humphrey Temperley, the chair of Somerset county council, and to the Somerset flood defence committee for their role in trying to develop those matters and find consensus. That is most important.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that we need to give some thought to such matters as the management of other catchments, land management, cropping and planting regimes, and river management. We need to examine whether river flows can be widened; the hon. Gentleman referred to meanders and the installation of baffles to try to hold back more water. We should perhaps consider a more sophisticated approach to water retention at times of peak flow. All those issues are worthy of consideration.
The importance of the area is recognised in the fact that the Somerset levels are designated as environmentally sensitive. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are different rates of payment in relation to management tiers for dealing with water management. That is a helpful advantage; it gives us an opportunity to consider how we can integrate more environmental management in the various agri-environment schemes for water management. I have to enter the caveat that agri-environment schemes must produce environmental outcomes. That is how we account for the schemes; they are audited both within the Government and by the European Union, which is ultimately responsible for them.
It should not be impossible, however, to take a more integrated and holistic approach towards agri-environment schemes while achieving both environmental outcomes and water catchment objectives. At present, the matter is being considered and discussed, but it has not been subject to major development. I am extremely interested in giving more thought to the matter, to find out what we can do to take it further. It represents a new dimension in water management, but it meets the need for an integrated, holistic and sustainable approach.

1117
There are possibilities to be explored in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in other Departments—for example, in MAFF in relation to our funds for agri-environment schemes and for flood defence. An integrated approach may not be as easy as it sounds, although the logic seems overwhelming, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am keen to explore such matters to see what can be done. In that respect, I shall be extremely interested in the outcome of the February meeting and to hear the suggestions of local people on how they might be applied. The Environment Agency is closely involved. There is technical support and advice on what is and is not feasible. That applies to any barrage proposal for the River Parrett.
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking to consider any proposal. Again, the caveat is that any proposal for an expensive scheme, such as a barrage, must be subject to exactly the same criteria as we would apply to any technical flood defence measure—it must meet technical and environmental standards and economic criteria. There has to be a cost-benefit analysis and such a scheme must meet the technical standard in achieving what it is designed to do. With that caveat, I am more than willing to consider any proposal and to test them against those criteria.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the funding of flood defences is complex and considerable demands have been made on resources in Somerset in recent years. MAFF has actively supported the Environment Agency and its predecessor in constructing flood defences in Somerset, which has enjoyed a high grant. There has been a high levy, but the higher the levy, the greater the grant that Somerset receives. During the past 20 years, approximately 20 km of defences has been improved to a 1:100 year standard or better. The Minehead sea defences scheme was completed in 1998, at a cost £12.7 million—a significant investment in Somerset.
We are giving attention to tidal and fluvial schemes. Given the recent autumn floods, we recognise the need to consider rivers in particular. We are providing exceptional support to emergency works on the River Parrett's banks this year. Two major schemes are planned for 2001 on the Lower Tone at Baltmoor wall—a £2 million scheme—and at Stanmoor bank, a £3 million scheme. The medium-term programme indicates expenditure of about £8.4 million during the next four years. The agency has set out the need for substantial increases in expenditure in Somerset to fund those new capital works and the increased maintenance that is also required. As the hon. Gentleman said, a significant increase in levies might be required in Somerset.
Somerset has been responsible in meeting its requirements on flood defence. In fact, it has been better than one or two other counties in the south-west, as the hon. Gentleman may be aware. I make no criticism of Somerset; it has taken the issue seriously and has not been
1118
afraid to raise the appropriate levy. Of course it has been rewarded for doing so—it has received substantial grant aid from the Ministry.
The necessary flood defences are being identified. When they have been identified, they will be addressed. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that MAFF has announced additional funding in relation to the autumn floods. An additional £51 million is available for flood defence works. That money comes on top of our existing programme, which was being increased. As a result of that additional money, we will be able to increase the grant rate for river flood defence schemes by 20 per cent. We are also providing additional funding for catchment studies, which will inform decisions on flood management on a catchment basis. The additional money for catchment studies may be useful given what may be the outcome of the high-level conference in February. We shall consider the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised, such as upper catchment management, and whether we can apply them to a whole catchment plan. We have some funds to pay for those studies.
The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that the chairman of the Somerset local flood defence committee has written to me about the way in which the increases could be funded. He asked a series of complex questions on local government finance and the way in which the flood defence schemes are funded. They are complicated, but I appreciate the point. I can give the undertaking that I will reply to the questions as soon as possible, following consultation with my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Such questions are not unfamiliar to me—one or two other local authorities have raised them. I see the logic in their case and I am willing to consider the matter. We are also undertaking a full review of the way in which funding is raised for flood defence schemes. That started before the present round of autumn flooding and is due to report in autumn 2001.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that there is much between us on the issue. We both want a sustainable and holistic approach to flood management in Somerset. I am not afraid to consider new approaches. They have to be properly evaluated. Obviously, our professionals in the Ministry, who have years of experience, need to look into the matter. The specialists in the Environment Agency also need to consider it.
Given the pressures, however, with what may be a range of changes in weather patterns and increased rainfall, we must consider all the options. I am willing to do so and I certainly look forward to the outcome of discussions in local groups and organisations in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and area, which will provide an input into informed choices for the way forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past One o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Welsh Economy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Touhig.]
9.30 am
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I hope that the Minister, who I am glad to see in his place, will agree that although the debate is unambiguously broad in scope, few subjects are more important to our constituents. The state of the economy in Wales has considerable impact on the livelihoods, prosperity, and life chances of the people whom we represent. Indeed, the strength of the economy conditions the amount of money that is available for public spending. I am pleased that the Government have invested substantial extra resources in long-term prosperity and vital public services; that would not have been possible without the Government's sound management of the economy.
I shall make some general comments on the bigger picture before dealing with specific issues. I hope that the Minister will respond to some of my points in his winding-up speech. I am particularly interested in pursuing the increasingly serious position of the rail infrastructure and the effect that the rail crisis—that is what it is—is likely to have on the economy, and on the Welsh economy in particular. I am sure that other hon. Members share those concerns. I would also like the Minister to respond to the issue of the high levels of economic inactivity that, unfortunately, still plague the Welsh economy. I shall also make a few remarks on the rural economy and the need to ensure a choice of energy supply, particularly gas, to those who live in rural communities.
There is no doubt that the Government have a good story to tell on the economy. Inflation and interest rates in the United Kingdom as a whole are at their lowest for 30 years. Unemployment is down to historically low levels and 1 million new jobs have been created in the UK. The Government should be proud of that worthy record. Exports, manufacturing and business investment are growing and the UK economy is continuing in a cycle of growth. The Chancellor can be congratulated on creating the conditions of economic stability that will enable us to provide long-term and sustainable prosperity for all the people of the UK—and of Wales. That is in stark contrast to the official Opposition's apparent platform, involving a severe programme of no less than £16 billion-worth of cuts—which they will have to explain to the people of Wales in due course.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Has my hon. Friend read the report in The Times this morning of the Opposition's manifesto pledge that, if they were ever to
212WH
get anywhere near government, they would cut small business support by hundreds of millions of pounds in order to achieve that £16 billion-worth of cuts?
Mr. Thomas: That is a pertinent point. It is even more pertinent that Tory candidates will have to explain to constituents throughout Wales how the cuts will be reflected in public services.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Thomas: In a moment; I want to develop my point.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is right to emphasise that we must turn our backs on the years of boom and bust. He is also right to emphasise the need to make tough choices to create economic stability in stark contrast to the years of boom and bust.
In Wales, unemployment has fallen to record lows: 40,000 more people are in work than at the time of the general election in 1997. There have been historically high increases in the Welsh block, which will shortly be running at £10 billion per annum. That will make a major difference to the amount of money available for public services. Together with many colleagues who are present, I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announce that £420 million will be available for objective 1 funding over the next three years. That will make a big difference to the Welsh economy.
The minimum wage, introduced by this Government, is helping 100,000 people in Wales. It boosts the average income of those in receipt of it by about one third.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman made a passing reference to £16 billion—an example of the fantasy figures that the Labour party has dreamed up. He will have to wait until we present our Budget, not present his own fiddled figures.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned objective 1 status, and we are delighted that that money is being made available. However, he will accept that there is widespread concern and confusion in Wales about how objective 1 funding is distributed. We are 11 months into the budget of a five-year programme, yet a number of local authorities simply do not know how to go about applying for some of the funds. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Welsh Assembly and local authorities should be made more aware of how objective 1 funding will be made available, especially in areas of west, north and mid-Wales?
Mr. Thomas: I am not sure how that point arises from what I said. I am entirely confident that the National Assembly for Wales, working in partnership with the Labour Government at Westminster, will be able to deliver and exploit the full potential of objective 1 funding. After all, the Labour Government secured that funding for Wales.
Mr. Chris Ruane: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Thomas: Yes, as I know the interest—some people might say obsession—of my hon. Friend in the subject.
Mr. Ruane: On the subject of grants to Wales, is my hon. Friend aware that the previous Conservative

213WH
Government took away assisted area status from vast parts of his constituency and mine? That contrasts greatly with the Labour Administration, who, at the 11th hour, allowed our constituencies to be included in the objective 1 map of Wales.
Mr. Thomas: It will not come as a surprise to my hon. Friend that, not for the first time, I am in complete agreement with him.
I mentioned the minimum wage. In addition, the working families tax credit is helping about 80,000 families in Wales and making a significant impact on many people's quality of life. Pensions are a big political issue throughout the United Kingdom. I am pleased that the Government have introduced increases in the basic state pension, which will mean that pensioners will be on average about £11 a week better off than in 1997.
Although the conditions of stability and economic prosperity applying to England can be seen in Wales, there is no mistaking the challenges still facing the Welsh economy. Historically, there has been a prosperity gap. Members from south Wales are present today. I am a north Wales Member, but I am well aware of the serious deprivation in places such as Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil. Again, there is a historical challenge to be overcome. Anyone interested in finding out more about the context should refer to the excellent book recently written by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands).
Unfortunately, Wales has lagged behind. It was recently announced that Welsh gross domestic product had dropped slightly as a percentage of United Kingdom GDP, which is worrying. The holy grail of trying to create a new economy in Wales with high-value jobs—a knowledge-based, information technology-literate economy—still seems some distance away. The National Assembly for Wales and, indeed, the Government in London have much to do to achieve that end.
One crucial problem in Wales is the continuing high level of economic inactivity—a legacy of our industrial past. Many people still suffer from long-term illness; many more have dropped out of the job market. The level of economic activity in Wales is currently about 55 per cent., compared with 62 per cent. in the UK. That statistic speaks for itself.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does my hon. Friend share my pleasure at the fact that of the 1 million extra jobs created by the Labour Government, half have gone to people aged over 50—an age bracket that often has high levels of economic inactivity?
Mr. Thomas: I agree entirely, which brings me to the Government's proposals for increasing the participation of over-50s in the labour market. I make no apology for dwelling on that subject because I represent a constituency with the highest number of pensioners in Wales and one of the highest in the United Kingdom. No less than 35.5 per cent. of my electorate are of pensionable age. Over the past 20 years, the proportion of people aged between 50 and state pension
214WH
age who are not working has doubled. Currently, about 2.8 million men and women over the age of 50 in the UK are not working. Most do not take redundancy voluntarily. More people wish to retire early nowadays, but of that 2.8 million, the majority would prefer to continue working.
Mr. Llew Smith: On the question of people not retiring voluntarily, would my hon. Friend care to comment on the steel manufacturers, Corus? When it took over the steel industry a while ago, it gave a commitment to the work force that the plants and their jobs were secure. It is now treating the community with contempt, throwing people on the scrap heap. The workers are not going voluntarily; they are forced to go. What does that say about the steel industry in this country and, in particular, Corus?
Mr. Thomas: That is a very worrying feature and I well understand my hon. Friend's concerns.
More than half of people aged over 50 who are now economically inactive receive most of their income from state benefits. The economic cost of that is great, and has a dampening effect on Welsh GDP, which lags quite considerably behind the rest of the UK. The performance and innovation unit recently published a policy document on the issue entitled "Winning the Generation Game". It states:
The drop in work rates among the over 50s since 1979 costs the economy about £16 billion a year in lost GDP.
That is for the UK as a whole, but I imagine that the figures for Wales are significantly higher.
What are the causes of those relatively high figures? There has been restructuring, but there is also a culture of writing people off once they reach their early fifties. Reference has already been made to the shedding of labour at Corus. There is a prejudice against older people and a feeling that they cannot contribute, although many of them continue to want do so. There must be a change of culture and fairer access to lifelong learning for everyone. We must provide greater help for displaced workers to re-enter the work market. We must enable older people to make better use of their skills.
I welcome the Government's new deal programme for the over-50s. Can the Minister give us an assessment of its success to date? It is basically dependent on individualised programmes of support for unemployed people. There is an employment credit, which is a wages top-up. That is a valuable incentive to work. Can the Minister give us any statistics relative to Wales? It is early days, as the programme was introduced only in April 2000, although there were earlier pilot schemes in north-east Wales. What does he think will be the success of that measure?
Many pronouncements and directives come out of the European Union. I speak as one who is becoming increasingly sceptical about certain aspects of the European project, not least the single European currency. It is fair to say that several European institutions lack the characteristics of open and democratic ones. It is an increasing worry, and I am reflecting the concerns of my constituents.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind the concerns of my

215WH
constituents who have recently lost their jobs at Panasonic? I suggest that one reason for the loss of jobs at Corus is the low value of the euro in comparison with the pound. The owners of concerns such as Panasonic and Sony are most concerned that we join the euro in the foreseeable future, as it is the basis of most of the market for such products.
Mr. Thomas: Unfortunately, that is not just an economic question, but a political issue. British manufacturing as a whole, although under considerable competitive pressure due to the high value of the pound relative to the euro, is still succeeding. We have a relatively large manufacturing sector in Wales, which, admittedly, has had problems and difficulties recently, but is making a good fist of it. There is a debate to be had about the single currency and its possible effect on not just the UK economy as a whole, but the Welsh economy in particular.
What approach will the Government take regarding the proposed European Union directive on age discrimination, which is designed to outlaw such discrimination? It has yet to reach the Commission and the Council of Ministers, but its introduction is proposed for 2005.
Is the Wales Office represented on bodies that deal with the implementation of the new deal for over 50-year-olds? Does it have an input into the issue of increasing participation in the labour market for those aged over 50?
I am drawing to the end of my comments, but I should like to refer again to the rail crisis. Some hon. Members may have read an article in The Guardian last week that described the increasing concerns of the business community about the effects of the rail crisis on business. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree with the north-east business person, who says that the most serious impact of the rail crisis
is that it exposes the isolation of regions like this?
He was referring to the north-east, but his comments could equally be made of Wales. He continues, saying that the isolation
poses problems for overseas investment‖but it also raises questions about the expansion plans of British businesses to the regions.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree with a comment made to me by a senior member of the Welsh Development Agency, that the rail system, especially in north Wales, is so bad that we tend to be a road-based economy, so Railtrack's problems do not make too much difference? That is an indictment of the lack of an integrated transport system for north Wales.
I should also like to mention gas supplies to rural communities—a subject in which I am increasingly interested. Several local communities in my constituency—chiefly Betws-yn-Rhos and Gellrifor—are campaigning to ensure that their areas, which are relatively close to larger suburban or urban communities, can access mains gas. The Tory Government liberalised the gas market and introduced the split between transporters and suppliers of gas. Hon. Members may recall that, before the measures were introduced, British Gas could subsidise the capital costs of piping gas to rural communities through a cross-
216WH
subsidy from its supply operation. That is no longer possible. Gas transporters such as Transco are in the invidious position of having to charge individual consumers large sums—as much as £2,000—before they will even begin to think of piping gas to the communities.
We hear much about the need to create a more inclusive society, and about combating social and economic exclusion in rural communities. Many problems that beset Welsh agriculture, and British agriculture as a whole, are global and reflect tremendous global competition. However, the Government could surely take action on the matter. I recently tabled a parliamentary question about it, and was told by a Department of Trade and Industry Minister that a working group had been set up to explore ways in which to relax the regulatory framework policed by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, which would facilitate greater choice in energy supplies for rural dwellers.
What are the views of my hon. Friend the Minister about how the Wales Office and other United Kingdom Depts can facilitate the admirable project to create a sustainable economy to which the National Assembly for Wales has committed itself? Does he have any observations on how to create a market in sustainable energy supplies, particularly in rural communities?
The subject of the debate is broad, and I know that other hon. Members are anxious to speak. In recent months, however, there has hardly been a plethora of Welsh-based subjects for Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall. I hope that this will be one of many future debates.
9.54 am
Mr Simon Thomas: I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) on securing this debate. As he said, it is an important subject about which many stories can be told. However, my story about the Welsh economy is not as rosy as that told by the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he used so many United Kingdom figures that I began to wonder whether he was still in order, although he must have been in order as you allowed him to continue.
I start by picking up on the hon. Gentleman's slight criticism of the Government, which is that the Welsh gross domestic product has fallen by 3 per cent. during the past three years. The latest regional estimates, published on 27 June by the Office for National Statistics—not my favourite body at the moment—show a decline in GDP per head in Wales relative to that of the whole UK from 82.8 per cent. in 1996 to 79.4 per cent. in 1998. Unfortunately, the Labour Government presided over that decline, despite all the good things that they have done with the new deal.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that specific point?
Mr Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman insists.
Mr. Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He admitted that he had difficulty with the Office of National Statistics, but the latest statistic that he cited

217WH
was for 1998. How does that relate to the present Government's performance? They did not come to office until just before then.
Mr Thomas: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should take the matter up with the ONS. That statistic is the latest available.
The European target for Wales is 84 per cent. per head by 2002, but I doubt whether we shall reach that figure by then. Perhaps the Minister thinks that we shall. The fact is that we are lagging behind the rest of the UK, and the hon. Gentleman cannot deny it.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Thomas: I shall not give way now; I want to develop my arguments.
The GDP figures are important. Wales has objective 1 status because our GDP lags behind the European and UK averages. In the recent three-year comprehensive spending review, Wales received a settlement of about £200 million in addition to the Barnett formula. That must be seen against the £628 million needed during the same period for the objective 1 project, which is made up of a European allocation of £421 million and matched funding of £207 million.
I acknowledge that there has been a break in the Barnett formula, but the inadequate allowance of those figures in the comprehensive spending review means that Wales ends up with an increase in the normal block grant of 7.3 per cent. compared to 8 per cent. for the UK as a whole. Perhaps that is the reason for the figures that the Institute of Welsh Affairs will publish tomorrow, which show that education spending in Wales is lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom. It begs the question of why the Government are so keen on the Barnett formula if they cannot deliver the full funding package for objective 1 status in Wales.
Earlier this year, the Government said that they might review the Barnett formula, but the Secretary of State for Wales recently told the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs that he was no longer in favour of such a review. Will the Minister give us his thoughts on whether a review of the Barnett formula would be appropriate? The figures for the Welsh GDP, as part of the overall UK figures, show that the regions are lagging behind.
Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Thomas: Not for the moment—I want to pursue this particular argument. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
I shall quote from a recent statement:
Since 1990 the share of GDP within the UK has declined significantly in the North East, the North West, the West Midlands, Wales and Scotland. It has increased significantly in the Eastern Region, London and the South East. Those are the symptoms of something fundamental. We don't have to look far for some of the causes. In 1998 manufacturing businesses invested over ten times as much in research and development in the South East than in the North East…Lack of investment, poor skills and education qualifications, these are some of the underlying causes
218WH
we need to tackle. In the modern economy we cannot build a strong economy, a strong nation, if we have a tail of under performing regions. We need all our regions firing on all cylinders.
Apart from the fact that I would describe Wales as a nation, not a region, I agree completely with that quote from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We should be debating the need to deal with the problems that he outlines, not glossing over what has been done in the Welsh economy.
Ms Julie Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Welsh Assembly's recently announced 60 per cent. increase in the new apprenticeships scheme is a way of dealing with the issues that he has raised?
Mr. Thomas: I agree, but there are other ways, to which I will come later. I welcome what the Welsh Assembly—the National Assembly, rather—has done in that regard.
Mr. Flynn: The hon. Gentleman is annoyed with the Office for National Statistics, which is in my constituency, for not giving the figures that Plaid Cymru wants. The ONS is devoted to giving objective truth. Farming's contribution to the Welsh gross domestic product reflects our overdependence on that industry and shows why Welsh GDP is lower. Farming's contribution was calculated as zero, but those arriving at that figure forgot to take into account things such as tir mynydd payments. In fact, we have a dependent industry from which the contribution to GDP is a minus quantity—less than zero. To take one comparison, the steel industry contributes 6 per cent. and the rest of manufacturing industry contributes 28 per cent. That is our problem in Wales.
Mr. Thomas: I am pleased that the Labour party wants to campaign in Wales on such an agenda at the next general election. I look forward to great gains in rural areas. Some 13 per cent. of GDP in my constituency comes from farming, so I cannot accept the figure of 0 per cent.
Mr. Ruane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Thomas: I am still dealing with the previous intervention. The decline in GDP that I outlined is continuing, and has nothing to do with farming. I would imagine that the recent decline of farming would have exacerbated the decline in GDP.
I shall continue for now, and will give way to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) later. I want to outline what has happened in manufacturing in Wales over the past three years. Since 1997—these are incontrovertible, up-to-date figures, if the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is concerned by them—8,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in Wales. Some 2,000 jobs have been lost in agriculture in Wales, and approximately 2,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing during this summer alone. Other hon. Members have raised their constituency interests in some of the Japanese companies in Wales. The job losses have been put down partly to uncertainty over entry into the euro, and Japanese companies and other inward investors in Wales would feel more confident if we had a clearer line

219WH
from the Government on that. They are also partly due to the lack of regional incentives and operating aids in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): How many jobs have been created in manufacturing in Wales?
Mr. Thomas: The Minister's own figures are that 30,000 jobs have been created in Wales during the past three years. I do not know how many jobs have been created in manufacturing, and I doubt that he will tell us when he winds up. In any case, 30,000 jobs were created in Wales during that period, not 80,000, which was the figure that the Minister supplied to the House on another occasion. In that period, the Government have increasingly relied on what I would call muck jobs—temporary and part-time jobs in the service sector with firms such as Kentucky Fried Chicken or McDonald's. Those jobs do not have the skills that we want to be developed in Wales, and the Confederation of British Industry report published on Tuesday underlined the importance of manufacturing in supporting the service economy. In that respect, long-term problems are being stored up in Wales.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about his constituency. Can he confirm that claimant-count unemployment has gone down by almost 10 per cent. in his constituency during the past year? What has caused that reduction?
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman must have known what I was going to talk about next. His claims are incorrect. On the Government's International Labour Organisation figures for my constituency, unemployment in Ceredigion is 5.5 per cent, a reduction on the figure under the Conservatives that I welcome. However, the employment is not in long-term, sustainable, well-paid and high-skilled jobs that I want to be created in Wales.
There is a huge income gap between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. Figures for April 2000 show that average income in Wales is £19,134 a year, making the average Welsh worker nearly £50 a week worse off than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. In Wales, 21 per cent. of children live in workless households; the figure for the rest of the United Kingdom is 18 per cent. The proportion of the working age population living in households where no one works is 16 per cent. in Wales, but 13 per cent. in the rest of the United Kingdom. The proportion of working-age people in households with incomes below half the mean income is 22 per cent. in Wales, 2 percentage points higher than the United Kingdom figure of 20 per cent.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: On the matter of the income differential between England and Wales, can the hon. Gentleman explain how his party's policy of independence for Wales—getting rid of the Barnett formula—would help the Welsh economy? Would
Wales not lose about £1.5 billion of extra income from Barnett at a stroke if it went for independence?
Mr. Thomas: I have never heard such a wonderful argument for the Barnett formula. My party's policy is
220WH
not independence for Wales, so the hon. Gentleman should address his comments to another forum. He obviously feels that the Barnett formula is defensible; we, too, look forward to defending it in a general election campaign.
The proportion of the working-age population in Wales with a qualification is 79 per cent., which is also lower than that in the United Kingdom.
I shall speak about what is needed to improve the economy in Wales. One of the worst aspects of the Welsh economy at present is that we are at the bottom of the United Kingdom regional competitive index. A recent report from Cardiff university—it was published by the House of Commons Library, in case hon. Members doubt its statistics—shows that Wales lags behind the rest of the United Kingdom in competitiveness and in information technology jobs creation, a subject mentioned by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West. The mid-term prospect for Wales in that regard is poor; Wales lacks competitiveness, and UK taxation levels do not favour areas of Wales that need operating aid. The UK economy is run to benefit the south-east of England; it does not benefit Wales to the same extent.
Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman has given a beautiful, descriptive but well-known analysis of the problems that we face in Wales and which the Government are tackling head-on. Will the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of what his party proposes to do about the problems?
Mr. Thomas: My intention was to conclude with an analysis of what needs to be done. If the hon. Gentleman will contain his enthusiasm for a little longer, he will hear some of my party's ideas.
In Wales, a greater balance is needed between the new high-tech jobs and the more traditional industries like manufacturing, which should be seen as a traditional industry and protected and enhanced within Wales. Although the knowledge economy is thriving in the south-east of England and London, it is failing in Wales. At present, Wales has 21,000 jobs in IT, and although that sounds like a lot, it is only 2 per cent. of United Kingdom IT employment, although we have 5 per cent. of the UK work force. It is the lowest percentage for any of Great Britain's regions or nations. That is disastrous for Wales's prospects of taking advantage of the revolution in information technology.
The situation is just as bad for agriculture. We have the worst crisis for 50 years. Although the price of milk has stabilised recently—owing to the fact that so many farmers have withdrawn from milk production that there is a shortage for the winter—the price of lamb and beef has dropped.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of information technology jobs, will he explain where, if there is such a shortage, they should come from?
Mr Thomas: I have already told the Chamber that I shall conclude by mentioning that, so perhaps I may be allowed to continue.

221WH
The influx of beef from the continent, and in particular French beef, given the way things stand in France, will have a huge impact on agriculture in Wales. Not only is rail infrastructure lacking in Wales, as the hon. Member for Clwyd, West mentioned, but freight is not carried by rail in rural Wales.
I shall conclude my remarks—as promised several times now—with some ideas for the future. An idea from my constituency is being developed at Aberporth, at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency facility, which is to be privatised, having been within the Ministry of Defence. An exciting project exists there to produce just the sort of information technology facility that hon. Members have been asking for in Wales. I understand that the Treasury is currently considering an application from the Ministry of Defence for a £6 million training application for Aberporth. That shows the way ahead. The plan does not involve objective 1 funding. It is the capital modernisation fund for the United Kingdom that is relevant. That shows what could be done in rural areas and throughout Wales to enhance information technology skills and development. I hope that that idea will receive a warm reception in Government, because it will go some way towards changing the low-wage economy of west Wales.
I referred to a report by Robert Higgins of Cardiff university, which made it clear how Wales lags behind in the competitive league. He says:
At a global level, London and the South East are performing as well as the top-ten most competitive nations.
However, he adds that at the lower end of the scale, Wales, among others, is "ranked alongside…Hungary, Chile" and similar nations. I do not think that that is what the Government want for Wales. It does not accord with their rhetoric for Wales. We need policies that will make a greater impact on the more deprived and uncompetitive regions or nations of the United Kingdom, such as Wales. That means that we need stronger regional economic policies. The stability of the British economy in general at the moment means that there is enough surplus and strength to allow the Chancellor to offer the regions, and Wales in particular, the sort of aid that will lift productivity and improve their economies.
As a start, in the Budget next year cuts could be made in corporation tax as an operating aid for companies starting business in Wales, Scotland and the north of England, particularly, perhaps, in the objective 1 area. That would be perfectly acceptable and allowable, to provide a greater incentive to foreign investors. It has been done in Ireland, so it hardly seems right that we could not do it here. Local investors would be able to expand their work force. If each of the small businesses, employing fewer than four people, that account for 60 per cent. of jobs in Wales, could be encouraged by cuts in corporation tax and an improvement in national insurance arrangements to take on new staff, a great deal could be done to create and enhance jobs in Wales.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Thomas: I am concluding, so I think that the hon. Gentleman will have to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
222WH
It is clear that Wales needs stronger regional economic policies. The failure of the Government to provide them makes clear the need for a full legislative Parliament in Wales, so that the operating aids that I have called for could be the subject of argument at the right level in Europe and the United Kingdom. The main factor that holds Wales back is the fact that its economy is not sufficiently looked after or linked to the economy of London and the south-east. That is a barrier to our further expansion and improvement in the European Union. Present Government policies can at best only alleviate, but not heal, the deep divisions, wounds and deprivation in Wales.
Several honMembers rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. The hon. Member for Ceredigion has been accommodating in allowing numerous interventions. Five Back Benchers will be seeking to catch my eye in the debate. By convention in this Chamber we allow the principal Front-Bench spokespeople to speak 30 minutes before the end of the debate, so there are only 16 minutes left in which the five Members may speak. I am simply alerting hon. Members to that fact. What happens is entirely up to hon. Members and their self-discipline.
Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to apologise on behalf of my colleagues and myself; we are attending an important meeting relating to miners' compensation for bronchitis and emphysema. It is not intended as a discourtesy to the Chair that we have to leave.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that information.
10.15 am
Mr. Alun Michael: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) on provoking this debate. He represents the area in which I was brought up and has been assiduous in promoting the economic interests of areas such as Colwyn Bay—a subject on which he and I attended a meeting when he was elected. He is right to say that the Government, in a short time, have begun to change the Welsh economy, but that we must ensure that we do not return to the failed policies of the past. Those of us who have seen the devastation caused by those policies—young people who wanted to work but were denied the opportunity; the undermining of public services such as health and education; the economics of boom and bust—can never want to return to them. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Thomas) grudgingly acknowledged that things have improved, but his memory seems to be a little short. A little less whinge, and more encouragement for the progress of the Welsh economy, would be appropriate.
The recent differences made to our economy are massive. There has been an end to boom and bust, which is crucial because a stable economy allows businesses and families to plan. There has been an end, too, to the draining of cash into the payment of debt—both nationally and to pay off the debt built up during the Conservative years in, for example, the health service in Wales. Most importantly, we have got young people into work.

223WH
I appeal to Conservative Members to stop undermining the new deal. I have seen young people in my constituency begin to stand tall with confidence because the new deal has given them the opportunity to work and train. I recently met some young people at a site developed by Cardiff community housing association, one of whom had been not only unemployed but on the streets. He had been trained, motivated and shown a future by that housing association, as well as accommodated. This Government have addressed the vital social and economic issue of employment for the first time in a couple of decades. However, a big job remains to be done, so it is crucial that the Government continue to build a strong economy.
Much work must be done on the economy to bring prosperity to all parts of Wales. Labour in local government created much of the success in transforming the economy of the centre of Cardiff and Cardiff docks, but we should recognise that there is still high unemployment in constituencies such as Cardiff, South and Penarth. The October figures show that it has the highest number—the percentage is lower—of unemployed men of any constituency in Wales. The neighbouring constituencies of Cardiff, West and Cardiff, Central are also in the top 10, so we must not assume that the job has been finished. A nation is judged through its capital city and the regeneration of Cardiff and the valleys of south Wales is as important as the regeneration of rural communities. Every part of Wales shares the need for progress.
The steel industry and exporters should also be helped. The stability of the economy is good for all. The weakness of the euro is causing enormous problems in the steel industry, not only to Corus but to organisations such as Allied Steel and Wire—the headquarters of which are in my constituency—as well as firms connected to the industry. I hope that those difficulties—some of them the products of success—will be recognised and addressed.
Finally, as the next stage in the new deal, we need to bring those who have been excluded into the world of work. Young people in our highly populated urban areas, those with learning difficulties, and offenders must share—as every part of Wales must share—in the developing prosperity of this country.
10.19 am
Ms Julie Morgan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. I apologise in advance for not being able to stay in the Chamber to listen to the Minister's response to the debate.
I wish to draw attention to the good news; I am sure that other hon. Members will want to mention the developments that have been announced in their constituencies. On Friday, for example, 300 jobs in auto components in Llanelli were announced; 400 jobs were announced at Unilever information technology headquarters in north Wales; 800 high-quality jobs were announced at Lloyds Trustee Savings Bank in Bridgend; and 1,400 jobs have been created by Conduit plc in the constituency of Cardiff, Central. During the past three weeks, 3,000 new jobs have been announced in Wales.
224WH
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Thomas) mentioned the losses, but it is important to bear in mind the number of high-quality jobs that have been created.
Mr. Ruane: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger of Plaid Cymru Members talking down Wales with their doom and gloom prophecies for the Welsh economy, and scaring off potential inward investors?
Ms Morgan: Absolutely. The good news to which I have referred follows the 1,700 jobs that have been created in British Aerospace in north Wales. I acknowledge that the good news was preceded by job losses that affected the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) and I—for example at Panasonic, Sony and Hitachi, where many of our constituents lost jobs—although that was linked to the crisis in the traditional television manufacturing industry and the change from analogue to digital.
There have been a series of job losses for people who have worked in traditional industries for many years in my constituency as a result of the closure of production at Alloyed Wheels, Aeroquip and Viscosuisse. On Monday, I visited Federal Mogul, on the Llanishen trading estate in Cardiff, which is reducing its work force. However, it is maintaining a commitment to Wales by concentrating on its PTFE seal product and retaining 85 of 200 jobs. It hopes to develop a centre of excellence, working closely with the university.
Last week, I attended a meeting at the House of Commons in celebration of the achievements of companies that have been awarded millennium product status. One of those companies was VA from Cardiff, North, which had developed the award-winning, non-spill baby's cup that has swept the world markets. It was invented by Mandy Harberman, who had the good sense to realise the need for such a cup. The firm is going from strength to strength with new inventions, which is all good news. Despite the losses in manufacturing, 300 jobs in the manufacture of gear sticks and car components were announced on Friday in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). We thought that no such jobs would be created again in Wales, so such news is very encouraging.
The new starts show that Wales is moving up the value chain. We must accept that there has been a structural shift of certain types of work to eastern Europe, where the wages are one sixth of those in Wales, and to Africa, where the wages are one tenth of those in Wales. That work includes garment making such as Baird wear and work in analogue television, which has been transferred to eastern Europe.
The key matter is what has to be done in Wales. We must have much better high-technology than elsewhere. We must encourage research and development. We must not have the branch factory mentality, but embrace information and technology, and financial issues. It is important to work with universities on new products, as Federal Mogul in Cardiff, North is doing, and to increase training in this new era.
The National Council for Education and Training for Wales will come into being next year, and it must help workers move up the skills chain. We need to change the nature of the Welsh work force and increase the number

225WH
of skilled people in Wales. As I said to the hon. Member for Ceredigion, the Assembly is in the process of increasing modern apprenticeships by 60 per cent. I am concerned about modern apprenticeships, as they are still subject to much gender stereotyping, although that will take many years to change. Nevertheless, we welcome the apprenticeships, which fit well with the Government's new deal. They are important to getting women back into work. Call centres offer workers the opportunity to return to the labour market and develop their skills.
The shape of the economy in Wales is changing. It is an optimistic picture—there is great sadness at the loss of many traditional jobs, but the challenge is to develop skills to fit new demands. All the Government's efforts, here and in Wales, are helping in that task.
10.25 am
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Every month, I look up the published figures on unemployment by constituency. I have a table of unemployment figures for the past five years. When the Labour party was elected to govern, there were 1,536 people on the claimant count in my constituency. The latest entry for my constituency is 964. That is 600 fewer on the claimant count, which is falling at the rate of about 200 a year. Therefore, in four or five years, given the election of a Labour Government and continuation of our excellent economic policies, there will be full employment. Youth unemployment has dropped by 80 per cent., and long-term unemployment by 40 per cent., despite the problems in the rural economy. Clearly, agriculture has experienced difficulties, but the buoyant economy and large number of infrastructure projects are creating jobs at an enormous rate.
The Government have negotiated objective 1 status, which will give a terrific boost to west Wales and the valleys. Clearly, we are impatient to see the results, which is the responsibility of the Assembly. This year, £60 million has been allocated to Welsh Development Agency, tourist board and agrifood partnership projects, which are under way. We want local government and private industry to become heavily involved as soon as possible.
I share the vision of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) about the need to up-skill the work force. I hope that most of the objective 1 resources are allocated to education and training, so that we attract high-skill, high-tech jobs. The challenge for the Assembly is to achieve not just a 2.5 per cent. economic growth rate, which is expected for the rest of the United Kingdom, but 3 per cent., 4 per cent. or even 5 per cent. growth every year for the next seven or eight years, so that the differential between Wales—and west Wales and the valleys—and the rest of the terrain is rapidly closed.
10.28 am
Mr. Paul Flynn: The last time that I heard the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) speak I said that he was suffering from repetitive whinge syndrome. Clearly, his condition has become even more chronic. Throughout his speech this morning he accentuated the negative.
226WH
Objective 1 status is welcome in Wales, and a great success for the Labour Government and the Welsh Assembly. However, the map is a crude distortion. It is not a precise representation of deprivation in Wales. Since the achievement of objective 1 status in Wales, the Welsh Assembly has provided a list of the 100 most deprived wards. Although Ceredigion is covered by objective 1, it does not have a single ward in the top 100. My constituency is outside the objective 1 area, yet it includes four of the most deprived wards in Wales, including the most deprived ward in all of Gwent. [Interruption.] I am pointing out that, in proceeding with objective 1, we must bear in mind that many other areas in Wales need help.
The steel industry has a magnificent record as a modern, efficient world-beater, and it has made a huge contribution to the Welsh economy. For the sake of every steel worker in Wales, it now needs assistance from the Government.
10.30 am
Mr. Chris Ruane: I shall try to condense a 10-minute speech into two minutes.
I do not recognise the Wales that was described by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Thomas). It is a different tale in my constituency. National and international companies such as Phoenix Glass, H and H Electronics, AVVA Engineering, MITA, Pinnacle, Pilkington Space Technology and Hotpoint are creating jobs in my community—every single one of which is a manufacturing job. TRB, a Japanese company, decided—as its first ever foreign investment in Europe—to locate in St. Asaph business park in the Vale of Clwyd.
The success in my constituency is due to co-operation—not the confrontation that we saw in the Conservative years. Central Government, the National Assembly for Wales, Business Connect, the Welsh Development Agency, the employment services, CELTEC and Denbighshire county council are working together in my constituency to attract and create jobs. Having said that, I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to address a number of potential problems in the Welsh economy.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Whingeing.
Mr. Ruane: No, constructive criticism—not talking Wales down, as Plaid Cymru Members do day after day, week after week, month after month, under their leader, Ieuan Whinge Jones.
We need to source more goods internally. Wherever possible, contracts must be given to Welsh companies such as Hyder and British Aerospace. Wales must be internationalised. The new National Assembly gives us a great opportunity to do that through branding Wales. We need to increase our exports and to create added value in our communities, especially in raw, agricultural and timber products. We need to expand information technology in Wales. I hope that the Welsh Affairs Committee will examine the problem of broadband availability and take-up.
We need targeted growth sectors, not a scattergun approach. For example, central parts of north Wales should focus on opto-electronics. The Welsh opto-

227WH
electronics forum wants to increase the number of jobs in that sector from 2,500 to 7,500 over seven years. That private sector initiative should have the full support of the agencies and government bodies that I have mentioned.
The biggest problem facing Wales is a skills shortage. If we do not build a skilled work force, the jobs that are created will be for people who live outside Wales.
10.33 am
Mr. Richard Livsey: Thank you. Mr. Cook. I shall be as brief as I can.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should remind right hon. and hon. Members that when the House decided in its wisdom to conduct parallel proceedings in Westminster Hall, it determined that they should be presided over by a Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Livsey: My sincere apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not make that mistake again.
The history of Wales is littered with stories of success and of decline. Our main problem is that we have not experienced sustained growth over long periods of time. The creation of the National Assembly has given us the opportunity to focus on long-term planning.
The history of my family is in Cyfartha Ironworks in Merthyr Tydfil, which hit the buffers in the 1920s. The ironworks was mentioned in the book by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) entitled "Something Must be Done"—the phrase with which the then Prince of Wales responded to the devastation in Dowlais. Fortunately, there was investment and regeneration in the 1940s, which the hon. Gentleman described in his book. Rural Wales thrived during and after the war, but now that prosperity has plummeted. There are serious infrastructure problems in the Welsh economy that must be addressed.
The scourge of Euro-scepticism has affected almost all British political parties, but it is essential that we enter the eurozone at the right exchange rate as soon as possible. Whereas the Welsh manufacturing industry constitutes 28 per cent. of the economy, London's, for example, constitutes only 10 per cent. We are affected badly by the disparity in the exchange rate, and for that reason, agriculture has been hit by a 40 per cent. drop in commodity prices. The Welsh economy must be directed towards job creation, which is the most important issue. The challenge is to change and develop our traditional skills, and get rid of obsolescence. The economy is still out of balance: there are too many traditional industries and not enough new, cutting edge ones.
We must improve our infrastructure; our roads and railways are appalling. Efforts are being made to improve matters, but that process needs a massive injection of capital. One problem is that we have little banking or insurance in Wales and minimal access to risk capital. There is a lack of innovation, entrepreneurship and skills, and we need to diversify. The National Assembly for Wales is addressing all those points, but, as has been said, the problem is the continuing decline in gross domestic product. We must make up the difference between Wales and the
228WH
remainder of the United Kingdom, which is why Wales qualifies for objective 1 and objective 2 funding. Welsh people have many innate skills at their elbow, but we must have more small business growth, technological change, increased skills, investment and marketing.
Population exchange is a big problem. Young people are leaving Wales and older people are moving in, so there are fewer economically active people. As a result, there is a productivity gap, especially in manufacturing.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: To some extent, manufacturing problems in my constituency have been centred on Laura Ashley, which has experienced difficulties. Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the big, traditional companies are resolving their problems? It is good to see Laura Ashley back on its feet.
Mr. Livsey: Yes, I very much agree with that. My hon. Friend has been in the Select Committee on Agriculture all morning and must return there now, but I am pleased that he was able to join us here, albeit briefly.
We have lower growth because we do not have enough economically active people. We must close the productivity gap. That is being addressed, but we need more investment in the Welsh Development Agency—as set out in the partnership agreement between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Government in the National Assembly for Wales—and the Wales tourist board. We must increase the availability of risk capital through Finance Wales, and improve marketing of agricultural produce through the agrifood partnership. The stability in the macro-economy is good, but we must put the micro-economy right and invest in our infrastructure. That long-term project will challenge Governments in the new century, and we need to get down to it. We must create the wage levels and jobs to sustain the Welsh economy in the future, so that we can increase the amount of money in the Welsh economy and match levels in the rest of the UK.
10.38 am
Mr. Nigel Evans: In the vein of the contribution from the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane), my speech will be full of constructive criticism. Before I say anything else, I congratulate publicly the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) on becoming a member of the Privy Council, which recognises his contribution to the House over many years.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the problems in Wales with the loss of manufacturing jobs, particularly in the south Wales corridor in the past few months, and the crisis in farming. No one can doubt that there are problems in some sectors in Wales. 1 was in Cardiff yesterday with representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses, the Confederation of British Industry and the Cardiff chamber of commerce, and five points were made to me.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: I shall give way once, because I have only a little time left.
Mr. Griffiths: I am interested in the fact that the hon. Gentleman had a meeting with the Federation of Small

229WH
Businesses in Wales because he has a part-time small business. What is his explanation for the fact that when he and his party were in power, the number of small businesses in Wales—according to VAT registrations—fell by one fifth? Is not the news about Tory proposals to cut the Department for Trade and Industry budget for small businesses part of the story of their failure to help small businesses?
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman needs to appreciate that, when Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, she had to transform the entire economy. We all remember the winter of discontent and the changes that had to be made in Wales. Without the changes that she and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) made, Wales would be in a much poorer state.
The Federation of Small Businesses made five nonparty political points. The first concerned the supplementary business levy, which could be introduced at 1 per cent. a year on businesses over five years. That money will come from profits, but some smaller businesses do not make profits. They see the levy as an extra stealth tax on businesses and they are very worried about it. Will the Minister please examine that?
Many industries in Wales traditionally use a lot of energy. Will the Minister make representations about the climate change levy, because businesses in Wales could be hit disproportionately due to the high number of manufacturing jobs?
At-work car parking charges are a threat in Wales and are seen as another stealth tax on businesses.
The Government say a lot about deregulation and cutting red tape, but during the past three and a half years, £5 billion-worth of extra red tape has been imposed on businesses. I shall give one example from my own business, to which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) referred. I had perfectly adequate weighing scales, but a man from Swansea council said that they must be metric. After years—more than a century—of selling products in pounds and ounces, we were told that we must replace weighing scales. My business can withstand the extra £400 cost, although I greatly resent it, but many small businesses in rural areas do not have the money to do so. Many seem to operate as social services and do not make profits, but they have had to replace perfectly good weighing scales. Will the Minister consider how the extra bureaucracy can be cut?
I was delighted with Brynlie Williams' comments on the second protest about fuel costs. If the first protest had continued for one extra day, it would have had a disproportionate impact on Welsh industry. Some industries were laying off people, so we know that it had an enormous impact. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he is listening, but, unfortunately, he has done very little. I do not know of any garages in Wales that sell low-sulphur fuel. The Chancellor has merely frozen the tax on fuel at the high level it was when the protest started.
The euro and Europe have been mentioned, and businesses have been told to prepare for the euro. The Labour-dominated Trade and Industry Committee has
230WH
said that businesses must spend around £30 billion on getting ready for the euro. That is an enormous cost on businesses and I ask the Government to examine it.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Evans: I am sorry, I do not have time to give way.
The Federation of Small Businesses yesterday launched a report on barriers to growth and survival. Will the Minister consider that report carefully, because it is critical not just of his Government but of successive Governments and their lack of support for businesses over the years? Table 18 refers to dissatisfaction with Government-funded business support services and states that 51 per cent. of businesses are dissatisfied with the business advice that they are receiving. Dissatisfaction with locally provided services among businesses in Wales is even starker: 74 per cent. are dissatisfied with the level of local support, 71 per cent. are dissatisfied with council business charges, and 76 per cent. are dissatisfied with the level of business rates.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) mentioned education. Some 50 per cent. of businesses in Wales are dissatisfied with the availability of suitable labour, 43 per cent. are dissatisfied with literacy in the labour force, and 40 per cent. are dissatisfied with numeracy. On government in general, 81 per cent. are dissatisfied with the volume of legislation produced in this House, 83 per cent. are dissatisfied with the complexity of legislation, 79 per cent. are dissatisfied with the rate of legislative change, 79 per cent. are dissatisfied with the way in which legislation is interpreted, and 66 per cent. are dissatisfied with the way in which EU regulations are implemented.
Some 927 businesses in Wales contributed to the report. Small businesses in Wales, in particular, are crying out for this Government to help them locally and nationally, so I ask the Minister to look carefully at this report. We need to help our fledgling small businesses in Wales to flourish. At the moment, they are not getting that help.
10.45 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): We have had an interesting debate this morning, in which a wide range of Members participated. I, too, shall begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) on his appointment to the Privy Council. 1 also want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas)—whom I am sure will one day become a right hon. Friend—on securing today's debate in Westminster Hall. It has given us the opportunity to discuss the Welsh economy and the many other issues raised this morning.
It is clear that unemployment in the constituencies of the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today is lower than when the Labour Government took office in May 1997. Indeed, the same can be said of the constituencies of those hon. Members who have been unable to contribute to today's debate, and we need to recognise that fact. I accept that there are still pockets of deprivation and difficult areas. There will always be shifts in the balance of the manufacturing industry, and

231WH
there will be some gains and losses at different points in the economic cycle. However, we should remember that, in terms of people of working age, 40,000 new jobs have been created throughout Wales since the general election, at a rate of approximately 1,000 a month. In other words, an extra 1,000 people a month have been given the opportunity to earn a decent wage, and are no longer reliant on benefits.
Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman says that 40,000 new jobs have been created since Labour took office. Why, therefore, did he say a fortnight ago that 80,000 new jobs had been created?
Mr. Hanson: As I just said, the figure of 40,000 relates to people of working age. If one includes people beyond working age who have taken up employment, the increase is 80,000.
Mr. Flynn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the current situation in Wales is unprecedented? Indeed, it is so new that we do not have a word for it. There are substantial areas of Wales in which unemployment is lower than in the 1950s and 1960s, when we used to talk about full employment. Should we not start talking about areas of nano-unemployment, rather than listen to the Jeremiahs among the Opposition who have overlooked this new phenomenon?
Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, and I can quote a number of such constituencies. For example, unemployment in Montgomeryshire is currently 1.8 per cent.; in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), it is 3.1 per cent.; and in Ceredigion, it is 3.8 per cent.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is referring to claimant numbers rather than International Labour Organisation figures?
Mr. Hanson: The figures that I have used relate to the number of people who currently claim unemployment benefit. Unemployment in Wales is at its lowest level for a considerable time, and that is thanks to the work that the Labour Government have done and the key economic indicators that we have generated and supported.
Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hanson: I should like to move on to the bulk of my speech, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West hit the nail on the head when he said that unemployment in Wales is at its lowest level for some considerable time. More people are in full-time employment, and fewer people are in temporary work, than in May 1997.
We have the security of objective 1 funding, which the Government brought forward—against anxieties expressed by Plaid Cymru Members. In addition, we have provided the basic input of improving wage levels through the minimum wage, which now benefits 100,000 people in Wales; the working families tax credit, which benefits more than 80,000 people in Wales; and, as my
232WH
right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) mentioned, the new deal, which has had a massive impact on reducing youth and long-term unemployment and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West said, on tackling age discrimination and long-term unemployment for older people.
Mr. Livsey: I agree that the new deal has been a success, and I congratulate the Government on that. However, does the Minister agree that in large parts of rural Wales young people are having to leave and the elderly population is increasing? Job creation is still a massive priority in rural Wales, with the fallout from agriculture and other declining rural industries.
Mr. Hanson: I accept that. The Government are committed to helping tackle rural poverty and rural unemployment. The figure for Montgomeryshire is 1.8 per cent., and in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the figure is slightly more than 3 per cent. We shall tackle unemployment and create a strong economy wherever possible. Yesterday the Government produced a rural White Paper relating to England, and some aspects of it will affect the economy of Wales. A great deal is being done for rural areas, one of which I represent. I accept that we need to consider how to tackle those issues.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend note that the leader of the Liberal Democrat party in Wales has just commended the new deal despite the fact that the Liberal Democrats opposed the funding mechanism of the windfall tax on utilities, which provided the money to operate the new deal?
Mr. Hanson: I welcome my hon. Friend's contribution, which shows how the Liberal Democrat party faces in different directions in different constituencies. To be fair, at least the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and his party are honest, because they said that they will scrap the new deal and the working families tax credit and abolish many of the mechanisms that have helped create the levels of employment that we have in Wales today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made a strong case for some of the key reasons why the Government have been successful in helping to create a strong economy. We now have stability in Wales in terms of the Government's economic policy. We have low interest rates that are helping businesses. We are attacking long-term unemployment through the new deal. We are raising income levels through the minimum wage and the working families tax credit. We have a commitment to objective 1, which is working not only in objective 1 areas but throughout Wales as a whole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) mentioned several manufacturing industries that are now success stories not only in Wales or Britain but worldwide. British Aerospace, in my own area of north-east Wales, is now a world-beater, and many thousands of manufacturing jobs will be created there because of the actions of this Government and the National Assembly for Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) mentioned a number of firms in his constituency. When I met and addressed the

233WH
information and communication technologies forum in north Wales, which he organised and which Ministers were invited to address, I found that there was great understanding and commitment to the Government's progress on developing information technology, supporting the development of new technologies and making sure that, with the support of the Assembly, Wales is ready for the challenges of the next generation of businesses as well as those of the previous one.
Mr. Llwyd: I mean this question constructively: have the Minister or the Secretary of State had an opportunity to speak to the leaders of the Japanese high-technology industries in Wales that are unfortunately shedding jobs at present? We must find out why that is happening so much in that sector.
Mr. Hanson: Officials and colleagues from the Wales Office and from the National Assembly have contacted businesses in Wales that have announced job losses recently. There is concern about what is happening and we must look at the problem. I know that colleagues from the National Assembly are looking at ways in which we can tackle some of the issues, arrange meetings and discuss job losses, and how we can develop and strengthen that sector to prevent further losses. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) and for Cardiff, North are concerned about the impact of those job losses in Cardiff. They have raised the matter with me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and they are fighting to ensure that we can secure those businesses in south-east Wales and Cardiff. It is important that we look at the problem. Action will be taken. We will meet them and discuss those matters.
Overall, jobs come and go, but the economy in Wales is strong. It is developing and it is secure. All hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have raised important issues, some of which were specific, but it is difficult to cover all areas in the short time available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West mentioned rail infrastructure. The Government and Railtrack must put safety first, but I recognise that the current difficulty is short term. It is causing problems for transport in north Wales in particular. In the long term, the Government are committed to improving the rail system, because it is important to the infrastructure and strong economy of north Wales. I hope that
234WH
Government investment in the rail system in England and Wales will, in due course, benefit the economy of Wales as a whole.
Mr. Huw Edwards: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the rail system. Does he think that it would be cheaper to invest in a better long-distance bus network in Wales? Does he share my astonishment that, every morning, I can get a bus from Monmouth to Aberdeen, but not to Bristol, Cardiff or London?
Mr. Hanson: The Government are certainly committed to investing in bus services in rural and other areas. The National Assembly has received a great deal of additional support and resources because of the comprehensive spending review settlement, which has allowed it to choose how to invest in an integrated bus service and in supporting rail services in Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West mentioned the age discrimination directive, which is an important issue in his constituency. The directive is currently going through the stages of consultation in the European Commission, and the Government will consider his representations in due course. We need to consider its implications at the finalisation stage—once it has been passed—but at present we have neither agreed the directive nor looked at its implementation.
I am conscious that time is pressing. We have had an interesting debate. A number of key issues have been raised by hon. Members. I will read their speeches and write to hon. Members whose concerns were not addressed today. The key message of the debate is that, fundamentally, the Welsh economy is strong and growing stronger because of investment by Government via objective 1 in west Wales and the valleys, because of the economic stability that the Government have been able to bring about, and because of Government support for the new deal. It is also growing stronger because of Government investment through the comprehensive spending review. In all sectors of the Welsh economy—the rural economy, tourism, manufacturing and the public sector—the Government are investing in real public services and real manufacturing jobs, promoting tourism and supporting infrastructural developments to help Welsh industry.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley raised various concerns, which I shall investigate further. However, neither he nor the wider Welsh community should forget the 18 years of Conservative government, which destroyed the economy—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We come now to the second topic for consideration today—health services in London.

Health Services (London)
11 am
Mr. Tom Brake: I am grateful for the opportunity to start this debate. I shall concentrate on south-west London, but the concerns expressed there are representative of the whole of London. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) will focus on London-wide health issues.
What are the main health issues in south-west London? Primary care; the recent strategic direction discussion document published by the Epsom and St. Helier trust; the merger of health authorities; and the threatened closure of Orchard hill. A few weeks ago I secured a debate on Orchard hill, so I shall not raise it again today, other than to say that since that debate, I had a meeting with Peter Andrew, one of the parents fighting the closure. He remains worried, because if the site is closed, the idea of a home for life for residents in a secure and safe environment, allowing a degree of independence that could not be provided elsewhere, will be lost and parents' and relatives' wishes will be disregarded.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the volume of changes undergone by the local health economy. We recently had community trust and mental health trust mergers, but I shall not focus on them today. Currently, primary care groups are moving to primary care trusts; there are primary care trust and health authority reorganisations and trust reconfigurations. I shall visit my local ambulance station in the next few weeks and will doubtless learn of organisational changes there, too. There is a great risk that all those changes will divert attention from the delivery of front-line services.
Will the Minister support a moratorium on the introduction of any new organisational changes within the NHS to allow changes that have just been, or are about to be, implemented to bed down properly? Does she agree that NHS staff might be suffering from severe reorganisational overload?
I shall now deal with local primary care group and primary care trust set-ups. I had understood that primary care groups were supposed to be mapped on to existing communities. The London borough of Sutton is just such a community, yet it has two primary care organisations—the Sutton primary care group and the Nelson and West Merton primary care trust. All the GPs in the Sutton primary care group are based in the London borough of Sutton, whereas Nelson and West Merton primary care trust GPs are based at more than one borough.
Will the Minister explain how that benefits local residents? There are two sets of business plans and priorities, two different codes of practice and, possibly, two speeds and tiers operating in relation to primary care. Neither the local authority nor the Royal College of Nursing considers that the duplication brings benefits. They agree that primary care groups or trusts should be coterminous with local authorities—I thought that that was also the Government's view—as it is a more sensible and easier form of management.

236WH
A document supplied by my local health authority states that
those PCTs that are co-terminous with the local authority boundaries…have the potential to become a key integrative force.
Presumably, that means that those that are not coterminous do not have such potential for the local health economy. That would be extremely regrettable. Even the Department of Health's website, which I checked last night, mentions primary care groups, including all general practitioners in an area.
The Government say that they are trying to get rid of postcode prescribing, and I support that aim entirely. However, the presence of two primary care organisations in the London borough of Sutton appears to be introducing a new, multi-tier health system that is not even based on postcode. Two people with the same postcode— they may even live in the same house—could receive different levels of service from their respective GPs if one has a GP in the Sutton primary care group and the other a GP in the Nelson and West Merton primary care trust.
Will the Minister explain, in writing if not immediately, why the Government have let that situation arise? I am aware of difficulties resulting from the partnership arrangements entered into by GPs in the Nelson and West Merton primary care group. Does she accept that there was some failure in the legislation that allowed such a partnership to be established?
I want to refer to the strategic direction discussion document of the Epsom and St. Helier NHS trust. I welcome the fact that the trust has described it as the equivalent of a Green Paper, which should mean that serious consultation will take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and I will conduct our own consultation on the proposals through a public meeting early in the spring, a meeting with health professionals affected by the proposals and, I hope, a meeting with Sutton seniors forum, the local forum for old-age pensioners in the borough. I am pleased that the trust has agreed to provide speakers where relevant for those meetings.
What would be the impact on the St. Helier and Epsom hospitals if the proposals were implemented? Helpfully, the answer to that is set out on the last page of the briefing pack for Members of Parliament. There will be a small transfer of those expectant mothers likely to experience the most difficult births and of child inpatients and complex accident and emergency cases from Epsom general hospital to St. Helier hospital. The transfer of elective adult in-patients and day cases in the other direction will be much larger.
It is not appropriate for me to comment in detail now on whether the proposals are in the interests of patients. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and I should conduct our public meetings and consultations to find out the views of the local community and its health professionals. There are already matters on which we would need to focus, should the proposals be implemented. One is the 24-hour ambulance shuttle service that apparently will be established to run seven days a week, 365 days a year. The service will transfer to St. Helier the small number of critical patients who, having been received at the accident and emergency ward of Epsom general hospital, cannot be dealt with there. Anything that requires a 24-hour operation,

237WH
365 days a year, will obviously be labour and cost-intensive. Guarantees would be needed that the service would be maintained, not cut, when budgets are squeezed.
I want an assurance from the Minister that the changes proposed in the discussion document will not lead irrevocably to the downgrading or closure of Epsom, St. Helier and Sutton hospitals, and the creation of one hospital to replace them. The trust accepts that the changes could be a staging post towards such a proposal, but if so, people do not want to feel that if the first step is made, the trust will have burnt its boats and that other options could not be considered. The local community does not want to be bounced into having only one hospital and it will oppose such a decision if it cannot be shown that it will deliver better-quality medical care.
Patient care must be the priority. I understand that hospitals have been given special grants to improve hospital entrances, other public areas and cleanliness. It is clear from the local government statement on Monday that the Government believe that the way forward is to earmark grants for specific projects. What efforts is the Department making to ensure that providing grants for specific projects is clinically the best thing to do? My impression from a visit to my local hospital was that if it had had a choice about using those moneys, it might not have chosen to use them to improve the public areas.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. However, he will agree that there have been many complaints in recent years about the appearance and cleanliness of hospitals, a matter that I have raised previously. Will he ask the Minister to comment on the ever-growing lake across the main entrance to the out-patients department at St. Thomas' hospital, which seems to be getting bigger by the week?
Mr. Brake: If there is time, I am sure that the Minister will want to comment on the lake outside St. Thomas' hospital and on finding a solution to the problem, even if that means a bucket and a brush. My hon. Friend made two serious points, with which I agree. Cleanliness is important, but if hospitals are given large sums of money, they should have some flexibility in deciding that the best use of that money is to invest in patient care rather than tarting up the public entrances.
The merger of health authorities is an important issue. If the trust's proposed reorganisation was not enough, the health authority is now consulting about a possible merger with a neighbouring health authority or authorities. I sounded out the Royal College of Nursing about the changes; its view—before the full consultation is completed—is that a stage 2 health authority would be better than a full regional health authority. It takes that view partly because of the arrangement for the primary care trust, which covers Sutton and Merton, but also, presumably, because the health authority is supposed to provide best practice, from a regional and national perspective, and to have local knowledge. An area such as Wandsworth, Kingston, Merton, Sutton and Croydon might be too large for those involved to get to the bottom of what is happening there.
238WH
Will the Minister give some guarantee that should any such merger proceed, the health authority will not be subject to a further upheaval just a few years later? It worries me when I read in the "Re-organisation of Health Authorities in South West London" consultation document issued by an independent management consultant that the current configuration exercise is to establish health authorities that have a life of three to five years. In the worst-case scenario of just three years, it would not be too long before yet another upheaval. In fact, I suspect that the authority would not have completed the merger within three years, before embarking on another one. It would not be appropriate for a health authority to go through the same trauma just three years after the previous upheaval.
The health economy in south-west London has experienced, is experiencing or is about to experience major upheaval. It is time to consolidate and sort out the basics; getting enough nurses and doctors and, improving the standards of cleanliness and the quality and quantity of food available to patients, who are often malnourished when they arrive and, according to some of my constituents, are even hungrier when they leave hospital. Given that change seems inevitable, I would like a guarantee from the Minister that the configuration adopted for primary care—or, in the future, care trusts—locally will sit comfortably with existing communities instead of cutting across them.
I would also like an assurance from the Minister that she will not allow the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority to be sidetracked into devoting much time, effort and money into a merger process with neighbouring health authorities when it should be focusing on assessing the changes that the Epsom and St. Helier trust proposes to many services, such as maternity, paediatrics and ambulance provision.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will be able to guarantee that the trust proposals will be allowed to proceed only if it can be clearly demonstrated that they are in the patients' best interests.
11.17 am
Mr. John Wilkinson: I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the debate and thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) for introducing it. He spoke about health services in south-west London. I shall speak primarily about health services in north-west London but I shall refer also to the ever-growing process of centralisation of hospital services in the capital, which is to the detriment of overall health care, certainly in outer London. The hon. Gentleman maintained that many of the problems that afflict the health service in south-west London could be found elsewhere in the capital. This is the case in the part of rural Middlesex which I have the privilege of representing.
In an Adjournment debate on the Floor of the House on 13 November, I spoke about modernising acute hospital services in west London, with particular reference to Harefield hospital in my constituency, which is under dire threat of closure as a consequence of ill-thought-out proposals. There is within the capital a volume of change, to use the expression of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, which is deeply unsettling for personnel in the NHS and above all

239WH
for patients and the general public. They feel that the service is in a constant state of flux and they have no confidence in the NHS management to manage the rate of change successfully and smoothly. Above all, they are affronted by the lack of public involvement in that process of change. It seems to them to be a thoroughly undemocratic procedure, pursued behind closed doors in an atmosphere of extreme secrecy. Health officials then spring changes on the public that they would not have wished, that they deplore and that they have little opportunity to change through the consultation process. Indeed, Mr. Cook—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not for the first time today, I must remind hon. Members that when the House, in its wisdom, decided to hold proceedings in parallel fashion in this Chamber, it determined that the presiding officer should be a Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Wilkinson: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am only too delighted to give you the right nomenclature. I wrongly thought that the proceedings were as in Committee.
The rate of change to hospital services in west London has been mirrored by the number of Adjournment debates which I have had on the Floor of the House. One was on St. Vincent's hospital in Eastcote, which was virtually forced to close as a result of the Government's decision not to allow health authorities to put NHS work in so-called private hospitals—even though St. Vincent's was a medical charity and not a private hospital. There was also a debate on Mount Vernon hospital in Northwood, many of the services of which have been stripped away. It will lose the burns and plastic units to Northwick Park in the spring of next year. There were two debates on the future of Harefield hospital, on 2 December 1998 and 13 November 2000. I spoke again on 28 July 2000 about the future of this outstanding centre of excellence.
The rate of change to hospital services is so dramatic and bitterly opposed by local people that their elected representatives must spend a disproportionate amount of time concentrating on NHS issues that should be managed efficiently and effectively by the NHS itself, which it clearly is not doing. Indeed, there has been an all-out assault by the NHS on hospital services in my constituency. The assault is not yet terminated, but I hope that it will be checked by a wise decision—which I trust that the NHS will make—not to go ahead with the closure of Harefield hospital.
Vested interests are at work, which is the most malign aspect. This is evidenced by the consultation process on the document to which I referred, which was issued by the West London Partnership forum of four health authorities in west London, led by the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority. It relates to the centralisation and rationalisation of renal services, paediatric services and cardiothoracic services in west London. The exercise has been flawed by the fact that the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority is a member of the Paddington basin regeneration partnership, which would benefit from one of the most important proposals—to create a new cardiothoracic hospital in the Paddington basin.
The first meeting in the so-called consultation took place on 13 July in the Metropole hotel, Paddington. The hotel—surprise, surprise—is also part of the
240WH
Paddington basin regeneration partnership, and stands to benefit from the proposals, so it is hardly impartial and objective. St. Mary's NHS trust in Paddington would also be a beneficiary of the proposals, as paediatrics would be concentrated there, and there would be a spin-off from the new cardiothoracic hospital alongside. It, too, is part of the Paddington regeneration partnership, which vitiates its independent status and damages public confidence in the process.
As I explained, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority has led the consultation proceedings, which will be wound up tonight in Imperial college, which is another potential beneficiary of what is planned. It will provide the general public with a final opportunity to have their say. However, it must be unambiguously stated that, although the public can have their say, there is no evidence that national health service officials listen to them—let alone carry their suggestions forward into implementation of new policies. This may gravely damage public confidence and lead to a total alienation of the public from the NHS management.
On 30 June, the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority asked Westminster city council for outline planning permission for the new hospital for cardiothoracic services at Paddington basin, for which it had not even issued the consultation document. It represents an intolerable presumption, pre-empting at a stroke the entire consultation process. There were two objectives behind that pre-emption. First, the health authority wanted to ensure that its planning application was in as early as possible, assuming that the consultation would be a rubber stamp and make no material difference to its proposals. Secondly, it wanted to make certain that the new Greater London Authority, which became operational on 3 July, had no role in assessing the planning implications. It was important for the health authority to circumvent the GLA's strategic planning role for the capital by getting in its application before the GLA began its operations. This was a highly unethical and unedifying little device, providing a further instance of public confidence being gravely undermined.
The new cardiothoracic hospital at Paddington basin is to be funded in part by the sale of land on the Royal Brompton and Harefield hospital sites. Any of us could tell the NHS that a far more cost-effective option would be to develop Harefield hospital, which falls within my constituency. The NHS national plan explains that the Government are rightly laying greater emphasis on improved cardiac care and that more moneys are being devoted to this admirable cause. However, Harefield might also be funded and its facilities modernised and improved. The hospital is already about the best in the world as regards care. There must be further investment in equipment, but the site and location are ideal, the personnel are committed and local people are supportive. Paddington basin is about the worst possible location for a new cardiothoracic hospital, lying in the middle of the most congested, polluted, lawless and unpleasant environment in central London. It will be much harder to find staff to work there and much more expensive to keep them.
An additional improvement to cardiothoracic services, as outlined in the document, will take place at Hammersmith hospital and will be funded by an extra

241WH
£13 million. Renal hospital care is to be concentrated at that hospital, and the build-up of those services should surely be enough for Hammersmith. The £13 million should go to the improvement of Harefield hospital, and it could be done now without drastically affecting the outline plan which has been put to the public. That would be a much more sensible policy.
Even in the most favourable circumstances, the new cardiothoracic hospital in Paddington basin will not be operational until 2006. Let us use the moneys from Hammersmith hospital and the moneys being made available under the NHS plan for cardiac medicine to improve Harefield hospital. In that way, an outstanding centre of excellence, which has done more heart transplants than any hospital in the world, can continue to operate to the benefit of all.
The final point is that NHS services in London are often planned centrally and take no account of the knock-on effect outside the metropolitan area. Harefield hospital is a case in point. It takes patients from all over the country and from abroad. Only 10 per cent. of the hospital's patients come from the borough of Hillingdon, where it is located. For it to be treated merely as part of the London NHS service is parochial and inadequate. The four health authorities concerned ought to have involved neighbouring health authorities much more widely, but they made no effort to do so. It is a national decision, and it should not be taken on a London basis.
I share the anxieties of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for south-west London, but drastic changes are needed also in north-west London. A good place to start would be to forgo the option of closing Harefield hospital. The hospital has had an outstanding past and it has a great future. People believe in it, and it should be allowed to carry on successfully.
11.31 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on bringing this subject to the attention of the House. The Minister has about 15 minutes to speak about the health service in London. She has my sympathy, because it would take about a week to do that properly.
I want to speak not only about the problems, but about the good features of the London ambulance service NHS trust. Way back in the last century, I was a casualty officer at University college hospital. I was there for more than a year and came to know the London ambulance service, as it was then, very well. Last weekend, I went on a trip down memory lane. I spent Saturday night with the ambulance service in Richmond, and went out the ambulance men on their calls.
I am delighted to report that nothing much has changed. Medicine and emergency treatments may have changed, but members of the ambulance staff have the same extraordinary character; a combination of intelligence, quick thinking, intense patience, hard work and the ability to laugh off the most extraordinary difficulties. I hope that the House shares my admiration for them. About 700,000 calls per year are made to the
242WH
ambulance service in London, and the ambulance staff answer them in about 350 vehicles. I cannot speak too warmly of them.
I was pleased also to hear the tremendously warm words that the ambulance crews had for the newly appointed chief executive, Peter Bradley. He has come up through the ambulance service but, even in the exalted position of chief executive, he finds time every week or two to wear a reflector jacket and act as a crew member somewhere in London. He wants to know the problems and difficulties that are being encountered by the ambulance service. That is some chief executive. I commend his activities to all chief executives in the health service, many of whom are out of touch.
The ambulance staff are being asked to do the most extraordinary things, but I am glad to say that standards in London are extremely high. That is due largely to Dr. Fionna Moore, the medical director of the London ambulance service, who trains and retrains the ambulance crews and organises seminars and teaching sessions for them, so that they can perform ever more difficult procedures and provide ever more advanced medical treatments to their patients on the way to hospital.
Mr. Philip Hammond: I am enjoying the hon. Lady's description of the marvellous work done by the London ambulance service, but will she confirm for the record that it is bottom of the national league for response times?
Dr. Tonge: I am coming to that. Response times are important, but it is also important to point out first what is excellent about the service. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
The quality of the service in London is good, but there are no national standards. It depends entirely on the medical director; another director may not be as good. The Minister needs to address that problem and ensure that there are national standards and protocols for ambulance services, so that the quality of the London ambulance service does not slip back if it has a change of staff. We have a helicopter service in London, albeit a scanty one. The police or ambulance service can summon a helicopter if they are in an extremely serious hole and need urgent help from the doctor on board. Helicopters are good, but there are far too few of them.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) mentioned response times. An ambulance should respond to a call inside eight minutes. As we all know, however, the London ambulance service's response rate is appalling. Its target was to attend 55 per cent. of calls inside eight minutes, but it achieved only 32 per cent. To someone who goes out with an ambulance, as I did, it is obvious that a vehicle travelling along the ground—albeit with flashing blue lights and a siren—simply cannot get through the London traffic. The problems with public transport have made it even worse. A journey in my car last week between Westminster and Kew, where I live, took two and a quarter hours. An ambulance making the same journey—a distance of less than six miles—will not make it in less than half an hour, even with its blue lights flashing. The problem is extraordinary and must be addressed.
Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Lady is making an exceedingly important point about traffic. With the

243WH
benefit of her experiences in the ambulance and in her car, does she agree that locating a premier heart hospital—which will take the most critical cardiac cases, involving people teetering on the edge of death—in the centre of London is absolute madness? Would it not be much better to keep the hospital at Harefield, which has easy access—because it is close to motorways and open country—and is a far more rational location?
Dr. Tonge: At times, I have been slightly irritated by the hon. Gentleman's constant advocacy for Harefield hospital, but his points in this debate have made me think. I am listening to his arguments and I entirely agree with him. The more I think about concentrating all our high-powered emergency services in the centre of London, the dafter it seems. The hon. Gentleman has done much to change my mind.
The problem is difficult to solve and is compounded by a shortage of ambulances. In Richmond, for instance, one ambulance is on duty and another is shared with surrounding areas such as Hounslow and Chiswick. Richmond does not have a spare ambulance. If one of them breaks down, that's it folks—unless a spare stand-by ambulance from another area can be used. That is a serious problem.
Mr. Brake: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a need for much greater communication between the ambulance service and other providers such as St. John's ambulance? Such organisations often have ambulances sitting idle that could be used.
Dr. Tonge: Yes, I was going to come to that. The call-outs that I experienced and was told about while I was working with the ambulance men ranged from the most trivial to the most serious and appalling cases. The 999 calls cannot be refused, although the switchboard tries to prioritise them. There can be a bit of a queue for an ambulance. On Saturday evening, for example, our ambulance service—fully equipped with defibrillators, paramedics and goodness knows what else—was called out by a woman who had splashed vinegar in her eye. An ambulance had to go out to that call, which seems an extraordinary waste of resources. I do not know how may hundreds of pounds that must have cost.
My hon. Friend the member for Carshalton and Wallington is quite right. We could use other resources for the non-urgent cases. I would ask the Minister to address the matter of obviously minor injuries. We trust NHS Direct to make judgments about whether a patient should go to hospital or the local pharmacist and we could do the same with the ambulance service. If NHS Direct is to be allowed to call ambulances in the future if it considers a condition serious, could not the two services liaise in some way so that the ambulance service can refer a patient with vinegar in her eye back to NHS Direct for advice? We need to think this out so that we do not use valuable teams to go out to trivial injuries. The other problem on a Saturday night was the drunks.
Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Lady clarify whether she is arguing for the routing of 999 emergency calls through NHS Direct?
Dr. Tonge: I am asking for it to be looked at. I am not being dogmatic. If we can allow NHS Direct nurses to
244WH
call ambulances, why can we not allow what turn out to be trivial cases—although they may not seem so to the person involved—to be referred back to NHS Direct when 999 is called unnecessarily? I would like to have a discussion and to work through what would happen if we did that.
I come back to the problem of the drunks, who are often an absolute pest. They occupy hours and hours of ambulance and casualty time for the sake of a couple of stitches on a chin, as I saw at the weekend. It was nonsense that hundreds of pounds were spent on someone who had fallen down because he was drunk and had a small cut on his chin. We must rethink the service if we are to use it more effectively.
One of the biggest problems for the London ambulance service is keeping staff. The average ambulance man with full paramedical training earns about £20,000 a year. They start as trainees at around £12,000 and work up to £18,000, but with overtime they can get £20,000. These are people who do cardiopulmonary resuscitation, set up intravenous drips and make judgments as to whether to call a crack team in the helicopter service; they earn, if they are lucky, £20,000. As long as they are paramedics, they stay at that level. There is no increment for years of service, apart from inflation. That is another outrage. Ambulance men are the lynchpin of the emergency service and they should be properly rewarded.
I discovered that eight ambulance men had recently left the Chiswick station in south-west London. They are not leaving the ambulance service; they are just moving out of London. If one moved right out into the countryside, one could exist on that sort of pay and find somewhere decent to live. However, people cannot live on that pay in the London area. Three are leaving Richmond. One told me that he was going to the west country where, instead of his cramped, two-bedroomed rented flat, he will be able to afford a mortgage and buy a three-bedroomed house with a nice garden. What chance is there of retaining those valuable staff if we do not tackle the problem?
I was asked to inquire as to what had happened to the help with mortgages scheme that the Government trumpeted in the spring. Health service staff were to be allowed interest-free mortgages, but ambulance men in London do not seem to have heard anything about the scheme. The ambulance service is desperately short of staff; it is more than 400 down on its requirements. Although the Government have in their wisdom told the service that it can have more staff and that more funding is available, it is necessary to find and recruit the people. The same is true of nursing and many other professions allied to medicine in the London area. The problem is a serious one and needs to be taken seriously.
The people who work in the service are denigrated because they do not achieve their targets, but they provide care of extraordinarily high quality to the patients with whom they deal. We should always remember that. The health service should cease to worry so much about targets and should pay more attention to the quality of care.
11.46 am
Mr. John Randall: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), for missing his

245WH
first few remarks. I congratulate him on obtaining the debate, which allows us another opportunity to discuss our concerns.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) in his remarks about the removal of services from our borough, and the potential threat to Harefield hospital. Unlike the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), I have never been irritated by my hon. Friend's advocacy of his constituency interest; such advocacy is probably the highest calling that anyone in this place can have. The people of Harefield and the Harefield hospital are lucky to have such a doughty crusader to speak for them.
Local Members of Parliament stand shoulder to shoulder on this issue—and I include the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) in that. Only last week, we had a third joint meeting of what I suppose these days is called the health economy in Hillingdon. I am not a great one for modern phrases, but I suppose that that sums up the matter quite well. At each of those meetings, the constant theme is the lack of confidence in consultation.
Yesterday I was here, listening to an interesting debate instigated by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) about community health councils. There was a strong impression that consultation on that matter had been along the lines of announcing, "There will be consultation about the future of community health councils, but they will be abolished." The same theme has been constant in my constituency and others. Consultation affecting Harefield and Mount Vernon hospitals has been of the same kind. Limited consultation is arranged, but everyone knows what the outcome will be. That does nothing to encourage belief in what the national health service is providing locally.
Of course, local provision is not what we are considering with respect to Harefield hospital. Harefield carries out 170 operations a year, of which 62 are heart and lung transplants. In total, 2,300 successful heart transplants have been carried out, which is a world record. Harefield is a European training centre for cardiologists. Some 60 countries send doctors there to be trained, who then return to their countries with new skills learned at Harefield. Some 95 health authorities purchase health services from Harefield hospital, and that covers roughly 9,500 episodes a year.
As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood has, of necessity, raised the issue many times, but it is always worth repeating such things. More than half of patients come from west, east and north Hertfordshire, Hillingdon, Harrow, Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, so access is very important. The hon. Member for Richmond Park mentioned the problem of access to the proposed complex at Paddington basin, with regard not only to gridlocking on the roads, but the public transport system. Like many other London Members of Parliament, I often use the underground, and the system is not at its best. For patients, and especially for visitors who must make several trips to the hospital, the state of underground and road systems will lead to further stress.
246WH
Although I am a lay person in these matters, there is a point which strikes me as obvious. Harefield is a marvellous location for care following the sort of surgery that we are discussing. Anybody who has been there will realise why the site was chosen. It is a superb location for recuperation. I cannot believe that the Paddington complex, even with its wonderful new buildings, will provide that same natural environment for recuperation; that is common sense. Many patients who come for major surgery come from a long distance away. Accommodation costs will be much higher in the centre of London. Many such matters have been brought before the House before, but we have reached a crucial period.
Costs are often mentioned. I found it striking that, according to figures supplied by the West London Partnership, Harefield needs only £20 million to bring it up to a minimum viable standard, whereas the new complex will cost£132 million. I am a simple person, but I cannot help feeling that the difference between those two amounts could be better used than for providing a new hospital when we already have a superb hospital that needs only bringing up to standard.
A report commissioned by the NHS Executive in 1999 and carried out by York university found that bigger hospitals are not necessarily better in terms of efficiency or quality of care. The report concluded that, overall, there was no compelling reason to believe that further concentration of hospital services would result in improved efficiency or automatic improvements in the quality of clinical outcomes. I am a great believer in the idea that small is beautiful. My constituents want to feel that their national health services are a part of the community, and the insistence on centralisation flies in the face of what people want.
Dr. Tonge: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a lot of that change is being driven by the general public's need for clinical excellence and expertise? The royal colleges, which are in charge of these matters and in charge of training, insist that hospitals should be big so that there is available the necessary expertise for the training of junior staff.
Mr. Randall: We all want clinical excellence, but I am not entirely sure that big always means the best. I concede, however, that I am a lay person and that the hon. Lady has great experience in such matters.
I should like the Minister to respond to all the issues that I have raised, although I am beginning to become a realist in this place. I am sure that all Members of Parliament hear horror stories about the national health service. In the past few weeks, I have been contacted about what has gone on in the Hillingdon hospital and elsewhere, and such matters must be dealt with. Occasionally, however, people write about the wonderful care that they have received, so we must be careful not to concentrate on the bad side. I pay tribute to those who work in the national health service and who have to work under extreme pressure for various reasons, many of which I cannot lay at the Government's door. Some I can, but I shall leave that for another time.
11.55 am
Mr. Paul Burstow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing the debate and on giving us the opportunity to discuss the health service, which is one of the most important issues that face us all. He referred to the massive change that the NHS is experiencing throughout the country, particularly in south-west London.
I must resist the temptation of becoming embroiled in my constituency interests, but the debate has rightly drawn attention to the worry that perhaps too much management time is being invested in reorganisation, rather than in the key issues of delivering better health outcomes for the population of London. Reorganisation, for its own sake, is a distraction; a worry that is echoed by some managers. I hope that there will be less reorganisation and more focus on delivering much of the health agenda for which the Government have been calling and many of us support.
Hon. Members have highlighted another part of London. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to south-west London, and the hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) rightly drew attention to the health service in north-west London. They spoke of their experience of the process surrounding decisions affecting Harefield hospital. Both hon. Gentlemen were right to highlight the lack of accountability and transparency in the NHS decision-making process and the fact that, all too often, the formal consultation stage, when it is reached, comes far too late to have a serious effect on that process.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge made the important point that when we debate the health service, it is inevitable that we focus on those matters that are not entirely right. I make no apology for the fact that I may do that in my speech. However, he was right, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), to highlight and praise much of the dedicated work of NHS personnel in all positions.
The debate is timely. We must recognise that we are on the verge of the busiest time of the year for our health and social care systems. It is a time of great stress and strain for all care staff, when the health and social care systems are tested to their limits. Signs are already emerging that this year's winter pressures will be every bit as intense as last year's. All it will take is another flu outbreak or a major incident to tip our health and social care systems over the edge. I wish to explore why the system is still vulnerable. Some of that vulnerability is a result of the previous Government's failure over a decade or more to invest in NHS and social care capacity. There are fewer nurses, doctors and beds.
Three factors will be crucial to managing winter pressure: the looming bed crisis in the private nursing home sector; the shortage of NHS beds; and the poor performance of the London ambulance service. The most recent annual returns state that London has lost 2,491 nursing home beds. The trend and the analysts point to an acceleration in home closures during the past year; something that will continue. About 50 per cent. of all admissions to nursing homes take place direct from hospital. Nursing home beds are therefore a critical part of the bed-blocking equation. Fewer nursing home beds means more delayed discharges.
248WH
Why are there fewer nursing home beds? The answer is simple; the cost of running care homes is increasing much faster than the level of state funding. A care home worker can earn more stacking shelves in Safeway than he or she can earn caring for a frail, elderly person, and that is even before one takes account of the extra costs of recruiting and retaining staff in London.
This year, the fees for state-funded nursing home places increased by only 2 per cent. On top of the rise in costs, many people in that sector feel uncertain about the future. The way in which the Government handled the new care standards for homes has undoubtedly done serious long-term damage to confidence in the market, which is at an all-time low. Costs are rising. People will not want to invest in the market; it gives no return at present. However, there is a certain return, in that the land is worth more with flats or houses on it than nursing home residents.
Problems in the nursing home sector are compounded by bed and staff shortages in the NHS. About a third of all nursing vacancies are in London. It does not pay to be a nurse in London. The Office for National Statistics says that the average wage in London is now £28,812. What pay is on offer for nurses in London? The Nursing Times advertises a qualified D grade staff nurse post with a starting salary of £17,257, including London weighting. That is £11,000 less than average London earnings. Even highly qualified staff are paid less than the London average. For example, the salary of a grade G ward sister to run a specialist ward in London is advertised as £23,962. It is hardly surprising that London has such a chronic nursing shortage, given that the pay is so out of touch with market conditions.
Depending on which newspapers one reads or to whom one talks, the figures vary, but it has been stated that there will be an extra 41 intensive care beds in London this winter. Is that figure accurate? Yesterday, my office contacted the NHS regional office to find out whether London will receive those extra beds and the staff to support them. Despite repeated questioning, that office would not comment on the plans for intensive care beds. It refused to comment on the number of beds, where they will be and whether they will be fully staffed and up and running by the planned date of 1 December. How many extra beds will be available to the NHS in London this winter compared with last winter? How many staff will be needed to support those beds? How many of those staff are in post today or will be in post on Friday, 1 December? Will those extra beds be fully staffed and operational by then?
Mr. Hammond: I want to clarify the term "intensive care beds". The report that drew attention to the 41 beds refers to "critical care beds". Mention has been made of high-dependency beds, intensive care beds and critical care beds. Are not the Government simply playing a game with terminology?
Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and one that I am sure he will develop later. Different reports that use different terminology cause the confusion. I hope that the Minister will be able to shed light on such issues.
Without the extra beds and staff, London will be facing another winter of trolley waits and ambulances ferrying sick people around accident and emergency

249WH
departments for want of a bed. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park referred to the London ambulance service. She rightly paid tribute to the dedication of ambulance crews and touched on the difficulties that crews face in respect of alcohol abuse, which affects the efficiency of the NHS and has a physical impact on ambulance crews. The numbers of assaults due to people being intoxicated is an unacceptable factor in the work of those crews.
Despite the dedication of the crews, the performance of the London ambulance service is the worst in the country when compared to other urban ambulance services. If one dials 999 in London, three times out of five the ambulance will take more than eight minutes to arrive. The best performance is in the west midlands, where in three out of five cases the ambulance arrives within eight minutes. Things in London have got worse and not better over the past year, as the ambulance service moves away from the Government target of a 55 per cent. response rate for 999 calls. A host of factors combine to make London the bottom of the league in that respect.
I hope the Minister will comment on traffic, which is a key issue. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the extra traffic on our roads this winter due to the crisis in the railway system and the safety work that is being done? That extra traffic makes it even more difficult to achieve response times. What contingency plans have been made to ensure that there are extra ambulances to guarantee some attempt to achieve those times?
In addition to the delays on the roads, delays are happening in hospitals. More than 1,000 hours a month are wasted as ambulance crews are forced to wait for patients to be admitted, which means that fewer ambulances are available to respond to 999 calls. That figure is based on average turnaround times collected in April and June. Does the Minister agree that turnaround times are likely to rise during the winter? What steps are being taken to prevent a further fall in attendance times as a result of the time spent waiting for a bed to become available? Another factor is that many of the dedicated professionals leave the service because they cannot afford to live and work in London.
A failure to recognise the collapsing confidence in the nursing home sector and the bed shortages that it is causing will exacerbate bed blocking in the NHS this winter. The failure to plan for increased capacity in the NHS for over a decade or more further exacerbates the pressures caused by bed blocking. The result is care gridlock in our system; life or death delays in 999 calls and more trolley waits in overstretched accident and emergency departments. Will the Minister lift the veil on the issue of how many beds will be available, whether they will be new beds and whether they will be fully staffed from 1 December?
12.7 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing the debate. Our previous debate on London health services was on 14 June. Following the implementation of the Ternberg
250WH
report, it is right that the House should regularly review progress in the development of those services. I am disappointed only in that not one London Labour Member of Parliament has bothered to attend the debate, despite the political stranglehold that the Labour party has on the capital. I hope that the House continues to monitor London health services, taking into consideration what matters to patients—the outcomes—and not the input made to the service by the Government, although that is what the Government would prefer to discuss.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said that in south-west London, we see a microcosm of the problems affecting the health service in London. It is also fair to say that, despite the special problems facing the service in London, the city represents a microcosm of the problems facing the NHS throughout the country.
Since our previous debate on the NHS in this Chamber, the Government have released their NHS national plan—a 10-year plan delivered after three years in office by the party that told us that we had 24 hours to save the NHS. With the 10-year plan in front of us, we can see the gap between Government rhetoric and the reality experienced by the people of London in their daily contact with health services.
The NHS in London has a revenue budget of about £5 billion and employs about 140,000 staff, so it represents a significant part of the NHS nationally. As we move towards the annual winter pressures, the media, which is largely based in London, will focus on what happens in the NHS in London. That will put London's health services under the spotlight—and under a tremendous amount of political pressure as well.
Among the national issues that impact on London in particular—some of which have already been mentioned by hon. Members—staffing is key. Nursing numbers in many London trusts are 25 per cent. below establishment numbers, which constitutes the worst shortage in the country. On this morning's "Today" programme, the Minister valiantly defended the Government's record against comments by the Royal College of Midwives about the midwifery crisis in London. Like me, she will have heard a midwife from King's college hospital say that its maternity department had to close twice in a week. That was the first time in 13 years that it had to refuse admissions.
In respect of the reduction of junior doctors' hours, five of the 10 worst non-complying trusts are London trusts. Even at the level of qualified surgeons, there are great difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff in London. The national service framework for coronary heart disease requires that, by 31 March 2001, no patient will wait longer than 12 months for cardiac surgery. Will the Minister concede that that requirement will not be deliverable in London, and that the Government are exacerbating the problem and alienating senior cardiac registrars by threatening to bar them from private practice when they become consultants?
I should not leave this issue without mentioning the problem of ancillary staff. Even when it is possible to find nurses from the Phillipines or Spain, or doctors from Germany or Finland, hospitals often find it difficult to clean wards, move patients around and deliver food to them. The pressure to find ancillary staff is worsening all the time.

251WH
Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to the tremendous work undertaken by London NHS staff. They work under great pressure, and often for little thanks. Many face daily abuse and violence, and morale is at rock-bottom. That is made worse, I am afraid to say, by the brick bats that Ministers—and the Prime Minister himself—regularly aim at doctors in particular.
As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said, another problem is bed blocking, although I fear that he may have understated it. He mentioned a figure of some 2,400 beds a year, based on recent statistics. However, according to figures that I collected yesterday for Kingston upon Thames—the smallest London borough—there has been a net loss of 300 beds in the residential and nursing care sector since 1 April this year. That suggests a meltdown and, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, it leads directly to the bed-blocking problems that will undermine the Government's careful preparations for this year's winter crisis.
Dr. Tonge: The previous Government closed Queen Mary's hospital in Roehampton without making any provision for the extra beds that were consequently required. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that has contributed to the intense problems in Kingston and, indeed, Richmond, which is part of my constituency?
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Lady is addressing a slightly different point. Bed blocking is created by the inability to discharge patients who have completed their clinical care and need continuing social care. As she well knows—if she does not, her hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam does—that is a major problem that
undermines the Government's attempts to deal with this winter's NHS crisis.
On 23 November, just one intensive care bed was available in London. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned that 41 additional beds were promised, but no one has been able to confirm whether they are intensive care beds. The number of outpatients in London who wait longer than 13 weeks is on the rise. One major London trust told me yesterday that orthopaedic outpatients are waiting more than one year to see a consultant. In London, the number of operations cancelled on the day is rising.
The suspended list, comprising of patients who no longer appear on the waiting list because they have been suspended, is a scandalous device that is widely used in London and elsewhere to reduce waiting lists and achieve targets. How many patients in London are now on the suspended list, following the scandal at King George V hospital in Ilford more than a year ago?
One in four of the longest accident and emergency waits in the country occurs in London. Waits of more than two hours are increasing—a fact that is regularly mentioned, no doubt much to the annoyance of Ministers, by London community health councils in their casualty watch reports. For example, on 21 August, Tower Hamlets community health council reported that a 66-year-old patient with abdominal pain waited on a trolley for 19 hours after the decision to admit him. Is that why the Government are so anxious to abolish community health councils? Can the Minister
252WH
look hon. Members in the eye and tell them that she expects the Government's new patient advocates, who are employed by their NHS trusts, to sendunsolicited—to Members of Parliament the kind of damning information that we regularly receive from CHCs?
It is easy to focus on the big headline issues that affect London's hospitals, but we must never forget that alongside the great centres of excellence are some of the worst performing and worst delivered primary health care services. For the sake of the NHS in London, I appeal to the Minister to ensure that when the Government address the special problems that London faces—such as the inexorable rise in TB cases, falling levels of vaccination, rising teenage pregnancies and the above-average rate of adult male mental health problems—they do not forget the requirements of ordinary people who do not have high-profile needs, belong to a specially targeted group or have Government ring-fenced money directed at them. The future of the NHS in London depends on maintaining a consensus based on the understanding that the needs of ordinary people can be met by the service; that after all the high-profile and glamorous work has been done, enough money will be left to deliver proper primary and community health care services.
Will the Minister tell the people of London how she can square the Secretary of State's rhetoric two weeks ago"when he announced a doubling of the ring-fenced money to address inequalities"with the fact that Camden and Islington will be the only London boroughs to receive any of that extra money? London will receive only £1.3 million of the £130 million that was announced. Can she explain to the people of Newham why, given that the Government are supposedly addressing inequalities in health care, a place such as Newham will receive no additional money whatsoever under the initiative announced by the Secretary of State? In reality, that initiative is about distributing money away from London to places further north.
This has been a useful and interesting debate, and I look forward to the Minister's response. I hope that she will deal with some of the specific points that I and other hon. Members have made.
12.18 pm
The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing the debate. We last debated the subject during the consultation process on the NHS plan, so this is a timely opportunity to discuss how the plan will take forward proposals for the NHS in London and the implications of that.
The NHS faces particular challenges in London, a diverse city with a population of more than 7 million. An additional 2 million people come to the capital each day for leisure purposes and another 1 million non-Londoners commute daily to work in the city. That inevitably places great pressure on the national health service. London's greater mix of ethnic groups and sharper extremes of wealth and poverty—with high unemployment, low pay, poor housing, crime and environmental pollution in some areas—all contribute to the problem.
The NHS employs more than 140,000 people in London alone and is the largest employer. It is larger by far than any company and in most boroughs it is among

253WH
the largest employers. I join the tributes made by hon. Members today to the immense contribution made by hard-working NHS staff throughout the city and the difference that they make to patients' care and patients' lives.
I shall respond to some of the general points that have been raised, especially those in the context of the NHS plan, but I shall try first to deal with some of the specific issues.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to Orchard Hill, where the health authority is in discussion with the local community following the judicial review. He also referred to proposals concerning primary care groups and trusts and changes to health authorities. He knows that I am limited in what I, as a Minister, can say because any proposals for change would have to go through extensive public consultation and the proposals have not been announced. We prefer to encourage coterminosity because it can make joint working, especially with local government, considerably easier. However, there must be flexibility to cope with local circumstances and communities.
The NHS plan covers fundamental change not in institutions and restructuring, but in ways of working in institutions and in partnership among institutions. Reconfiguration sometimes contributes to that, but sometimes it is a distraction. We expect health authorities and institutions throughout the country to make delivery of the NHS plan a priority and to ensure that any changes are in the context of delivering better care for patients. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington knows that I cannot comment in detail on the Epsom and St. Helier NHS trust because the consultation is only just concluding and proposals may be referred to Ministers. However, it was helpful to hear his views.
It was also helpful to hear the views of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). As he said, consultation is under way and as proposals may be referred to Ministers later, he will know that I cannot comment at this stage. However, I can tell him that we shall keep benefits for patients at the top of our criteria for assessing any proposals for change.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) referred to a lake at St. Thomas' hospital. I visited the hospital less than a month ago and I did not see a lake, but I shall ensure that her comments about it are passed on. She also paid tribute to the hard work of the London ambulance service and I join her in that. The target response for ambulances throughout the country is eight minutes. The London ambulance service's aim is to reach 55 per cent. of patients within eight minutes by the end of March next year.
There are additional problems in a busy capital city, but the service has made considerable progress. In the past seven years, the demands on the service have almost doubled and, in the same period, the number of responses meeting the eight-minute target has increased from 12 per cent. in 1993 to 41 per cent. today. Clearly that improvement needs to continue and the amount of medical, support and emergency services that we can provide through the ambulance service is supported by the NHS plan. I shall write to the hon. Lady about the
254WH
issues that she raised concerning links between the ambulance services and NHS Direct. We have invested an extra —21 million across the country to improve ambulance response times, and to meet the national service framework in respect of coronary heart disease.
The hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) raised various issues concerning London that I shall try to address as I cover some more general points. We are setting out a huge programme of implementation for the NHS plan, which includes setting up a modernisation board with task forces in many areas to oversee the programme. I am pleased that a London modernisation board has been set up, and I am delighted that it includes clinicians and managers from the NHS, partner organisations and patient and user representatives. Clearly, to implement the NHS plan, we need an effective partnership across the city.
Part of the story of implementing the NHS plan and addressing many of the concerns raised by hon. Members concerns extra resources for the NHS in London. This year, there has been already a significant increase in resources for the NHS in London. Next year, there will be an above average increase of 8.9 per cent., including extra help to tackle both inequalities and the cost-of-living supplement. The cost of living is a particular issue in respect of recruitment pressures within the city. For the first time, we have given health authorities a guaranteed minimum level of funding not only for one year, but for future years.
Mr. Hammond: The Secretary of State announced a —70 million increase in the ring-fenced inequalities fund. Why has only —1.3 million of that money gone to London, a city with two thirds of the most deprived local authority wards in the country?
Yvette Cooper: I have been searching through my papers for detailed figures about the allocations, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on that point. Clearly, there is an inequalities issue in London; that is why we have health action zones in Hackney, Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham. We must tackle inequalities right across the city. That is why, for example, we are examining both the causes and prevention of health inequalities, which the Conservative Party fundamentally failed to do in 18 years in office. Inequalities are at the top of the Government's agenda.
Returning to the issue of extra money, there will be a —493 million increase for London next year, which will take its total allocation to more than —6 billion. Compared with an average real increase of 3 per cent. in previous years, an increase of more than 6 per cent. over several years constitutes a sustained increase.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was happy to list a series of complaints about the NHS, but I am interested to know how he expects them to be addressed. We have set out a clear programme for investment and reform, and I am unsure whether he is calling for resources in addition to that extra investment, or whether he intends to abandon his proposed subsidy for private health insurance to make up the shortfall in the investment that would be needed to match our proposals. Over the next few years, our

255WH
capital investment plans include —3.5 billion to be invested in primary, community, mental health and hospital settings.
Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister write to me to answer the questions about intensive care beds, so that we can have those answers on the record?
Yvette Cooper: I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman. I was about to discuss our preparations for winter, with which I shall try to deal rapidly. We have already made available more than —34 million of additional funds for the winter in London, and we shall set out the exact proposals on critical care beds and acute beds. I understand that plans are in place for an extra 40 critical care beds and an extra 400 acute beds, compared with last winter. We shall set out further details in due course about the extra capacity in the capital this winter.
Discussions are continuing about further investment this winter, which is needed. We also need to reform the way in which things happen. Many excellent proposals have been put into operation in London already, including the innovative cancer collaboratives, which change how NHS care is provided. A huge number of other proposals will come on-stream as a result of the NHS plan, which should make a substantial difference to the care of patients in the capital city.

HM Prison Chelmsford
Mr. Simon Burns: I welcome the opportunity to debate a matter that is of great importance to my constituents and to those living in mid-Essex, especially relatively shortly after the publication of the latest report by the chief inspector of prisons. It is a cruel irony that today is the sixth anniversary of the death of Christopher Edwards. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who has worked on behalf of his constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Edwards, the parents of Christopher Edwards. I note, too, that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) is also present. What goes on in Chelmsford prison is important to other hon. Members in the county and beyond.
As the Minister knows, in the past three and a half years, the chief inspector of prisons has produced three reports on Chelmsford prison. After the publication of the March 1999 report, I was so worried about the situation in the prison and the chief inspector's report that I secured a debate on 31 March 1999. During that debate, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office said:
I hope that, this time next year, the hon. Gentleman is in a position to secure a debate following the report to discuss improvements.—[Official Report, 31 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 1070.]
Sadly, 18 months later that is not the case. The next report has just come out, and in it the chief inspector states:
If this was the report of our first inspection of Chelmsford prison for a number of years, I would be pointing out that much of what it contained was wholly unacceptable, because it showed that prisoners clearly came last in the priority list for too many members of staff. That it is not the first, or the second but the third report in three and a half years to have said exactly the same thing makes it far worse, because it discloses that, yet again, the Prison Service has failed to address some very significant identified failings to do with the treatment and conditions of prisoners allocated to the prison.
I hope that the Minister agrees that that is a fairly damning indictment of the apparent inability of the Prison Service to tackle problems and adopt the recommendations that the chief inspector keeps making in respect of the prison.
For the sake of fairness, before I talk about some of the on-going problems highlighted in the report, I shall mention those important areas in which positive action has been taken since the 1999 report. First, a new reception building has been opened, which is a great step forward; it certainly meets the vast majority of criticisms and recommendations made by the chief inspector in previous reports. Secondly, the cell call bell system, which has been a major cause of concern in the past, has been replaced with a new electronic system which, according to the report, seems to be working well. I warmly welcome that fundamental and important step forward. Thirdly, an enhanced thinking skills course has been introduced, which benefits the prison environment.
However, turning to the recommendations that have not been achieved, the picture is more sombre: 41 of the chief inspector's previous recommendations either have not been achieved or have been only partially achieved.

257WH
Given that this is his third report, that record is dismal and gives great cause for concern. Time does not allow me to discuss all 41 problems, but I shall draw attention to a few of them, the first of which is the health care centre. In his preface to his latest report, Sir David Ramsbotham states:
The regime in the Health Care Centre is profoundly unsatisfactory where, quite apart from the poor physical standards, the laid down standards for the in-patient regime, particularly for young prisoners, are in no way being met.
He continues:
The regime for vulnerable prisoners, from whom all work opportunity has now been removed, is an affront to the Prison Service's Statement of Purpose.
Unfortunately, the health care provided is of a standard that would be totally unacceptable to the population outside prison life. That cannot continue to be tolerated.
The report reiterates that previous recommendations for the health care budget to become needs-based have not been achieved. Similarly, the recommendation that the delivery of primary care should be the same as within the national health service has not been fully achieved. To achieve that, the report states, rightly, that there should be increased use of skilled primary care nurses equivalent to NHS practice nurses. I hope that something will be done urgently to address the problem and meet the recommendations.
The report is also quite damning about the failure of an audit of the new system for identifying mentally disordered people within the criminal justice system and adjusting staff levels to meet increased need. Given the sad history of Chelmsford prison in that respect, I am concerned that more has not been done to implement Sir David's recommendations. Apparently, up until April, when the unannounced visit took place, the courts had sent 58 faxes to the health care centre about new prisoners at risk of self-harm. There appears to have been no audit of the scheme and a registered mental nurse was not always available at reception to screen such prisoners. As the chief inspector rightly says, that omission should be rectified, and I trust that it will be.
More needs to be done to minimise self-harm in the prison. Apparently, in the 12 months to April this year, there were 70 self-harm incidents at the prison, including 12 attempted hangings, one of which, tragically, resulted in death. Such a record is not acceptable. The unannounced visit took place more than six months ago and the report has only just come out; if nothing has been done to implement the recommendations during the intervening period, will the Minister ensure that implementation becomes a matter of urgency?
I should also like to draw attention briefly to paragraphs 3.03 and 3.04 of the report, which deal with the length of time that prisoners stay locked up in their cells. Paragraph 3.03 states:
In concluding whether Chelmsford has moved forward in terms of the treatment and outcomes for prisoners, we were disappointed to find that in the 17 months since the last inspection prisoners were still spending too much time locked up. The official routine showed reasonable time out of cell every day for association but, in practice, bore little resemblance to the reality. There had been no improvement since our last visit and the reasons for this, we were told, were mainly attributable to staff shortages.
258WH
Paragraph 3.04, on a related issue, says:
Conditions for some prisoners, notably vulnerable prisoners and young patients in the health care centre were considerably worse—
in other words, worse than during the previous visit by the chief inspector. The report states:
Routines and regimes were still being dictated by minimum staffing levels and cancellations of exercise and association were a regular weekly occurrence. Levels of assault, self harm, use of force and adjudications had not abated. Provisions for education through care and resettlement were inadequate and sometimes worse than before.
Both those paragraphs mention staff shortages as part of the problem. Are they due to staff illness, or are too few prison officers employed at the prison to carry out day-to-day operations to an acceptable standard, as defined by the chief inspector of prisons?
Those are just some of the problems highlighted in the report. The question remains what can be done to ensure that the report's recommendations are implemented in full. Given that the report followed an unannounced visit in April, some of the recommendations may already have been achieved. I hope that the Minister can enlighten me in that respect. I do not want to dwell on the past, as little can be gained from trying to attribute blame. I prefer to concentrate on the crux of the problem. Where do we go from here and what can be done to ensure that remedial action is taken to fulfil the chief inspector's recommendations and to enhance and improve the environment of Chelmsford prison, which has been the subject of so much continual and persistent criticism?
I have several questions for the Minister. First, what has been achieved at the prison since the unannounced April visit? Secondly, when the chief inspector returned in April this year, why did he find that so many of his previous recommendations had not been, or had only partially been, achieved? Thirdly, is money the problem? It is easy to blame every problem on lack of money, but I do not want to fall into that trap if it is not justified. Is there a serious problem with funding?
As a constituency Member of Parliament, I appreciate that when we debated the issue in March 1999, the Government made available extra funds to ensure that recommendations on the reception area were adequate funded. However, I want to know whether funding or other factors are responsible for the problems, delays and sloth; if the answer is other factors, what are they? Is there a culture of inertia, or does the Prison Service disagree with some of the chief inspector's recommendations? Finally, what can be done to ensure that the chief inspector's recommendations are implemented as quickly as possible? If the validity of the recommendations is accepted, we need proper pressure and timetables to ensure that they are implemented as realistically and swiftly as possible.
The provision of health care in the prison is a disgrace. Will the Minister give an assurance that it will be improved as a matter of urgency to ensure that prisoners are treated to the same standard of health care that we expect from our own NHS health care? It is shaming that, for a third time, Sir David Ramsbotham and his team have produced a damning report on Chelmsford prison. Sir David has promised to return

259WH
next May. What assurances can we have that his next report will be a pleasure to read, rather than a litany of embarrassing failures?
12.44 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on securing the debate and thank him for the courtesy that he did me in informing me in some detail of the points that he intended to raise. He and several other hon. Members on both sides of the House take a continuing interest in Chelmsford jail. I am glad to see other hon. Members from the county here this afternoon, some of whom have also made representations to me expressing concern about the treatment of their constituents in the prison.
We meet again to consider an adverse report on Chelmsford prison from the chief inspector of prisons on a particularly sad day for the parents of Christopher Edwards. All those in the Chamber will want to extend to them our deepest sympathy and condolences on a day that must be poignant with memory for them. We owe it to Christopher and to others who have died in the prison system, and to our fellow citizens, to ensure that prisoners are held securely in safe and decent conditions, so that the public may be better protected and the causes of offending may be better addressed.
The hon. Gentleman identified several improvements that had been made since the House last considered a chief inspector's report on conditions at Chelmsford. However, hon. Members will ask, rightly, as did the chief inspector, why the Prison Service has
failed to address some very significant identified failings to do with the treatment and conditions of prisoners allocated to the prison.
It was in response to just such concerns on the part of the chief inspector about other places that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary asked Lord Laming to lead a working group on targeted performance improvement. He did that out of recognition of the fact that the Prison Service has failed on several occasions to deal adequately with problems that have been identified. We are determined that that should change and that the Prison Service's performance should improve at Chelmsford and elsewhere.
One of the most important recommendations of the working group's report, which was published on 27 July, endorsed the way in which the more robust operational management by area managers and the deputy director general of prisons was increasing the service's success in identifying matters of concern and dealing with poor performance. A great deal of work has been done to drive up standards in the Prison Service, including the introduction of performance standards, audits and targets tailored for each establishment. That is to be welcomed. The chief inspector has an important role in identifying prisons that are failing to achieve what they should.
The Prison Service is aware of the establishments that present problems, and Chelmsford is one of them. The area manager and deputy director general identified it as one in which an improvement in performance was not only to be expected, but demanded. There is no doubt that in April, when the inspection took place, the regime was not operating as it should have been. Conditions fell
260WH
short in several respects. Some progress has been made and recognised, but it has not been sufficiently uniform to give us cause for satisfaction.
However, it is right to say that a great deal of progress had been made since the previous inspection report was published in March 1999, and that progress is continuing. Of the 99 recommendations in that report, 43 had been fully or largely achieved by April 2000. The effort in achieving that should not be underestimated. Problems as extensive as those at Chelmsford, which have arisen over a number of years, cannot all be remedied overnight—indeed, they have not been.
I am grateful to hon. Members and the board of visitors at Chelmsford prison for keeping up the pressure for improvements in standards. The members of that board are drawn from the local community and we are enormously indebted to them for giving their time voluntarily to serve on it. They are, of course, independent of the prison service, so it is worth noting what they said after the publication of Sir David's report. The board states:
The Board of Visitors share Sir David's concern that prisoners at HMP Chelmsford are still spending too much time locked up but the Board is disappointed that Sir David has not recognised in his comments the valuable work being done by staff in difficult circumstances.
Since the inspection in April, management and staff have agreed upon a complete reprofiling with a view to improving conditions for prisoners.
The board of visitors recognises the steps that have been taken. The reprofiling was necessary and has, as a minimum, protected the delivery of the existing regime. The board went on to say that it looked forward to the extension of activities, including evening activities that the reprofiling should deliver.
During the previous inspection, major concern was expressed about the reception facilities. As has been said, they have been improved. The facilities took up no fewer than 18 of the chief inspector's recommendations on that occasion; 14 have been accepted and wholly or partly achieved, and three are no longer relevant as a result of the new building. In contrast with the inadequate conditions found previously, inspectors found that the area was clean, procedures were in place to ensure that all areas were hygienic and decent. In addition, staff dealt with new arrivals sensitively. A review of reception procedures had taken place and the reception experience had been improved. That major piece of work was implemented while maintaining daily throughput of prisoners.
After the concerns expressed about the cell call bell system and the speed of staff response, it is good to see that, not only has a new system been installed and works correctly, but staff responses are good and the management monitoring of response times is identified as an exemplar of good practice.
Mr. Bob Russell: The Minister will be aware that I secured an Adjournment debate in July on the installation of safe cells, which could reduce the number of suicides involving remand prisoners by up to two thirds. Will he tell us whether there is a programme for the installation of safe cells in Chelmsford prison?
Mr. Boateng: We are working throughout the prison service on the incremental introduction of safe cells. I would expect that to apply to Chelmsford as to everywhere else.

261WH
I shall now deal with some of the specific issues raised by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford. It is important to recognise what has been achieved since the unannounced visit in April by Her Majesty's chief inspector. In terms of health care, new money has been given for a health care centre, which is an important development that involves considerable capital spend on the part of the service. In addition, senior health care managers have been seconded; a project manager for new health care provision has been put in place; Essex health authority and Chelmsford have undertaken a joint needs analysis to provide a blueprint for future action; a steering group chaired by the governor of Chelmsford is to look at current health care provision; transitional arrangements for the move to the new health care centre have been made; the existing health care centre has been redecorated, which is important in improving the atmosphere in which staff are asked to carry out their work; there is daily association for health care prisoners, including TV, pool and board games; provision has been made for education, library and some charity work; and a national taskforce has been set up to improve health care standards.
Those provisions were all undertaken in the context of improved arrangements between the NHS and the prison health service, which were a necessary reform initiated by the Government. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford, who was my predecessor at the Department of Health, will be only too aware of what it has taken to get the NHS and prison health care system working as closely together as they are. That cooperation should have happened a long time ago, but it did not; it is happening now and the hon. Gentleman's constituents should be direct beneficiaries of it.
I shall say a few words about vulnerable prisoners and young offenders. Vulnerable prisoners now have increased access to the prison library; education
262WH
facilities are provided at least twice a week, subject to further developments in the new year, when we want to improve provision for vulnerable prisoners; and they now share the full range of visits facilities. For their induction, young offenders can be moved on to a young offender wing and they can stay on induction for up to one week to familiarise themselves with the new routines. They can have another trusted young offender as a cell mate under a "buddy" system, which is important in terms of both induction and bearing down on suicide; once off induction, they can elect to share a cell with a friend. We are delivering a further review in respect of young offenders, which will give Monday to Friday evening activities from April 2001.
There have been real improvements in the regime across the board, but we are not complacent. Because it remains important to ensure that we deal better with the transition back into the community, we now have a full-time employment co-ordinator, employment is now allocated on induction, and attendance at work is now closely monitored and reported to the governor on a weekly basis, all of which are important in terms of time out of the cell. There is also improved performance in respect of self-harm: again, there is no room for complacency, but the suicide prevention management group is hard at work increasing the length of visits to maintain family contacts and prisoners now move to activities on a free-flow system; that increases the amount of time prisoners spend on those activities and visits and out of their cells.
A raft of measures has been implemented, with still more to be done. I welcome the on-going attention that hon. Members from the county have paid to the subject and to today's debate. I particularly welcome the opportunity that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford has given us to address an important issue. The prison has failed in the past, but it has now turned the corner and is improving its regime and the service that it provides to the people of Essex and the public as a whole.

Wembley Twin Towers
Mr. Derek Twigg: I welcome the opportunity to debate this rather unusual subject. Although it is an important constituency matter for me, it is also a matter of national interest. I believe that the events surrounding the demolition of the twin towers should be told in Parliament and a national disaster thereby exposed.
It is nothing short of scandalous that the demolition of the twin towers should have been proposed. They are known around the world; they are an icon and one of the best-known of English buildings. To those hon. Members who travel to London on the west coast railway, they are a landmark—I apologise to those who have different landmarks. They are an important part of our national sporting heritage and their demolition will be a major loss. I shall describe the events that led to that disastrous decision being made and make clear what a serious blow it is to my constituency. Given some of the press reports, it is important that the true facts are known.
I thought it strange when I first heard that Halton borough council wanted to put in a bid for the towers for the national rugby league museum. However, when the members of the council told me about the plans, I realised what a great innovation it would be as an anchor for a national rugby league museum and the development that would accompany it. Many people thought that the bid was not serious. Some, especially the metropolitan elite, found the idea of a small northern town—Widnes, of all places—bidding for Wembley towers amusing, but we in the north-west did not think so. It was a great pleasure to see the plans, which are here today. Eventually, people began to realise that it was not a joke, but a serious proposition.
Halton borough council's interest in the twin towers arose when the Rugby Football League proposed a national museum for rugby league. I was born and bred in Widnes, the greatest rugby league town in the country, and I have been many times to Wembley. Given the size of Widnes, its record outstrips even those of Wigan, St. Helens and Leeds—
Helen Jones: And Warrington? Mr. Twigg: And Warrington.
The national rugby league consortium, which consists of Halton borough council and the Rugby Football League, proposed to locate a major new visitor attraction on a site to the south of Widnes town centre known as Venture fields. The national museum was designed to appeal to enthusiasts and the general population. Incorporating the Wembley towers into the building would give it a unique design and provide a major landmark on the banks of the Mersey. They would be visible for some distance, especially from the Runcorn-Widnes bridge, which is one o? the busiest thoroughfares in the country.
Discussions with Wembley commenced in February 2000. From the outset, Wembley insisted on a confidentiality agreement, and Halton borough council entered into such an agreement despite the problems that it would cause, particularly in promoting wider
264WH
support for the project. The council sought a partner for the project and, after talking to a number of companies, settled on St. Mowden plc. With that partnership in place, a development and consulting team was put together. It was a serious proposition, with serious players.
Studies put the cost of removing the twin towers at —2 million and the cost of erecting them in Widnes at —1 million. St. Mowden agreed to finance the relocation, expecting to recover the costs from the final development, and the council agreed to underwrite the risk. Provided the overall scheme was successful—there was every reason to believe that it would be—there would be no call on the public purse.
A detailed method statement was prepared, showing how the towers would be removed. The contract for the work of removing the towers was won by Birse plc, a well-respected civil engineering company. Most important, the method statement was accompanied by a commitment to dovetail the removal of the towers with the Wembley demolition programme, to ensure that it had no adverse impact on the national stadium project. It is important to highlight that, given some recent press reports on the subject. Work on the site was expected to start in early November and to be completed within 16 weeks. The towers were to be relocated to a secure storage area and, subsequently, transported by road to Widnes. Even the route had been resolved and cleared with the necessary authorities—the plans had got down to that sort of fine detail.
The project team and the finance were in place, the method and plan were sorted, and the timetable was within Wembley's parameters—as they stood before the sudden change was made. All the important ingredients were therefore in place, to such an extent that when I spoke to Halton council—I was not especially closely involved in the detail—I was told that its members were confident, that I need not do much and that they expected to hear shortly. That is how signed, sealed and delivered the project appeared to be. Contracts were drawn up with fine tuning well in advance. St. Mowden acceded to Wembley's demand for —100,000 to be deposited in escrow. I am not sure whether the money has been returned yet, but it was deposited.
Even when Wembley belatedly stated that the council could not refer to the twin towers as "the twin towers" talks continued to resolve the issue. The contracts were close to completion by mid-October. Out of the blue, to use a rugby league metaphor, a late tackle—
Mr. Mike Hall: On the blind side.
Mr. Twigg: Indeed—all negotiations were broken off. A letter was received out of the blue that said that Wembley was unilaterally withdrawing from the negotiations. No reason was given.
The chief executive of Halton borough council tried to contact Wembley to speak to its chief executive to ask for an explanation. Eventually the chief executive wrote to say that he could not revive the scheme and that the council would now have to put up —10 million to secure the towers. A nominal fee of —1 has previously been agreed for the towers, subject to the cost being borne by anyone but Wembley stadium. From the letter, I understand that under a new contractor, a company

265WH
called Multiplex—I am not sure whether that is an Australian company—was now calling the shots, and that and it had decided that it could not find a window to proceed. Arrogantly, the letter refers to Wembley's "unilaterally" deciding
that the risk and costs involved in salvaging the Twin Towers
were
becoming too much for … yourselves and ourselves to bear.
That told the borough council.
Ms Southworth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the twin towers are part of our national heritage and should be protected?
Mr. Twigg: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I entirely agree. That is one of the reasons that I requested today's debate.
As an aside, I should point out that the letter also states:
The National Stadium Lottery Grant was spent in full many months ago.
I do not know how it was spent—on land, perhaps—but I have seen no major development on the Wembley site.
It was clearly impossible for Halton borough council, a small unitary authority, to come up with —10 million—I understand that at least —10 million is required. We do not know how the figure was arrived at; no explanation has been provided. Has it been plucked out of the air? I shall return to that point in a moment. From that moment on, it seems that the towers were effectively condemned to become rubble, and part of our great national heritage would die.
Besides the loss of the towers—a scandal in itself—there are major consequences for others and for our country as a whole. A major blow has been dealt to the development of the national rugby league museum, which would have been one of the most innovative in the country. As I said earlier, the towers were to have been erected on the Venture field site in Widnes, a reclaimed brownfield site that has stood vacant for 15 years. The national rugby league museum would have been built to help anchor site development, using the towers as icons to attract visitors and interest in the location. Major commercial leisure investment would have been targeted to complement the museum, with associated non-food retail and other mixed uses of adjoining land. In total, almost 70 acres of brownfield derelict and contaminated land would have been opened up and developed in what would have been a regionally significant reclamation and regeneration site. Indeed, it would have been similar to the area covered by the dome.
The site without the towers would prove much less interesting. We have not been able to do anything with it for 15 years, and the opportunity to transform an area has been unilaterally closed down by Wembley's action. That is a great shame. Questions need to be asked about the decision. People want to know whether Wembley ever really wanted the towers moved to Widnes. Was there ever any intention of agreeing to the move? As I said, some people felt that ours was not a serious
266WH
proposition and that it would never come to fruition, but it came close to doing so. I wonder whether the intention was ever there.
Will the towers still be standing in February 2001? The omens are not good, given the Wembley stadium project's track record on meeting deadlines and ensuring that things happen. If they are still standing in 2001, the council would have time to dismantle them and take them up to Widnes. I shall be watching very closely. Why —10 million? We do not know how that figure is arrived at or what it means. It is all to do with contract delays, but we have no real idea. At this late stage asking for an explanation will profit us little.
Given the use of lottery investment in the Wembley project, will my right hon. Friend the Minister say whether there is anything that his Department can do to help? Major lottery investment is involved: —600 million-plus is being invested in Wembley, and Brent council and English Partnerships are, rightly, trying to effect a regeneration project of the back of that. I have no problem with that. By way of comparison, —800 million is being invested in the area around the dome and Greenwich council and the Government are trying to effect a regeneration project on the back of that. Again, I have no problem with that, but it is important to make the comparison. Let us compare those figures to the —3 million of private cash underwritten by council capital. If our project had been on the banks of the Thames and not the Mersey, would it have succeeded? Would we be faced with the same situation today? I wonder whether such people as Ken Bates, chairman of Wembley National Stadium Ltd., would have pulled out all the stops if it had been in London. I am not sure that he was ever in favour of the towers coming up north, but the question remains.
Halton council and the Rugby Football League deserve great praise. The whole project fitted in perfectly with Government policy: there would have been a partnership, an innovative local council, private-sector cash, and the use of a brownfield site—not to mention the saving of some of our heritage, which is just as important. I will return to the issue of heritage before concluding my speech.
I have had the privilege of playing at Wembley on a number of occasions with my hon. the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), as part of the parliamentary football team. I cannot say that it was a total success for me—or the team for that matter—but it was a great privilege to play there. I have watched my teams play at Wembley many times over the years—
Mr. Mike Hall: Not recently.
Mr. Twigg: Yes, but I prefer not to go down that road. Widnes Rugby League club and Runcorn football club have both played at Wembley over the years—Widnes, of course, being one of the clubs most regularly in attendance. It would have been most fitting for the twin towers to have come to Merseyside and north Cheshire in the north-west, given that football and rugby teams from that region more than any other have played in so many Wembley finals over the years. Dare I say that it has been a second home for some north-west clubs? There is a sentimental and a good case for having the twin towers in the north-west, given our domination of that stadium for so many years.

267WH
The project's failure is a blow to the game of rugby league. It was a state-of-the-art innovation and would have resulted in the best sports museum in the country. I wonder whether rugby league receives the support that it deserves compared to other sports. The concept was very exciting and the museum would have been second to none.
It is outrageous that the twin towers will be lost. I understand that the stadium or the towers are listed, although I am unsure of the details. How can the demolition of listed buildings be allowed? Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to shed some light on that matter. Simply to bulldoze Wembley and reduce it to rubble, lost to the nation forever, is an act of vandalism on an unprecedented scale. I know that some people will argue that it would be difficult to take the towers down because they are concrete, but we have had experts look at the project and we believe that it is feasible. It is one of the lines put out by Wembley, but from what we know and what our experts say, it could have been done. To bulldoze the towers is to commit an act of vandalism.
There has been much criticism of the project to rebuild Wembley and its escalating costs. I do not want to discuss that criticism at length, because time is short. However, problems have arisen at every stage, and it is not unconnected that a problem has arisen with the future of the twin towers. We are suffering because of someone else's difficulty in managing the project properly. I find it amazing that a simple solution to the problem cannot be found in this day and age.
At a late stage, after many months of negotiation, Wembley suddenly found that the contract did not allow a window of opportunity. I do not know enough about the details of the matter, but that does not seem to add up. I refer back to the question of whether the towers will still be standing in February 2001. I wonder what it will say about the project if, because of such a late discovery, we lose the towers. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister explore the matter further and investigate what can be done? He might ask Wembley to rethink its decision because if it continues on its present course, it will score the biggest own goal in the stadium's history.
I have written to the chief executive of Wembley National Stadium Ltd. to ask him to reconsider the decision in the interests of the nation, rugby league and my constituency. Ours would be a tremendous project, which would carry the spirit of Wembley forward and provide a major visitor attraction for my constituency.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In keeping with the sporting spirit of the occasion, I ask the Minister to kick off the second half of the debate.
1.16 pm
The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) on obtaining the debate and raising an issue that is of great concern to him and my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) and for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who have given him steady support in his campaign. The matter is of intense concern to many people throughout the country because the twin towers are iconic. I welcome the opportunity to respond on such an important subject.
268WH
Wembley stadium is world famous, having witnessed many great moments in sporting history, notably the "white horse" cup final at the stadium's opening in 1923, the Olympic games in 1948 and the World Cup final in 1966, which you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, remember vividly. It has also witnessed great moments in the history of Widnes and Runcorn's rugby league prowess, as well as some other matches that England football fans may prefer to forget.
Mr. Bob Russell: Why, then, is it being demolished?
Mr. Howarth: That is the very point that my hon. Friend has raised, and which I shall address.
Sports men and women from around the world have aspired to perform at Wembley, but it has also hosted other memorable, world-famous events such as the Live Aid concert for Ethiopia in 1985. The twin towers have come to symbolise the stadium's importance and have a unique place in the hearts of sports fans everywhere. It is unsurprising that the redevelopment plans for the stadium have given rise to much concern about the fate of the towers.
The proposals for a new national stadium will involve the demolition of the existing stadium and its replacement by a new one, planned to seat 90,000 people, with vastly improved space standards, accessibility and visibility. The redevelopment will mean an increase in the overall width of the stadium on the north-south axis. There is little, if any, room to expand southwards because of the railway, so the proposed new stadium must extend 40 m to the north of the line of the front of the existing stadium, thus necessitating the demolition of the twin towers. In any case, the height of the new stadium would dwarf the twin towers if they were incorporated in the new development.
The stadium's architectural and historic importance was recognised by its being granted grade II listed status in 1976. My hon. Friend raised the question of how a listed building or structure can be demolished. Listing means that, in addition to having to obtain planning permission from the local planning authority—in this case the London borough of Brent—the developers are also required to obtain listed building consent. In view of the stadium's listed status, the application for listed building consent was accompanied by a full heritage study. It considered the question of whether the stadium was capable of adaptation and the feasibility of retaining the twin towers, as the new stadium will have to be extended to the north of the existing stadium, and concluded that there was no scope for including the twin towers in the new development.
English Heritage is a statutory consultee for such applications. Having considered the conclusions of the heritage study and taken into account the merits of a proposed replacement stadium and the wider community benefits, English Heritage did not raise any objections to the application for listed building consent, which was accordingly granted. However, one condition of listed building consent is the provision of a complete photographic record of the stadium. That means that if anyone wants—this may be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton—replicas of the towers could be constructed elsewhere on the basis of the photographs taken together with the original engineers' drawings of 1923. That work has been completed.

269WH
In addition to ensuring that the stadium is fully recorded, English Heritage is monitoring the removal and preservation of all artefacts of historic interest in the stadium for resiting or display in the new stadium. Some of them will be deposited temporarily in the new football museum at Preston, which opens next month. They will include plaques and other features commemorating the opening of the stadium in 1923, the 1948 Olympic games and the 1996 World Cup in 1966. Other architectural features will be preserved in the Brooking Collection Trust in Surrey.
I should make it clear that English Heritage fully acknowledges the historic and cultural importance of Wembley stadium and the symbolic role of the twin towers. However, it also recognises that the stadium has shortcomings as a major sports venue: sightlines and space standards are poor, because the stadium was originally built with open terraces for standing spectators, which were later converted for seating. The fans who attend events are acutely aware of those shortcomings.
English Heritage has not sought the reconstruction of the twin towers nearby as part of the proposed new development. Here I come to some important and practical considerations, in which I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Halton will take an interest. The twin towers are constructed of reinforced concrete, poured and cast on site, rather than in demountable materials capable of being taken down and rebuilt block by block. I am advised that the thinness of the reinforced concrete and the skeletal nature of the towers' internal structure would pose major problems in structural engineering if an attempt were made to move them to a new site. The towers have no backs, and were never intended to be seen as isolated structures. My hon. Friend clearly takes a different view as to the feasibility of moving the towers. It would seem that there is room for genuine differences of professional opinion on that point.
Following the unveiling of the design for the new Wembley stadium last summer, a number of interested parties approached Wembley National Stadium Ltd. with proposals to move the twin towers. Most were put off by the scale of the challenge and by the current state of the towers, including large cracks in some of the walls that are visible from the inside.
Mr. Derek Twigg: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether it is the view of Wembley National Stadium Ltd. that the nature of the towers' construction means that they cannot be moved? It certainly did not seem to be a barrier in agreeing the deal with the national rugby
270WH
league museum and Halton borough council, which has since fallen through. As far as I am aware, that was never an issue that would have prevented the deal from going ahead.
Mr. Howarth: I understand that the advice reached my Department from English Heritage, but I am happy to try to find out its source and to make that information available, as far as I am able, to my hon. Friend. That will give him a better basis for understanding the practical realities of the project that he has presented so eloquently and which would be of great pleasure to large numbers of people if it were carried out.
With St. Modwen Properties, Halton borough council put forward the only serious proposals for the twin towers to form part of the fa"ade for a new rugby league museum in Halton. As my hon. Friend explained, discussions took place but were terminated by Wembley National Stadium Ltd. I fully understand my hon. Friend's frustration and it is indeed regrettable that the proposals made by Halton borough council and the Rugby Football League to relocate the twin towers were unacceptable to Wembley National Stadium Ltd. However, it remains a matter for the company to decide within the terms of the listed building consent that was granted. My hon. Friend invited me to intervene with the heritage lottery fund, but it is an important principle that Ministers do not try to dictate to lottery distributors. In fact, legislation rightly debars us from doing so.
Many sports stadiums around the country dating from roughly the same period as Wembley stadium have undergone huge transformations over the past decade. Some football clubs have relocated to new state-of-the-art stadiums in response to ground safety requirements and the need to bring sports facilities into the modern age. Such changes are not exclusive to the United Kingdom: in the United States, for example, many famous baseball fields have been replaced or are about to be replaced by new state-of-the-art facilities.
A new stadium at Wembley will provide Britain with a world-class stadium fit for the new century and give the country renewed hope of hosting major international sporting events. More importantly, with its spectacular 400-ft arch, the new stadium will pass on the Wembley magic to new generations of sporting stars to create the sporting memories of the future. The twin towers will never be forgotten and many people would be happy if it proved possible to recreate them at a fitting site elsewhere.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): We can now move on a little early to the final debate in Westminster Hall today.

Acute Hospital Services (Central Sussex)
1.27 pm
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the Chamber's attention to the serious and unacceptable implications of the proposals of the central Sussex partnership programme in the document "Modern Hospital Services for Central Sussex—A challenge for us all". My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) are closely involved with these matters and associate themselves fully with my remarks.
In my 17 years as a Member of Parliament, I have never known an issue so to galvanise the community. Following the debacle at Crawley hospital, in which local opinion was clearly trampled on, the Minister should be aware that public opinion has been greatly inflamed by the proposals. Everyone understands that the national health service cannot and should not stand still and that real difficulties still need to be addressed, but my constituents and I believe that the proposals for the Princess Royal hospital are reckless, foolish and, above all, wholly lacking in common sense and practicality.
The Princess Royal is a modern, purpose-built acute hospital with 328 beds on the outskirts of Haywards Heath. It opened in 1991 and is most conveniently co-located with specialist mental health and neuroscience services. The hospital has a full accident and emergency service with resuscitation facilities for seriously ill patients. A refurbishment of its facilities has just been completed following a —150,000 grant from the NHS executive. The department is recognised for junior medical staff training and approximately 32,345 patients attended for treatment last year. The Minister should know that that number has been rising steadily throughout the mid-1990s. The hospital also provides a full range of general medical services, including for patients admitted as emergencies. Elderly people are cared for expertly on specialist wards and the hospital also provides comprehensive surgical and orthopaedic services, including for all emergencies.
During the past year, 9,090 patients were admitted to the Princess Royal hospital as emergency cases; 3,812 were admitted for treatment as planned patients and stayed one or more nights. Alongside its ward-based patient care, the hospital has an active out-patient department where, during the past year, consultant teams have seen 76,763 patients. It directly employs 41 consultant medical staff across all specialties and receives services from a further 21 medical staff supplied by neighbouring hospitals. It employs 421 nursing staff, 220 technical clinical support staff, 68 hard-pressed midwives, 73 junior medical staff and 339 support staff. In total, there are 1,162 staff, all of whom are dedicated to their work and those for whom they care. All of them are extremely anxious about the future.
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the Princess Royal hospital is an excellent hospital that is at the heart of its community. It is important that she understands how proud we all are of the service that it provides, the skills and excellence of its staff and its enlightened management, to whose efforts I pay warm tribute. I acknowledge that a great deal of hard work
272WH
was put into the central Sussex review by good and honourable people who are trying to provide the best local services. There is some good stuff in the report to work on, but, as I explained to the hon. Lady when she was good enough to meet me, the central Sussex review was really a south Sussex review. It did not include Crawley and it lumped Mid-Sussex in with Brighton and Hove. That was not a good start and it unbalances the services that are required.
The report identified three frameworks to be discussed prior to more detailed consultation. They have all been given pretty short shrift. Following a meeting with Sir Williams Wells, the regional chairman of the NHS executive for the south-east, which I attended with my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs and my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, it is clear to me that the review team is out to obtain a result based on framework 3. That would culminate in the accident part of the accident and emergency department being transferred to the Royal Sussex County hospital. That would mean a downgrading of the Princess Royal hospital, with all the attendant problems of skills lost, a serious morale crisis and declining services.
Following the publication of the proposals for discussion, there have been a series of public meetings in the area. On Thursday 31 August this year, I attended a large meeting in the Clare hall at Haywards Heath. Nearly 700 people were present and officials of the central Sussex partnership programme had a good opportunity, in reasonably dignified and certainly attentive surroundings, to state their case. It is safe to say that their proposals met with universal opposition, much of it extremely well informed.
I draw the Minister's attention to some of the points that were made at that meeting, which have since formed the non-medical argument. First, I refer to the growth of Mid-Sussex and surrounding areas, which is to be substantial under the Government's new housebuilding plans. That really demands a fully funded and properly equipped A and E hospital, and given that our overall infrastructure is already deemed to be pretty inadequate, it seems incredible that it is now to be further downgraded if the proposals come to pass.
Secondly, it shows an astonishing sense of political priorities that the Government can find an extra —47 million and the rest to bail out a bankrupt folly such as the dome, yet despite the substantial new money going into the NHS, it is still seriously proposed that we should not have a fully funded and properly equipped accident and emergency department in a nine-year-old hospital in a busy area.
Thirdly, the Minister will not be familiar—there is no reason why she should be—with the problems of transport and traffic in our part of Sussex. However, the assumptions that have been made with respect to bringing people through the intolerable traffic on the approach to Brighton are clearly unacceptable and inaccurate. In fact, the proposals are downright irresponsible on those grounds alone.
Fourthly, it is difficult for my constituents to understand how, with one of the biggest international airports in the world on our doorstep, emergency planners do not deem a full accident and emergency service at the Princess Royal hospital to be essential to

273WH
assist in a major accident, which would have to be dealt with by the East Surrey hospital at Redhill. Finally, battle casualty receptions in the event of a war also need to be taken into consideration: at the time of the Gulf war, Gatwick was to be a major receiving station, and it would clearly be so designated again in the event of major conflict.
I was, as I said, grateful to the Under-Secretary for agreeing to see me very promptly—during her holidays, in fact—after the meeting at Haywards Heath. At that meeting, I had the opportunity to convey to her the strong feelings and profound anxiety of all those who spoke—and, I think, everyone at Haywards Heath. Mid Sussex district council, our excellent and highly valued community health council, the local town councils and many other bodies, thousands of individuals and our local newspapers have all come together to protest vigorously against the proposals. They believe, rightly, that the Princess Royal hospital must remain a major accident centre offering the full range of emergency medical and surgical services.
We are all especially anxious about whether a hospital that does not treat acute trauma and emergency surgery will be viable in future. Would such a hospital be accredited for junior doctor training, as the Princess Royal is at present; and how could the already frantically busy hospital in Brighton cope with the extra load when it is already impossibly overstretched and under extreme pressure—something that often creates difficulty for emergency and waiting list admissions?
It is difficult for me, on behalf of my constituents, to accept the premise in framework 1, to the effect that there is no choice but to move to framework 2 or 3 to secure good services in future. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs and my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham that the needs of the community are not the first priority in frameworks 2 or 3. It appears to us that hospital planning is being driven by the medical royal colleges and their opinions on how and where doctors should be trained and services organised, with little regard to the impact on services for local people. My constituents rightly ask why those eminent bodies are able to exercise their considerable influence and baleful power with such profound effect when they clearly are clearly unaccountable to the taxpayer and to local people. If the NHS plan is to work and if local hospital services are to be truly sensitive to local needs and demands, the royal colleges must be challenged by the Government to work in a more open framework of public accountability.
I congratulate the Mid Sussex Times on its robust campaign to retain the important services in question and on the depth of its well informed reporting. That paper's proposal for framework 1-plus is the most acceptable for the future. That would involve retaining the full range of accident and emergency services and making further investment at the excellent and admirable Princess Royal hospital until other long-term arrangements could be made, possibly through the building of a new hospital providing the full range of emergency medical and surgical services to serve the wider area. It is difficult to understand why that was not proposed in the first place.
274WH
We should focus on the Princess Royal hospital as the main acute general hospital dealing with complex trauma. Haywards Heath is close to Gatwick and the M23 and is pretty much at the centre of central Sussex, with a good road network. As I showed the Under-Secretary when I came to see her in her office, using the map that she helpfully produced, it is madness for the area's major trauma hospital to be at Brighton. Planners have seen to it that the Royal Sussex County hospital is carefully insulated from the world that it serves by a complex network of small roads and unspeakable traffic. The Princess Royal has facilities for helicopters to land to take emergencies to the Hurstwood Park neurological centre. The Royal Sussex does not have those facilities.
The Princess Royal is an absolutely first-class hospital that is widely admired and respected. It does a superb job and has the support and—most important—the complete confidence of the community that it serves. Disappointingly, the proposals in the review document are focused too much on short-term changes to address immediate problems, and give no sense of any long-term strategic planning or thought. Such decisions cannot be taken in isolation from the situation elsewhere in the south-east, where weighty and profound issues requiring a far more strategic approach remain to be dealt with.
There is scope for the re-ordering of services, as between Brighton and Hayward's Heath. However, although we all understand the need for such operations to be achieved as effectively and efficiently as possible, the case for downgrading the A and E has not been made. Indeed, as the debate has matured. it has become clear that, given the will, there is the opportunity to expand the Princess Royal in the interests of the whole area. Will the Minister assure me that public consultation will be a genuine exercise—unlike in respect of Crawley hospital—and that the views and opinions of local people, many of whom have made it their business to become extremely well informed about the matter, will be taken into account and respected?
I beg her to examine with the greatest of care these difficult questions, which go to the heart of the future of the national health service in West Sussex and the interests and welfare of all my constituents.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. I see the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) rising. I presume that he is seeking to catch my eye in order to speak. As this is a private Member's Adjournment debate, I must ask him whether he has the sanction of the initiator of the debate and has notified the Minister of his intention to speak. He has not notified me, as he is obliged to, that he wishes to intervene.
Mr. Howard Flight: I apologise for having advised neither you nor the Minister of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I told my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). Initially, I believed that I would not be able to take part in the debate, but, having managed to ensure that I am here, I should be grateful if I could add a few comments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As we started a little early, I shall use my discretion and allow the hon. Gentleman to contribute to the debate. However, I ask him to allow the Minister adequate time to reply.
1.42 pm
Mr. Flight: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex on his effective, realistic and robust presentation of the arguments, and thank the Minister for her sincere and genuine involvement in the matter. What happened in Crawley has left constituents on the east side of my constituency lacking in trust in the national health service. If the Princess Royal hospital is permitted to decline, a whole community will no longer trust the NHS.
The matter has two different aspects. First, in practical terms, given that another 20,000-odd people will come to live in the area over the next 15 years, it cannot make sense to have no full A and E unit and no full-service hospital of the size of the Princess Royal. Brighton has neither the facilities nor the access necessary.
Secondly, there is the bigger issue of the presence in the community of hospitals of the size and nature of the Princess Royal. Such hospitals are desperately needed and measures that cause them to be run down because they lack crucial facilities such as A and E make no sense. Citizens cannot travel long distances to hospitals. They may need to visit, say, specialist cancer hospitals, but it is precisely such hospitals that are the strength of our health service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex pointed out, if one removes an accident and emergency unit, a downward spiral is almost inevitable. The royal colleges, which often pursue policies without considering the citizenry at large, are behind the initiative, and I implore the Minister to get to grips with them.
The entire community broadly accepts the framework 1 proposal, but it is crucial that the consultation process be genuine and not a whitewash. Otherwise, the faith of an entire community in the administration of the national health service will be lost. As was said, the Princess Royal hospital is an excellent hospital. Unlike certain others, it cannot be argued that it is poorly run or inadequate. It services a fast-growing community, and every common-sense argument that the community has advanced is in favour of maintaining the current facilities.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on securing this afternoon's debate. It would appear that I am rapidly developing a reputation for getting out the map before I start any discussions, so I should point out that I am aware of the traffic problems in the area: the Labour party conference has been held in Brighton for a number of years, so I have been stuck on those roads myself.
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's keen and active interest in this issue, which is of great importance to his constituents. He raised the matter with me in September and with the Secretary of State for Health during last
276WH
week's Health questions. I acknowledge and appreciate the hard work that the hon. Gentleman has undertaken at his local hospital and I am well aware of the good work that is carried out there.
I shall do my best to allay any concerns that the hon. Gentleman may still have, but before I discuss central Sussex, I should like to comment in general on what is happening in the national health service. When the Government took office in 1997, we inherited an NHS with many recognised problems: standards were too variable, there were too few staff, and they were frequently rushed off their feet. That was owing to years of underinvestment and neglect, but we are now putting that right.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in July, the Government published the NHS plan, which set out the most fundamental and far-reaching programme of reform in the history of the NHS. It is a 10-year plan that is designed to improve every aspect of the health service. It provides for the extra resources needed to support the programme of change, but it also provides for modernisation of the way in which the NHS is run. A fortnight ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced further funding to speed up the pace of implementation. The announcement confirmed that, from April next year, health authorities will receive an average cash increase of some —29 million. In 2001-02, the West Sussex health authority will receive —552 million"a real-terms increase of —40 million on the preceding year.
In addition, next month the Government will publish a detailed NHS plan implementation programme not only for health, but for social services. It will set out the investment and progress that will be necessary in the coming year. It is becoming increasingly clear that good health care involves health services and social services working closely in partnership.
On the question of what has been happening in central Sussex, in the Mid Sussex NHS trust, a new consultant surgeon has been appointed at the Princess Royal hospital to support emergency surgical care. A new admission and discharge team has also been appointed to help manage capacity at that hospital. The trust is working with the Mid Sussex primary care group and social services to develop intermediate care services. That has enabled the creation of a 6-bed step home unit at the Princess Royal hospital and a community rehabilitation service that provides additional therapy support.
Of the —63 million in additional funding that the Government provided for this winter, —382,000 is being spent on initiatives in central Sussex, including extra district nurse cover, extra GP out-of-hours cover, extra patient transport service cover and increased day hospital hours. West Sussex is one of the areas in the south-east that qualified for additional cost-of-living allowances for qualified nurses, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine. West Sussex will receive —2.2 million additional funding for that initiative. There is much to build on in central Sussex, as I hope the hon. Gentleman acknowledges.
On the provision of acute hospital services in central Sussex, the central Sussex review concluded at the end of 1999 that the Brighton Health Care NHS trust and the Mid Sussex NHS trust should work more closely

277WH
together to make better use of existing facilities. The review also found that they needed to ensure that they served a sufficiently large population to provide a full range of services. In early 2000, the central Sussex partnership programme was set up as the successor to the central Sussex review to implement its findings. The CSPP produced a discussion document entitled "Modern Hospital Services for Central Sussex—A challenge for us all" in which it set out how hospital services were changing and why it was necessary to plan for the future. That is sensible: the NHS cannot remain static.
The document was launched on 21 August and written comments were sought by 13 October 2000. It produced a huge local response. The press release on 30 October stated that the CSPP had received 150 letters, and a petition to save the accident and emergency department at the Princess Royal hospital attracted 147,000 signatures. I am in no doubt about local feeling on the matter.
The document set out three potential frameworks for the long-term provision of services in central Sussex. Each was based on the Princess Royal hospital and the Royal Sussex County hospital. The CSPP favoured the third framework, whereby all trauma treatment and emergency surgery would be carried out at the Royal Sussex County hospital and all other medical emergencies would be treated nearest to where patients live. The welcome purpose of the discussion document was to ensure that local people had an opportunity to help to shape developments at the start of the planning process.
I would like to take this opportunity to put on the record that no formal proposals for change have been made in central Sussex. No decision has been made or will be taken on the basis of the discussion document. I do not, therefore, intend to defend those frameworks. However, I can give an undertaking to the hon. Members for Mid-Sussex and for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) that their views will be passed to the CSPP. It has acknowledged that more detailed work is needed to examine the evidence and present people with more facts. The comments received and discussions held so far will be invaluable in shaping the next stage of the programme.
I have today received a copy of a press statement issued on 27 November, which I hope hon. Members will welcome. It is headed "Local people to be involved in planning hospital services" and states that the CSPP has asked two
independent facilitators … to help. Both have … national experience of involving local people in having a say about how public services are run.
That should be seen as recognition that more work is necessary and a commitment that that work should be done. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the frameworks at this early stage, but I assure the hon. Gentlemen that the Government are committed to ensuring that all those who need]services have access to them, wherever they live.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex spoke passionately about accident and emergency departments. They have an important role and that is why we have invested
278WH
—115 million in their modernisation. That investment will provide new assessment and observation wards, improved resuscitation facilities, better links between and A and E and primary care, and better diagnostic facilities. It will also enable improvements to be made to the general redesign and to looking after the needs of staff.
However, we owe it to patients to ensure that we make the best use of the services we have. Many people who attend A and E have minor injuries that could be treated by telephoning NHS Direct and receiving advice from appropriately trained primary care staff. Thankfully, the majority of patients who attend A and E do not have life-threatening injuries or illnesses requiring immediate attention, but those who need such attention must be confident that they will see suitably trained staff with access to support and back-up from appropriate clinical specialties. That is why we must consider new technology, the skills mix and the evolving role of emergency ambulance services, which will play a key role. In some areas they are already providing a fast and responsive service, and we need to roll that out everywhere.
Better information and communication systems will also improve matters. For example, access to medical histories, improved clinical skills and developments such as telemedicine will give paramedics greater choice about the most appropriate care for individuals and the most appropriate place for care or treatment. New technology and better organisation are not threats to the NHS. The information revolution will transform the way in which its services are delivered.
Both hon. Gentlemen expressed concern about the influence of the royal colleges. I want to say straight away that the training of NHS staff is important: we must ensure that all our staff are trained to the standards needed to provide the services that NHS patients deserve. However, we must balance training needs with the needs of the service, and we will not let the training needs of doctors, as defined by the royal colleges, dictate how services are to be provided. We must not forget that the reason for training NHS staff is to provide quality service to NHS patients. That is our priority, toward which all our efforts must be directed.
The medical royal colleges encompass great expertise in medical training, but, rightly, they have no role in deciding service provision. Moreover, it is not their job to approve medical training in hospitals—that role is given to the specialist training authority. However, the STA consists almost entirely of royal college representatives; there is no point at which the voice of the patient, or even the voice of the NHS, can be clearly heard. When colleges have visited hospitals on behalf of the STA to look at medical training, it has sometimes proved difficult to demonstrate that the needs of patients and of the service have to be put first. That is simply unacceptable.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex will be aware that the NHS plan established our intention to replace the bodies that deal with postgraduate medical training—the STA and the joint committee on postgraduate training in general practice—with a new unified body: the medical education standards board. Setting up the MESB will require considerable change, especially in legislation. Simply combining the two bodies would merely replicate existing problems. We will ensure that

279WH
the MESB takes full account of the importance of ensuring high quality, locally accessible services for patients and that its methods are clearly accountable, both externally and internally.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured about our intentions regarding the direction of training. While it plays an important role, it must serve patient needs within the NHS framework. The MESB will decide whether individual doctors have reached the required level of skill and competence to work independently in the NHS. That is an important role. It will, of course, need the advice and opinions of the medical profession—but that must always be directed towards patients' needs rather than doctors' wants.
I acknowledge the strength of local feeling that arises whenever changes are proposed in the NHS and I want to know what the hon. Gentleman's constituents have to say. The central Sussex partnership programme must listen to their concerns and take them on board in a way
280WH
that is not only responsive, but is seen to be responsive. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs for making the point that unless the people whom we serve are confident that their voices are being heard, we will all have failed.
Whatever the final proposals, I stress that they will not be about cutting services, but about reconfiguring them within the entire population area so that they best provide the appropriate services. We are committed to ensuring that the services in central Sussex are comprehensive, high quality, accessible and, above all, safe. I give the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex and his constituents my commitment that we will make no changes that would jeopardise their medical services and that we shall take careful note of the results of the consultation.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to One o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Overhead Power Lines
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to ban new overhead power lines; and if he will make a statement. [138779]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 17 November 2000]: I have no plans to do so. New overhead electric power lines already require development consent from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many compensation claims for chronic bronchitic emphysema his Department has received from mineworkers since May 1997; and how many claims have been settled; [139289]

  (2) how much money has been paid since May 1997 in respect of compensation claims for chronic bronchitic emphysema; and if he will estimate the total liability; [139292]

  (3) how many claims submitted to his Department for compensation for chronic bronchitic emphysema are in respect of mineworkers who have since died. [139291]

  Mr. Byers
  A class action in this matter first began in 1992. No payments were made prior to May 1997 owing to the failure of the previous Administration and British Coal to concede liability in the court. On assuming the liabilities, we made this a priority and agreement was reached in September 1999. Since May 1997, 119,700 claims have been received and the Department has made over 26,000 individual payments to claimants in respect of compensation for respiratory diseases, totalling £86 million. The Department anticipates that the final costs on respiratory disease compensation could be about £1.5 billion, but the Government have always stated they will meet whatever the costs of compensating the valid claimants. 20,728 claims have been made in respect of miners who have died since 1992. Of these, 13,518 died between 1992 and 1998.

  £

  East

  London

  Northern Ireland

  North

  North West

  Scotland

  South East

  South West

  South Yorkshire

  West Midlands and Wales

  Total

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  Total

  120,997

  140,702

  76,318

  142,009

  65,271

  65,134

  188,102

  67,078

  253,418

  123,402

  1,242,431

  1 April 2000 to 31 October 2000

  Trade Sector

  Clothing/Footwear

  3,794

  3,814

  0

  0

  736

  2,303

  0

  0

  43,269

  38,551

  92,467

  Retail

  7,079

  9,862

  35,551

  17,235

  15,608

  17,990

  6,326

  12,415

  5,185

  19,177

  146,428

  598W
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many bereavement awards have been granted to the widows of former miners suffering from(a) chronic bronchitis and (b) emphysema; what are the maximum and minimum bereavement awards granted; and what is the average amount of bereavement awards granted to date. [140338]

  Mr. Byers
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide a breakdown of the number of days taken for maternity leave by(a) occupation and (b) earnings level since the introduction of the working time regulations. [140255]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  No such information is available.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide a breakdown of the take-up of parental leave by(a) gender and (b) occupation; and what is the average number of days leave taken broken down by (i) gender, (ii) occupation and (iii) earnings level since the introduction of the working time regulations. [140254]

  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many parents(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in Wales have taken statutory parental leave to date; and how many such parents were (i) women and (ii) men in (A) the United Kingdom and (B) Wales. [140373]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: We do not yet have specific evidence on the number of parents who have taken parental leave since the introduction of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations. Research undertaken for the forthcoming Green Paper, "Work and Parents: Competitiveness and Choice", indicates that approximately 3 per cent. of the eligible population have taken parental leave. We are not able to break this down by gender, income, region or occupation.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide a breakdown of the £2 million recovered by the Inland Revenue in underpaid minimum wages by(a) occupation, (b) industry, (c) gender, (d) ethnicity and (e) region. [140256]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The table gives a breakdown of the total arrears of wages (now almost £3 million) identified to end October 2000 by industry sector (from April 2000) and by region (from April 1999). There is no breakdown available by gender or ethnicity. The regions shown correspond to the Inland Revenue regional structure.
  599W

  £

  East

  London

  Northern Ireland

  North

  North West

  Scotland

  South East

  South West

  South Yorkshire

  West Midlands and Wales

  Total

  Hospitality

  9,264

  23,380

  17,855

  10,480

  82,629

  9,164

  10,635

  16,097

  9,044

  31,457

  220,005

  Hairdressing

  10,950

  7,990

  14,221

  12,275

  23,272

  19,128

  3,863

  1,877

  10,221

  22,232

  126,029

  Security/Cleaning

  204

  750

  6,749

  13,144

  6,116

  3,231

  3,327

  0

  7,473

  126

  41,120

  Social Care

  1,691

  104

  4,966

  4,170

  14,072

  1,829

  21,800

  5,342

  7,606

  7,185

  68,765

  Production/Construction

  5,770

  11,879

  35,415

  19,925

  42,876

  5,949

  153,169

  9,038

  12,336

  23,295

  319,652

  Market Service

  9,220

  10,075

  3,069

  96,680

  9,916

  2,819

  4,087

  17,450

  15,057

  74,888

  243,261

  Public Service

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13,889

  1,453

  0

  0

  0

  8,372

  23,714

  Other Services

  36,172

  26,192

  37,190

  5,516

  1,772

  14,299

  116,843

  21,154

  24,591

  13,273

  307,002

  Total

  84,144

  94,046

  155,016

  179,425

  20,886

  78,165

  320,050

  83,373

  134,782

  238,556

  1,588,443

  Post Offices
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to establish a formula for calculating a social network payment for sub-post offices. [140262]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: I am considering proposals from the Post Office for the establishment of a formula but have made no decision.

  Oil
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the Reading University paper "World Oil Supply: New and Medium Term; the Approaching Peak in conventional oil production". [140594]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department keeps abreast of a wide range of expert opinion on future scenarios for global oil production. The projections of future oil production in Reading University's paper are among the most pessimistic. Many experts, including major oil companies and the International Energy Agency, believe that production will continue at significant levels well into the new century and it is likely that, in the longer term, the transition to alternative fuels will result in recoverable oil reserves remaining in the ground unused. The Government will continue to monitor opinions on this issue and factor them into energy policy.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on British industry of a rise in the world oil price to(a) $40 and (b) $50. [140609]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]: None.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of when(a) United Kingdom oil production and (b) world oil production will reach its peak. [140613]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]: My officials have estimated that production of hydrocarbon liquids from the UK Continental Shelf will climb to a new peak later this decade. DTI does not produce its own estimates of future world oil production.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the need to develop energy sources other than oil. [140611]
  600W
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]: The Government's broad energy policy is:
  to ensure secure, diverse, and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices.

  This is best achieved by competition in open markets, in which it is primarily for the energy companies to determine their energy inputs and to develop appropriate sources of supply. The Government's main role, therefore, is to address areas where the market is not working properly. The 1998 White Paper "Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation" (Cm 4071) reviewed the different sources of input energy available for electricity generation․coal, gas, nuclear, and renewables. For renewables specifically, the Government published in March 1999 a consultation paper on future support for the technologies, followed in January 2000 by a policy statement announcing the Renewables Obligation on electricity suppliers, and in October 2000 by a consultation paper on the form of the Obligation. In publishing the UK Climate Change programme on 17 November 2000, the Government recognised the importance of preparing for a low-carbon economy in the future, and announced in this context that they would be conducting a review of the options for longer-term energy choices.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which canals were used by the PNTL transport ships used in transporting MOX fuel to Japan. [140598]

  Mr. Byers
  None.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on impediments faced by the PNTL vessels travelling through(a) the Panama Canal and (b) the Suez Canal. [140599]

  Mr. Byers
  PNTL ships enjoy the same rights to freedom of navigation as any other commercial vessel.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the divisions of responsibility were between the UKAEA constables on board PNTL ships and the masters of those ships in respect of the return to Japan of nuclear materials from Sellafield. [140600]
  601W
  Mr. Byers
  The masters of PNTL ships undertaking shipments of nuclear materials between Europe and Japan retain full responsibility for the safe operation of the ships at all times, including when the ships are transporting MOX. The role of the UKAEA Constabulary (UKAEAC) is to protect the cargo against theft or sabotage.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what arrangements he plans to make for future shipments of MOX fuel between Europe and Japan; [140597]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the compliance of the shipments of MOX fuel from Sellafield to Japan with US requirements concerning safety and physical protection; and if the vessels concerned were classed as engaged in commercial cargo operations. [140601]

  Mr. Byers
  The United States Government have confirmed, after careful scrutiny by all the relevant agencies, that the arrangements that were put in place for the shipment of MOX from Europe to Japan fully satisfy the physical protection provisions of Annexe 5 of the 1988 US-Japan Nuclear Co-operation Agreement.

  PNTL vessels involved in MOX shipments are civilian vessels engaged in commercial cargo operations.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) total costs to date and (b) projected future costs to public funds are of decommissioning nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement. [140474]

  Mr. Byers
  The total costs to date of reactor decommissioning by BNFL have been approximately £0.4 billion. The projected future spend by BNFL on decommissioning their nuclear power stations (based on undiscounted March 2000 money values) is £8 billion.

  The cost of liabilities relating to British Energy's stations will be met by the company, with decommissioning liabilities being covered by a segregated fund operated by trustees.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial liability will be passed on by BNFL to a successor authority; and how this liability will be funded. [140387]

  Mr. Byers
  No decisions have been taken yet on the future handling of BNFL's liabilities in the context of a PPP.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the deficit or surplus in the balance of trade in the latest month for which figures are available. [140118]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]: In the three months to October, the deficit on trade in goods and services was £5.1 billion. The cumulative deficit on trade in goods in 2000 equates to 1.1 per cent. of GDP, which compares favourably with a deficit equivalent to over 4.5 per cent. of GDP in the late 1980s. The value of
  602W
  exports of goods and services grew by 6 per cent. in the latest three-month period compared with the same period last year.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Operation Nectarine
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Solicitor-General what was the cost to the Crown Prosecution Service of the attempted prosecutions in relation to Operation Nectarine; and if he will make a statement. [140071]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service prosecuted eight defendants, one of whom pleaded guilty, following a police investigation into the alleged importation of cannabis.

  This joint investigation between Kent police, the National Crime Squad and the Metropolitan police CIB3 was known as Operation Nectarine.

  The total cost to the CPS of the trial and the pre-trial case preparation amounted to £481,891. This comprised £82,000 resource costs directly attributable to the CPS and a further £399,891 in Counsel's fees.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Solicitor-General when the internal inquiry of the DPP arising from the collapse of prosecutions consequent upon the CIB-Kent police Operation Nectarine will be completed; and if it will be published. [140073]

  The Solicitor-General
  The report is unlikely to be completed before the new year. As the inquiry is internal, there is no intention to publish it, although interested parties will be advised of the conclusions.

  Dr. Robin Pearson
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Solicitor-General for what reason the Crown Prosecution Service has not taken action against a person whose name has been supplied to him on the basis of the file on his case referred to it by the Security Service. [140146]

  The Solicitor-General
  I understand that the individual to whom the hon. Member is referring is Dr. Robin Pearson, about whose case I made an announcement in this House on 20 December 1999,Official Report, columns 313–14W. On that date I informed the House that the CPS had decided not to refer the papers in the case to the police for investigation. The reason for this was that sufficient was known about the case to make it clear that any prosecution would fail. Having reached that view, it would have been quite wrong for the CPS to ask the police to undertake a criminal investigation.

  In the case of Dr. Pearson, the intelligence information about his case would not have been admissible as evidence; there was little prospect of obtaining admissible evidence; and in any event any prosecution would probably have been stayed on the ground of abuse of process.

  The Law Officers were consulted about this case, and we agreed with the conclusions reached by the CPS. The decision was made only after careful and detailed consideration.

  Prosecution of Storekeepers (Imperial Measurements)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Solicitor-General what guidance he has issued to the Crown Prosecution Service on the prosecution of storekeepers for selling food in imperial weights and measures. [140135]

  The Solicitor-General
  No specific guidance has been issued to the Crown Prosecution Service on this topic. The Crown Prosecution Service reviews and, when appropriate, prosecutes criminal cases, applying the two stage test in the Code of Crown Prosecutors which is issued under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The first is an evidential test. If the case meets the test, Crown Prosecutors must apply the second test, which is whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest.

  Criminal Proceedings (Disclosure of Information)
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Solicitor-General when the Attorney-General's guidelines on the disclosure of information in criminal proceedings will be published. [141098]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General is publishing his Guidelines on the Disclosure of Information in Criminal Proceedings today. A copy of the Guidelines, together with a foreword and an accompanying commentary, is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. These documents can also be found on the website for the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers at www.lslo.gov.uk.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Fuel Costs
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the cost of producing(a) low sulphur fuels and (b) non-low sulphur fuels; and if he will make a statement. [140251]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply

  The cost of reducing the sulphur content of fuels will depend on many factors such as refinery configuration and sulphur content of feedstock (in general crude oil) which will differ for each location. Estimates made during the development of the fuel quality directive 98/70/EC, suggested that, for the UK as a whole to achieve the Ultra Low Sulphur Petrol sulphur specification, the combination of capital and running costs, taken over a 15 year period starting from 2005, would amount to less than 1p per litre for gasoline. For Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel, over the same time period, costs in the region of 2p per litre were identified. Earlier introduction of the specification may result in additional costs for individual manufacturers or importers.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 5 June 2000,Official Report, column 66W, on special advisers, if he will list the destination and the total
  604W
  cost, including travel, accommodation and subsistence allowance, on each of the occasions when departmental or non-departmental special advisers travelled abroad in an official capacity. [135246]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  During the period 31 March 1999 to 31 March 2000, special advisers in this Department travelled on official business to the United States, Madrid, Johannesburg, Warsaw, Bonn, Delhi and Brazil/United States at an average cost of £3,300 per visit. These destinations included some visits by my right hon. Friend in his role as Deputy Prime Minister. The costs of these visits were 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 £4.6 million, compared to £7.9 million for the last year of the previous Administration.

  Solar Power
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that solar power is fully utilised in his home energy efficiency proposals. [136287]

  Mr. Meacher
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what importance is given to the proximity of organic farms when deciding upon the location of farm-scale evaluations of GM crops; and if he will make a statement. [137069]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government recognise the concerns of organic farmers in relation to the proximity of their farms to the Farm Scale Evaluations of GM crops. The evaluations are being conducted in accordance with guidelines drawn up by SCIMAC (Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops—a grouping of industry organisations representing farmers, plant breeders, the seed trade and biotechnology companies). The guidelines recognise minimum separation distances between organic and GM crops.

  SCIMAC have always made it clear that these guidelines will be reviewed in the light of experience. The National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) reported to Government on separation distances in August. The Government are considering the implications of the NIAB report, as part of their current wider review of separation distances.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which GM genetic use restriction technologies(a) have been authorised for field testing in Great Britain to date and (b) are awaiting approval. [138846]

  Mr. Meacher
  Authorisation for the field testing of any genetically modified organism (GMO) in Great Britain is considered on a case-by-case basis. Following the assessment of appropriate scientific data by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, the Secretary of State issued a consent on 1 June 2000 for a small scale release of an experimental gene use restriction technology (GURT) system in a genetically modified potato. No other
  605W
  releases of genetically modified organisms incorporating GURT systems have been approved or are awaiting approval in Great Britain.

  Flood Plains (Housebuilding)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what estimate he has made of the area of land on flood plains on which planning permission for house-building has been granted, but on which building has not yet started; [137398]

  (2) what plans he has to revoke planning permission for houses on land in danger of flooding; and if he will make a statement. [137397]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 November 2000]: Parliament has given the principal responsibility for allocating land for development, and for granting planning permission for housing and other purposes, to local planning authorities. Information on the number of unimplemented permissions granted in flood risk areas and the area the permissions cover is not held centrally. Revocation of planning consents is also a matter for local planning authorities.

  Mitigation measures may adequately protect much proposed development in flood risk areas from risk and from adding to flood risk downstream.

  In considering whether to grant planning permissions in flood risk areas, local planning authorities are expected to act in accordance with national guidance. Circular 30/92 ("Development and Flood Risk") requires that where flood defence considerations arise they should always be taken into account in determining planning applications, and local authorities should use their planning powers to guide development away from areas that may be affected by flooding. PPG3 ("Housing") provides that authorities should assess the suitability of sites for development against physical and environmental constraints, including flood risk. Local authorities are also expected to consult the Environment Agency and take its views into account before deciding planning applications for development in flood risk areas.

  A draft of new planning guidance, PPG25 "Development and Flood Risk", which will revise and strengthen Circular 30/92, was issued for consultation in April this year. It will be finalised shortly.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase the amount of waste which is required to be recycled; and if he will impose a higher requirement for recycling on local authorities. [138187]

  Mr. Meacher
  Waste Strategy 2000 sets tough new statutory targets that will require local authorities to recycle or compost, on average, 17 per cent. of household waste by 2003 and 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005. We have also set a target of at least 30 per cent. household recycling and composting by 2010 and this will be reviewed and increased if greater benefits might be achieved cost-effectively.

  Labour Party Conference
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what applications for leave were received from press officers in his Department for the week of the Labour Party Conference in Brighton, and which ones were received before the start of that conference. [138203]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: A number of press officers applied for and took leave during the week beginning 25 September

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 7 November 2000,Official Report, column 131W, what grades of press officers from his Department attended the Labour Party Conference in Brighton. [138202]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: None.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library copies of(a) United Kingdom submissions and (b) submissions by other countries and international organisations relevant to United Kingdom policy to the Conference of Parties to the International Convention on Climate Change (COP-6) in The Hague. [138985]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's objectives for the Sixth Conference of the Parties (COP6) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change were set out in the Deputy Prime Minister's reply of 14 November 2000 to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on 14 November 2000,Official Report, column 587W. The European Community and its member states adopt common negotiating positions for the purposes of UN FCCC meetings. The EU's position for COP6 was set out in Council Conclusions adopted on 8 November in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aydesdale (Mr. Hood) of 15 November 2000, Official Report, column 659W. Many submissions on specific issues have been made by the EU, other countries and international organisations. Copies of key submissions are posted on the UN FCCC Secretariat's website (www.unfccc.de).

  Sellafield
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made since he was informed of the MOX data falsification of the BNFL's business prospects for the Sellafield MOX plant. [139288]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Secretary of State for Health will decide whether to allow the full operation of the Sellafield mixed oxides (MOX) plant when they have considered all the evidence before them, including the responses to last year's consultation exercise as well as the implications of the data falsification incident at the Sellafield MOX Demonstration Facility. The eventual decision document will explain their reasons in full and I shall ensure that a copy is sent to my hon. Friend.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his estimate is of the extra number of qualified engineers required(a) nationally and (b) in North Staffordshire to implement the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. [139669]

  Mr. Meacher
  The national shortage of qualified heating engineers has severely affected the rate at which central heating systems are being repaired or installed under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme.

  To reduce the delays being experienced, we estimate than an additional 300 to 400 heating engineers are required nationally over the next six months, with a further 300 thereafter to allow for the planned expansion of the scheme. Within the Birmingham-Staffordshire area, some 80 additional engineers are required.

  The scheme managers are currently recruiting additional contractors. They are also funding the training of an additional 200 to 400 engineers over the next six months in conjunction with the Gas Industry Training Organisation. They are also encouraging existing installers to move engineers from areas with low demand to those with the highest such as Birmingham-Staffordshire.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much financial support has been given to home energy efficiency schemes in each year since the introduction of the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation. [139939]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The new Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES), was launched on 1 June 2000 and is available in England only. The previous scheme covered Great Britain only. Northern Ireland has always had its own separate scheme. Until 1999, the scheme shared administration and delivery costs and there was no separate allocations for England, Scotland and Wales. During 1999–2000, the scheme was devolved to Scotland with a set budget with Wales following on from 1 April 2000. The total allocation for each year from 1990–91 to date is shown in the table together with the approximate proportion spent in Scotland and Wales.

  Financial year

  Total allocation £ million

  Of which approximately allocated to Scotland Percentage

  Of which approximately allocated to Wales Percentage

  1990–911

  1.5

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  26.1

  9

  4

  1992–93

  33.6

  8

  3

  1993–94

  41.5

  8

  4

  1994–95

  83

  8

  5

  1995–96

  107.2

  8

  5

  1996–97

  76.1

  8

  5

  1997–98

  76.1

  8

  4

  1998–99

  76.2

  7

  6

  1999–2000

  74.9

  2—

  5

  2000–01

  122

  3—

  1 Expenditure in 1990–91 was for three months only.

  2 From 1 July 1999, Scotland set up its own separate scheme "Warm Deal". The total amount transferred to Scotland for the whole year (including expenditure during I April to 30 June) was £5.9 million. This figure does not include any additional moneys allocated by the Scottish Executive to the programme.
  608W
  3 From this financial year England, Scotland and Wales have their own individually funded scheme.

  Note:

  n/a = Not available

  Fairground Deaths
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many deaths have occurred on fairgrounds in the UK in each of the last 20 years. [139609]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: From the information readily available, the following numbers of fatalities were reported to HSE at fairgrounds in Great Britain, between 1 April 1986 and 31 March 2000:

  Year

  Number

  1986–87

  1

  1987–88

  5

  1988–89

  1

  1989–90

  0

  1990–91

  3

  1991–92

  1

  1992–93

  1

  1993–94

  0

  1994–95

  4

  1995–96

  0

  1996–97

  1

  1997–98

  1

  1998–99

  0

  1999–200011

  1

  1 Provisional figures

  Notes:

  1. These data include total deaths to members of the public. employees and the self-employed, reported to HSE under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 and 1995.

  2. Data before 1986–87 are not available.

  3. Data are on a Great Britain basis only and not UK.

  4. Data from 1986–1996 were collected on a different basis to later data—the two series are not directly comparable.

  Source:

  Health and Safety Executive

  Local Government
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure local authorities have a strategic role in managing their local area. [139793]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The 1998 White Paper, "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People", set out the Government's long-term vision for the modernisation of local government, emphasising councils' local leadership role. The Local Government Act 2000 helps to achieve this by giving principal local authorities broad powers to take new action to promote the economic, social, and environmental well-being of their local communities. This new power greatly strengthens the scope for authorities to work in partnership with other bodies to deliver real improvements in local quality of life.

  Linked to the new power is a duty for local authorities to prepare a community strategy, based on local priorities and engaging local people, to improve community well-being and contribute to sustainable development. The local strategic partnerships with which local authorities should

  609W
  work to prepare community strategies will bring together all the public, private, voluntary and community sector bodies which have a stake in the area. In the longer term, community strategies could thus provide a sustainable framework which encompasses not only the mainstream activities of local authorities but also all their partner bodies, including businesses. Local strategic partnerships should provide an overriding framework within which other, more specific, partnerships can operate; they offer a single local co-ordination framework to make sure that services, in particular core public services, work together.

  The new constitutions which councils are required to adopt under Part II of the 2000 Act, including the option of a directly elected mayor where local people want one, will mean they can deliver more clear and accountable corporate leadership and are well fitted for their new strategic role.

  Severn Bridges
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will discuss with the Severn Bridges Company(a) the net reduction of credit card payments and (b) discount schemes for commuters. [139834]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State has no plans to discuss these matters with Severn River Crossing plc. The Severn Bridges Regulations stipulate cash payment at tollbooths. A pre-payment system is already in operation, which allows discounts for frequent users.

  Ultra-low Sulphur Fuel
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps are being taken to ensure increased availability of ultra-low sulphur petrol. [140211]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced his intention in his pre-Budget report on 8 November to reduce the duty on ultra-low sulphur petrol (ULSP) by a further 2p a litre in Budget 2001. This cut would be conditional on the oil companies guaranteeing nationwide access to its environmental benefits. ULSP currently constitutes around a third of petrol consumption in the UK, following a 1 p/1 in duty from October 2000. The United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association (UKPIA)—the trade association representing the major UK oil refiners—has already said its members are committed to ensuring the conditions exist for the Chancellor to implement his duty rate reduction in Budget 2001.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of low sulphur fuel on engine performance and fuel efficiency; and if he will make a statement. [140247]

  Mr. Hill
  Other fuel properties being constant, the use of low sulphur petrol or diesel fuel will have no impact on engine performance or the fuel efficiency of a vehicle. It will, however, contribute directly to a reduction of sulphates and particulates discharged from the tailpipe. For vehicles fitted with exhaust catalysts, reduced emissions of NOx, CO and hydrocarbons may also be expected owing to improved operation of the catalyst and control sensors that may be affected by sulphur poisoning.
  610W
  The processes used by individual oil companies to formulate low sulphur diesel could change other fuel properties that could potentially result in some loss of engine efficiency, but experience with ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD) indicates that most oil companies use a combination of refinery processes and additives to ensure any potential performance loss is minimised or eliminated entirely. In some cases, enhanced performance and fuel economy is claimed. Any effects should, therefore, be minimal but could vary from engine type to engine type and on the degree to which the vehicle is maintained.

  Motorists should experience no noticeable difference with ultra-low sulphur petrol (ULSP) compared to their normal grade. This fuel will, however, facilitate the introduction of new fuel-efficient vehicles that are expected to be increasingly introduced onto the market over the new few years. These vehicles should offer a significant fuel savings when running on ULSP.

  Vehicle Replacement (Funding)
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the means of accessing the fund for replacement of old vehicles with newer more fuel efficient ones. [140252]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government will consult with, among others, the haulage industry on the measures to be included in, and arrangements for, the £100 million fund to offer further incentives or allowances for scrapping older more polluting lorries, encouraging cleaner lorries and technology and reviewing the training needs of the HGV industry.

  Railway Disruptions (Business Losses)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what arrangements he is making to encourage Railtrack to compensate businesses that have lost business due to recent disruptions on the railways. [140080]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the financial cost to United Kingdom businesses of the railway disruptions following the Hatfield rail crash. [140081]

  (3) what plans he has to arrange for the compensation of businesses in the regions of the United Kingdom for loss of business caused by the disruption of rail services following the Hatfield rail crash. [140082]

  Mr. Hill
  No compensation is being paid direct to businesses. However, the Government welcome the £50 million compensation scheme for passengers announced on 22 November.

  Housing (Sex Offenders)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he has given to local authority housing departments regarding the issuing of reports to elected members on housing committees when a council property is let to a registered sex offender. [140519]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have not issued any specific advice about such reports. However, my Department has issued advice drawing local housing authorities' attention to their
  611W
  responsibilities under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and how these bear upon the arrangements in place to manage the risks posed by sex offenders in the community. The advice suggests ways in which local authorities are able to play an important role in ensuring that those arrangements work effectively through their housing allocation policies and in the treatment of offenders under the homelessness legislation. It also deals with the issue of confidentiality, and makes clear that details about individual cases should only be disclosed to the public at large in exceptional circumstances and then only by or with the express consent of the police. A copy of the advice issued to local authorities on 25 November 1999 and entitled "Housing Act 1996: Parts VI and VII, Crime and Disorder Act 1998: Part I—The role of local housing authorities in the management of risks presented by sex offenders" has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Countryside Agency
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, (1) pursuant to his answer of 21 November 2000,Official Report, column 115W, how much money was allocated to the Countryside Agency specifically for transport schemes, in the current financial year; and how much of this money has been spent to date; [140631]

  (2) what the underspend was in the allocation of funding for rural transport schemes to the Countryside Agency last year; and what this money will be spent on. [140722]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Countryside Agency was allocated £5.8 million for transport schemes in the current financial year, and to date £1.336 million has been spent.

  The underspend last year was £2.221 million. As the funding of rural transport schemes is ring-fenced, underspends are carried forward to be spent in subsequent years.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total cost of staff sickness within the Countryside Agency during the last year. [140721]

  Mr. Mullin
  The total cost of staff sickness during the last year was £170,000.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if foreign bidders for NATS will be asked to guarantee reciprocal access to their home markets for air traffic. [140695]

  Mr. Mullin
  No. That would be impossible to procure. It is intended that the Strategic Partnership Agreement and other documentation will contain provisions which will, in appropriate circumstances, commit the Strategic Partner and members of its consortium to using NATS as the vehicle for expansion, either abroad or in the UK.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the cost so far of the proposed privatisation of NATS to(a) the CAA, (b) NATS and (c) the Government. [140696]
  612W
  Mr. Mullin
  The costs incurred by the Government so far in connection with the PPP, including those associated with splitting NATS from the CAA, are approximately £12.3 million. The Government have also paid approximately £10.6 million to NATS and £1.6 million to the CAA in respect of the costs that those two organisations have incurred in connection with the PPP. All of these figures include VAT.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what talks he has held with NATS about the continuation of safe air traffic control if the Economic Regulation Group proposals for cuts are implemented. [140693]

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response the Government have made to the CAA about the cuts in costs and investment recommended by the Economic Regulation Group and their effect on safety. [140692]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport has regular meetings with the Chairman of National Air Traffic Services at which charge control and other issues are discussed. The most recent of these was on 13 November.

  The Government have received advice from the Civil Aviation Authority as to the charge control conditions for NATS. We are considering the advice alongside the views of NATS and the projections of bidders as the sale process continues, and will announce our decisions on the charge cap shortly. My officials have had a meeting with the CAA's Director of Safety Regulation, who confirmed that he was satisfied that safety would not be jeopardised by the charge cap proposed by the Economic Regulation Group.

  The Government are very conscious of the need to ensure that the charge cap does not risk compromising either safety or the investment programme. An undertaking was given to the House by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 15 November 2000, Official Report, column 998, that on no account will we set the cap at a level that will create operational difficulty for NATS, or that will raise the slightest question of a risk to safety.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what will be the cost to the CAA Pension Scheme as a result of the separation of NATS from the CAA; what compensation will be paid; and by whom. [140697]

  Mr. Mullin
  These are matters for discussion with the Trustees of the Civil Aviation Authority Pension Scheme (CAAPS), which have yet to be concluded.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will specify the controls that are in place in the National Air Traffic Services Strategic Partnership Agreement and the licence for the private finance arrangements to ensure safety is the paramount consideration of any partnership agreement. [140688]

  Mr. Mullin
  Neither the Strategic Partnership Agreement nor the operating licence is a primary safety tool. The Strategic Partnership Agreement governs the relationship between the Strategic Partner and the Government. It requires the Strategic Partner to appoint a safety director to the board of NATS and provides for the
  613W
  formation and maintenance of a safety committee. The operating licence is an economic instrument which establishes the rules under which NATS will operate as a regulated monopoly. In setting the initial charge control under condition 21 of the licence, the Government will ensure that the charge cap does not risk compromising either safety or the investment programme.

  The safety regime, with its associated licensing and approvals requirements, is established under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and the Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995. Furthermore, clauses 1 and 2 of the Transport Bill secure that safety is the CAA's and the Government's first consideration in exercising their functions under the Bill.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library the terms of the National Air Traffic Services Strategic Partnership Agreement before the choice of a strategic partner is finalised. [140687]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Strategic Partnership Agreement will be a joint venture agreement between the Government and their Strategic Partner. As such the document will contain a large amount of commercially sensitive information and data which will govern the running of the company. Therefore, publication of the full document could undermine NATS' commercial position with its competitors as the company looks to expand in the future.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what technical expertise he has sought concerning gauge corner cracking on rail tracks; and if he will make a statement. [140733]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]: Railtrack announced on 8 November the details of a technical task force to lead the investigation into the causes of gauge corner cracking. The team is being led by Professor Rod Smith, the Chair of Mechanical Engineering at Imperial College, and is being assisted by Ove Arup and Transportation Technology Centre Inc. (TCCI), experts in programme management and track technology.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many trains have passed signals at danger in each of the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [140736]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]: Figures for the number of trains which have passed signals at danger in each of the last 12 months are shown in the following table:

  Month

  Number of signals passed at danger (SPADs)

  November 1999

  54

  December 1999

  23

  January 2000

  33

  February 2000

  38

  March 2000

  51

  April 2000

  31

  May 2000

  35

  June 2000

  47

  July 2000

  31

  August 2000

  42

  614W

  Month

  Number of signals passed at danger (SPADs)

  September 2000

  46

  October 2000

  53

  Notes:

  1. The figures quoted are for SPADs occurring only on infrastructure controlled by Railtrack.

  2. Full details of these incidents appear in the monthly SPAD reports published by HSE. Copies of these reports have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the extent of gauge corner cracking on rail tracks in overseas rail systems comparable to that in the United Kingdom. [140734]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]: The task force of technical experts announced by Railtrack on 8 November to investigate the causes of gauge corner cracking will be able to make comparisons with other countries' rail systems having similar problems.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many incidents of gauge corner cracking have been discovered on the railway network since the Hatfield rail crash; and in which contract area the most incidents have been discovered. [140732]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]: Gauge corner cracking has been discovered at over 3,000 sites.

  The contract areas involved are a matter for Railtrack.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many train drivers have been disciplined in the last 12 months for breaches of safety procedure; and if he will make a statement. [140735]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]: The Information requested is not available, as there is no requirement for train operating companies to report instances of driver disciplinary action to the Health and Safety Executive.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received about subsidence of the loop railway lines around Hatfield since 17 October; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for such subsidence. [140581]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]: I am advised that the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate is not aware of any incidences of subsidence in the loop railway lines around Hatfield since 17 October 2000.

  Bradwell Power Station
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the Environment Agency to determine the application by BNFL at Bradwell Power Station in Essex for the use of incinerators to bum low level nuclear waste. [140739]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]: The Environment Agency is currently considering responses made to the public consultation on the

  615W
  applications by BNFL for authorisation to dispose of radioactive waste from Bradwell Power Station, including an application for an authorisation to incinerate combustible low level radioactive waste. The Agency will not make any decisions on BNFL's applications until it has carefully considered and been informed by all the consultation responses. The Agency hopes to reach its decision early in the new year.

  Rural Policy
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that the Government's rural policy enables young people to have the opportunity to live in rural areas. [139186]

  Mr. Meacher
  The White Paper "Our countryside: the future, A fair deal for rural England", which we published yesterday, sets out how our rural policies will improve access to affordable housing, lifelong learning and jobs, and provide for a range of new and improved travel services in rural areas. These measures will improve the opportunities available to young people to live and work in rural areas.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures his Department is taking to co-ordinate Government policy for rural areas; and if he will make a statement on the Rural White Paper. [139200]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Cabinet Committee on Rural Affairs already has the remit of co-ordinating the Government's policies affecting rural areas. Its tasks include looking at the policies of all Departments so as to ensure that they take account of their impact on rural areas and that they work as effectively as they can together to support rural life. The White Paper "Our countryside: the future, A fair deal for rural England", published yesterday, sets out the measures we are taking to underpin the work of the Cabinet Committee to ensure effective implementation of the Government's policies for rural areas.

  Advertisements
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce his decision on the future of areas of special control of advertisements; and if he will make a statement. [140874]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 28 November 2000,Official Report, columns 554–55W.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 November 2000,Official Report, column 652W, on London Underground, if he will provide the figures for the performance targets for the year April 1998 to March 1999. [140427]

  Mr. Hill
  The performance targets set for London Underground in respect of the year 1998–99 were announced on 12 November 1998,Official Report, columns 278–80W.
  616W
  The targets were as follows:

  1998–99

  Targets

  Excess journey time (minutes)

  6.25

  Escalators: percentage of scheduled service hours operated

  91.4

  Lifts: percentage of scheduled service hours operated

  93.8

  Reliability of service: percentage kilometres operated

  96.9

  Customer satisfaction ratings

  Train and station cleanliness

  69

  Security and safety

  83

  Staff helpfulness and availability

  70

  Train and station information

  75

  Train service

  77

  Financial targets

  Operating cost per train kilometre

  £10.28

  LUL gross margin

  £310 million

  Urban Regeneration
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress that has been made on interdepartmental co-ordination on initiatives aimed at urban regeneration. [139185]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Deputy Prime Minister announced the White Paper "Our Towns and Cities: The Future Delivering an Urban Renaissance" on 16 November. We are creating a new focus for urban issues at the centre of Government by setting up a Cabinet Committee on Urban Affairs to co-ordinate the Government's policies affecting urban areas and to oversee follow-up to the White Paper. It will consist of all Departments that have an interest in urban issues. The Committee will prepare for an Urban Summit, to consider progress, in 2002. We will also publish a new "State of the Cities Report" in 2005. These will all assist interdepartmental co-ordination of urban issues.

  Small Fishing Vessels
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has reached a decision on the content of the code of practice for small fishing vessels and its implementation. [141020]

  Mr. Hill
  Taking account of the responses to consultation and of points raised in the course of the Adjournment Debate on 16 November, it has been agreed that the requirements of the Code of Practice for small fishing vessels will comprise of:the carriage of safety equipment appropriate to the length and type of vessel;
  the completion of a risk assessment (as required by the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1997;
  annual self-certification by the owner that the vessel complies with the Code; and
  presentation of the vessel for inspection by the MCA.

  The proposed requirement for a fitness of vessel assessment will be remitted to the Committee which will review the Code two years after it comes into force, with the proviso that the MCA and the fishing industry be tasked with the development of guidance on fitness of vessel assessments to assist that Committee in reaching its decision.
  617W
  The safety equipment requirements for vessels less than 7 metres registered length will also be modified to ease the cost of compliance for these very small vessels.

  We intend to introduce the regulations which will give the Code statutory force before the end of this year and to publish the Code within the same timescale. Thereafter, we will work with industry to implement the Code from April 2001.

  London Rail Projects
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the proposals for London rail projects set out in the Department's 10-year plan for transport will be taken forward. [141097]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government's 10-Year Plan for Transport provides a vision and framework for significant improvements to rail transport in and around London. These can only be accomplished if all parties involved work closely together, with an agreed view of priorities, roles and funding. In particular, the Mayor and the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority need to co-operate closely to ensure coherence between the Mayor's emerging Transport Strategy and the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan. The Government also have an important role because a significant level of public funding will be required for all rail schemes in London. We have therefore established high-level arrangements between my Department, the Government Office for London, the SSRA and the Mayor to co-ordinate the development and taking forward of rail schemes in London.

  Groundwork Federation
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about his Department's review of the groundwork federation. [141102]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My Department has today issued the final report of the Financial Management and Policy Review of the Groundwork Federation. This review assessed Groundwork's services and the organisation's operation and management.

  The review recognises Groundwork's ability to deliver environmental action alongside social and economic improvements and makes recommendations for improving effectiveness in specific areas. We welcome the contribution Groundwork has made to delivering our regeneration priorities, and we want to see this contribution continue.

  I have placed copies of the report in the House Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will announce the national non-domestic rates multiplier for 618W
  2001–02 and set out the basis of the calculation of the distributable amount of non-domestic rates for 2001–02. [141135]

  Ms Armstrong
  The non-domestic rate poundage (multiplier) will be 43 pence. The amount of non-domestic rates in England for 2001–02 to be redistributed to local authorities will be £15,137 million, although estimated payments into the pool in 2001–02 will be £14,959 million. The Distributable Amount includes an allowance of £262 million for an Exchequer payment to the Non-domestic Rates pool, to compensate for the shortfall which would otherwise occur as a result of the regulations under section 58 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the transitional relief scheme, announced on 25 November 1999,Official Report, columns 769–85W.

  The calculations for 2001–02, and the prior-year figures, on which this is based, are set out in the tables.

  National non-domestic rates—calculations of distributable amount for 2001–02

  £ million

  2000–011

  2001–022

  1. Income from Local lists

  Multiplier (p)

  41.6

  43.0

  Gross Rate Yield

  15,868

  16,521

  (i) Reliefs

  (a) Net Transitional Relief

  -990

  -608

  (b) Empty properties

  -953

  -1,020

  (c) Charitable

  -537

  -573

  (d) Rural Shops and Post Offices

  -2

  -2

  (e) Discretionary

  -33

  -35

  Net Yield after reliefs

  13,352

  14,283

  (ii) Collection costs/reductions to contributions

  (a) Costs of collection

  -85

  -84

  (b) Losses on collection

  -143

  -167

  (c) City of London offset

  -7

  -7

  Total contribution in respect of year

  13,119

  14,026

  (iii) Repayments/interest payments

  Total adjustments

  -366

  -203

  Net Local Yield

  12,753

  13,822

  2. Income from Central list

  Net Central List Yield

  1,137

  1,137

  3. Income from Crown

  Contributions in Aid

  Net Crown Yield

  0

  0

  Total NDR Yield

  13,890

  14,959

  4. Exchequer Contributions

  Total Exchequer contributions

  415

  262

  Total NNDR pool payments

  (1†2†3†4)

  14,305

  15,221

  5. Adjustments

  Surplus brought forward

  1,013

  -84

  Combined total

  15,318

  15,137

  Distributable amount

  15,402

  15,137

  Surplus carried forward

  -84

  0

  1 Provisional Outturn

  2 Estimated in-year contribution

  619

  National non-domestic rates—calculations of distributable amount for 2000–01

  £ million

  1998–991

  1999–20001

  1. Income from Local lists

  Multiplier (p)

  47.4

  48.9

  Gross Rate Yield

  13,850

  14,158

  (i) Reliefs

  (a) Net Transitional Relief

  -485

  -460

  (b) Empty properties

  -928

  -930

  (c) Charitable

  -504

  -517

  (d) Rural Shops and Post Offices

  -2

  -2

  (e) Discretionary

  -18

  -24

  Net Yield after reliefs

  11,912

  12,225

  (ii) Collection costs/reductions to contributions

  (a) Costs of collection

  -79

  -83

  (b) Losses on collection

  -109

  -121

  (c) City of London offset

  -7

  -7

  Total contribution in respect of year

  11,718

  12,014

  (iii) Repayments/interest payments

  Total adjustments

  -526

  -270

  Net Local Yield

  11,192

  11,744

  2. Income from Central list

  Net Central List Yield

  1,273

  1,319

  3. Income from Crown

  Contributions in Aid

  Net Crown Yield

  440

  332

  Total NDR Yield

  12,905

  13,395

  4. Exchequer Contributions

  Total Exchequer contributions

  360

  310

  Total NNDR pool payments

  (1†2†3†4)

  13,265

  13,705

  5. Adjustments

  Surplus brought forward

  178

  919

  Combined total

  13,443

  14,625

  Distributable amount

  12,524

  13,612

  Surplus carried forward

  919

  1,013

  1 Provisional Outturn

  Notes:

  For 1998–99 and 1999–2000 the amounts shown are those recorded in the post end-year (NNDR3) returns. For 2000–01 the amounts shown are the estimated outturn for the year based mainly upon authorities' provisional contributions to the non-domestic rating pool. For 2001–02 the estimates are based on:

  1. Item 1: The gross calculated rate yield represents the total value of non-domestic hereditaments on local rating lists times the multiplier.

  2. Item 1(i)(a): The Transitional decrease adjustment includes the estimated amount of rates that will not be recouped from local list ratepayers under the transitional arrangements made by regulations under section 58 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the transitional relief scheme, announced by written PQ on 25 November 1999, Official Report, column 770W.

  3. Item 1(i)(b): The empty property relief adjustments include voids and partially occupied hereditaments. The 2001–02 figure includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rate yield.

  4. Item 1(i)(c): Charitable rate relief. The 2001–02 figure includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rate yield.

  5. Item t(i)(d): Rural Shops and Post Office relief. Figures for 1998–99 onwards include mandatory relief for village shops and post offices under the Local Government and Rating Act 1997. The 2001–02 figure includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rate yield.
  620W
  6. Item 1(i)(e): Discretionary relief granted to charities, non-profit making organisations and for other reasons including, for 1998–99 onwards, discretionary relief for village shops and post offices under the Local Government and Rating Act 1997. The 2001–02 figure includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rate yield.

  7. Item 1(ii)(a) and (b): The allowances for the costs and losses incurred by authorities in collecting non-domestic rates from ratepayers.

  8. Item l(ii)(c): City Offset—the amount which the City of London will not be required to pay into the non-domestic rating pool. It is the amount which will be retained by the City to meet its own expenditure.

  9. Item 1(iii): net adjustment in respect of appeals and other amendments to the rating list affecting liability for previous years rates settled in that year.

  10. Item 2: the rateable value of non-domestic hereditaments on the central rating list times the multiplier, less the net effect of transitional arrangements, and adjusted for appeals and other changes in respect of previous years.

  11. Item 3: the 1998–99 and 1999–2000 figures for Crown properties include an allowance for the effect of transitional arrangements. For 2000–01 and 2001–02, properties included in the Crown list in previous years are included in the local list figures at item 1

  12. Item 4: the contribution from Central Government to offset the amount of the Secretary of State's estimate of income forgone as a result of transitional arrangements established by regulations under section 58 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the transitional relief scheme, announced by written PQ on 25 November 1999, Official Report, column 770W.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards the minimum number of states required for enhanced co-operation, as proposed in the IGC. [139914]

  Mr. Vaz
  Talks continue on the number of member states required for enhanced co-operation in specific areas. We have made it clear that we will not accept the creation of an institutionalised inner core of member states, and that enhanced co-operation must be genuinely open to all who want to participate.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further harmonisation of social security will arise from Article 42 as referred to in the Progress report of the IGC. [139912]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government have made it clear on numerous occasions that they will not accept a move to QMV for social security.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his position concerning the extension of fields covered by Article 137 as referred to in the Progress report of the IGC. [139910]

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

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason the principle of enhanced co-operation through qualified majority
  621WW
  voting has been proposed in place of that set out under the Treaty of Amsterdam; and if he will make a statement. [139963]

  Mr. Vaz
  Provisions for enhanced co-operation, authorised by QMV, were introduced at Amsterdam.

  The Prime Minister set out the reasons for amending the current enhanced co-operation arrangements in his Warsaw speech on 6 October.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on the establishment of a Committee on Employment and Social Protection. [139911]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) on 20 November 2000,Official Report, columns 29–30W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on his policy towards use of the veto at Nice; [139786]

  (2) if he will make a statement on use of the veto when the United Kingdom Government are in a minority of one at the Council of Ministers. [139787]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government believe in pursuing Britain's interests in Europe constructively. But where the use of the veto is essential in the national interest, we will not hesitate to use it.

  Cayman Islands Government
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Cayman Islands Government on the implementation of the HM Inspector of Prisons last report. [139992]

  Mr. Battle
  HM Inspector of Prisons last reported on Northward Prison on Grand Cayman in 1994. Of his 34 recommendations, 25 have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. Progress has been hampered by prison riots which resulted in the serious damage of the prison in September 2000. The Under-Secretary, Baroness Scotland discussed prison issues with the Government of the Cayman Islands during her visit in August 2000 and was able to see for herself the extent of the destruction. She stressed the urgency of the rebuilding programme, while reconfirming the logistical and financial difficulties involved. The current Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, will visit the Cayman Islands to conduct a baseline inspection in March 2001.

  Kazakhstan
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent meetings with the President of Kazakhstan. [140700]

  Mr. Vaz
  At their meeting in London on 17 November, the Foreign Secretary and Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev discussed UK investment in Kazakhstan and the need for more legal transparency for investors, the development of parliamentary links, and regional security 622W
  problems. The Foreign Secretary also raised democratic reform and human rights issues. He urged President Nazarbayev to sign the UN Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Similar issues were discussed at the President's separate meetings with the Prime Minister and me.

  EU Convention on Regional and Minority Languages
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government will ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Regional and Minority Languages. [140798]

  Mr. Vaz
  Following signature of the Charter on 2 March 2000, parliamentary procedures are now complete and the UK is working to ratify the Charter as soon as possible. It is hoped that ratification will take place in the next few months.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who the British representative is to the Venice Commission. [140799]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) on 11 April 2000,Official Report, column 113W.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  "Viewing the World"
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost was of producing the report entitled "Viewing the World". [133869]

  Mr. Foulkes
  "Viewing the World" was carried out as part of the Government's commitment to raising awareness and understanding of development issues in the UK. We know that TV is the biggest source of information and beliefs about developing countries, and that levels of coverage have steadily fallen over recent years. Against this background, we set out to go beyond an approach based simply on measuring hours of coverage, and instead to work with the broadcasting industry to analyse the impact of different kinds of programming on viewers' attitudes, as well as the current influences within the industry. The work was carried out with close involvement from senior broadcasters, and has not only provoked debate within the industry but led to a range of follow-up activities. The cost of the research work plus printing and publication of the report was £202,000.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the compensation payments paid in respect of(a) the original roof contract

  623W
  and (b) other aborted contracts relating to the Millennium Dome. [134825]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has advised that the roof contract remains subject to legal proceedings. No payments have been made at this stage. Other aborted contracts were concerned with the original proposal for a self-contained drum structure at the centre of the Dome. This was replaced in November 1997 with the current central arena configuration. Costs associated with the drum structure totalled £990,000.

  2000

  Total free1

  Total discounted2

  Total sponsors from discounted3

  Full price tickets4

  Total attendance5

  January

  10,164

  50,669

  14,685

  305,586

  366,420

  February

  73,115

  56,868

  9,169

  439,555

  569,538

  March

  103,372

  60,209

  4,892

  392,727

  556,308

  April

  68,773

  112,352

  12,077

  398,208

  579,333

  May

  102,903

  157,385

  13,456

  241,916

  502,204

  June

  135,181

  165,461

  14,502

  239,625

  540,267

  July

  123,077

  217,267

  15,575

  266,175

  606,519

  August

  20,148

  263,521

  12,958

  267,547

  551,216

  September

  109,372

  209,374

  13,285

  144,538

  463,284

  October

  74,448

  424,524

  16,609

  158,652

  657,624

  1Includes free school visits, carers for disabled people, sponsor ticket allocation, accompanying teachers on paying school visits, coach drivers, Greenwich residents, NMEC guests and VIPs.

  2This reflects a range of promotions and offers which are normal for the visitor attraction business and which are factored into the company's business strategy. For example, the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has run a number of offers and promotions with its sponsors for their customers and also continues to run a special ticket price for entry after 4pm. Key promotions with M&S, Boots, Tesco and BT have been undertaken. The Tesco half price promotion was redeemed in October, BT will be redeemed in November and December.

  3Sponsor tickets have been purchased and allocated per each individual sponsorship contract.

  4This number is an approximation and as such should be used for review purposes only. There is insufficient accuracy for it to be regarded as audited or validated information.

  5Total attendance does not take into account non-attendance by ticket purchasers. It represents visitor footfall via the admission system and not total tickets sold.

  Note:

  NMEC operates 2 different systems, one for ticket sales (Enta) and one for admissions (ACS). The admissions system records total attendance, but does not show details of the attendance ie: purchase source of admission or monetary value of admission. Consequently figures for free and discounted tickets are derived from the ticketing system, whereas total attendance is derived from the admission system.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish correspondence between Mr. Mike O'Connor and his Department concerning the grant of £47 million to the Dome in September. [134488]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: As requested, I am arranging for copies of the correspondence between Mr. Mike O'Connor, the Director of the Millennium Commission, and my Department regarding the additional grant of £47 million to the Dome in September to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what budget has been allocated to mark the closure of the Millennium Dome. [136451]

  Janet Anderson
  The Dome is open for business on new year's eve from 9.00am to 6.00pm. The separate and private Ministry of Sound event in venues adjacent to the Dome will begin at about 9.00pm. Therefore no budget has been allocated to any celebration to mark the closure of the Dome.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans there are to mark the closure of the Millennium Dome. [136239]
  624W
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many visitors to the Dome there were(a) paying full prices, (b) paying a reduced price and (c) entering free, in each week since 1 January. [134496]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: The information on a month-by-month basis is shown in the table. The information provided is a reasonable approximation only, but represents the most accurate data available at present. Weekly figures can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Janet Anderson
  The Dome is open for business on new year's eve from 9.00am to 6.00pm. The separate and private Ministry of Sound event in venues adjacent to the Dome will begin at about 9.00pm.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what events are scheduled to take place in the Millennium Dome after 31 December. [140426]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: No events are scheduled to take place in the Millennium Dome after 31 December.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many different accounting systems have been operated by the New Millennium Experience Company. [135412]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has advised that it has operated one accounting system—SUN Accounting.
  625W
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the value is of professional fees paid, or contracted to be paid, by the New Millennium Experience Company for(a) accountancy and (b) legal advice since 1 January. [134596]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: On accountancy fees paid, I refer the hon. Member to my letter of 26 October, a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has advised that total payments to legal firms between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2000 were £674,070. The firms who undertook work for the NMEC during this period were Simmons and Simmons, Eversheds, Norton Rose, Masons, Bird and Bird, Fenwick Elliot and Harbottles. Payments to legal firms over the six months from 30 September are estimated at up to £1.5 million. The higher costs for these six months reflect the legal requirements involved in the necessary contractual reviews to ensure that all actual and contingent liabilities are identified and all benefits to the company are crystallised. In addition to the firms noted above, Berwin Leighton are supporting and advising the Executive Chairman and the new management team on close-out, contract review and legacy issues.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the principal creditors of the New Millennium Experience Company. [134615]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: I am informed by NMEC that as at 24 November 2000, the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) had six suppliers with agreed ledger balances above £100,000. In all cases the payment is either not yet due, or is being made debt in accordance with an agreed payment plan. The six are BT plc, London Borough of Greenwich, Inland Revenue, Contributions Agency, Ash Corporate Finance (Stratford Park and Ride site), and Edwin Shirley Staging. There are six other suppliers claiming amounts from NMEC in excess of £100,000 but in these cases contract finalisation has not yet been completed and, consequently, ledger balances have not been agreed.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what issues delayed the payment by Tesco to the New Millennium Experience Company of the £500,000 due for payment on 1 March; and if he will place in the Library copies of all correspondence between Tesco and NMEC relating to this matter. [135737]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]: The principal reason for the delay was Tesco's concern to have certainty that the Millennium Experience at the Dome would run until 31 December 2000. Following the Millennium Commission's award of an additional £47 million National Lottery grant in September, the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) was able to provide the level of comfort sought by Tesco on the project's closure date. All sponsorship money owed by
  626W
  Tesco was paid to NMEC on 30 October. NMEC considers that the correspondence between the two parties on this matter is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when NMEC was first requested by the Dome chief executive to undertake a detailed examination of the finances of the Millennium Dome; and when this was(a) begun and (b) completed. [139035]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 20 November 2000]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has regularly reviewed its financial position since its inception. Immediately after PY Gerbeau's arrival on 7 February 2000, he instituted a full internal review of the Millennium Experience project budget and finances. This comprehensive review was completed in early April. The NMEC board subsequently commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to undertake a wider review of the company's finances, including closure costs. This review was completed on 22 August.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the board of the New Millennium Experience Company has met since 1 January, indicating in each case the length of the meeting. [139036]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 20 November 2000]: The board of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has met 19 times between 1 January 2000 and 21 November 2000. The individual meeting dates and the duration of those meetings was as follows:

  Date

  Duration

  18 January

  2 hours, 45 minutes

  31 January

  1 hour, 35 minutes

  24 February

  2 hours, 30 minutes

  21 March

  3 hours

  18 April

  2 hours, 45 minutes

  2 May

  1 hour, 30 minutes

  18 May

  2 hours, 30 minutes

  23 May

  1 hour, 30 minutes

  20 June

  3 hours, 30 minutes

  5 July

  3 hours, 45 minutes

  14 July

  3 hours

  1 August

  3 hours, 30 minutes

  7 August

  3 hours

  22 August

  4 hours, 30 minutes

  5 September

  2 hours

  12 September

  1 hour

  21 September

  3 hours, 30 minutes

  19 October

  3 hours, 45 minutes

  21 November

  2 hours, 30 minutes

  Cabinet War Rooms
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about recent flood damage to the Cabinet War Rooms; and if he will list the items(a) destroyed and (b) damaged by the flooding of the Cabinet War Rooms. [140136]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  As a result of particularly heavy overnight rainfall, water was found to be coming into the Cabinet War Rooms when the site was opened on the morning of 30 October. Water to a depth of approximately 2 inches was lying in the main corridor, and other areas were showing signs of water ingress. Prompt action was
  627W
  taken to remove vulnerable items and to protect, with an impermeable covering, areas of risk. Work to dry out the site was begun immediately. The War Rooms were re-opened to the public as normal on 1 November.

  No items were destroyed. There has been minimal damage to a few items. This includes: some items from the Map Room; Winston Churchill's blotter; other paper items such as wartime telephone books; and the carpet in Winston Churchill's room. It is expected that none of these will suffer any lasting damage, although specialist conservation work will be required to be undertaken on some of these items.

  Research Organisations
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what research organisations are owned by his Department; and what their budgets are for the year 2000–01. [R][140154]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department owns no research organisations, though research activity is undertaken, commissioned and co-ordinated both by my Department and by the non-departmental public bodies funded by it.

  EU Culture and Audio Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the outcome was of the Culture and Audio Council held in Brussels on 23 November; and if he will make a statement. [140686]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Culture/Audiovisual Council held in Brussels on 23 November. Agreement was reached on the proposed MEDIA Plus programme to encourage the development, distribution and promotion of European films and training for professionals in the audio-visual sector. Under the new programme—for which a budget of euro 400 million (approximately £240 million) was agreed—British audiovisual companies will be able to seek European Union funding for projects, including initiatives with other European partners. The Council will now seek the formal agreement of the European Parliament to the training component of the programme.

  The Council also discussed the important role of public sector broadcasting in the European Union, state aid for the EU film and audiovisual industries, book pricing and the importance of promoting high quality public buildings and improving public awareness of good architecture and design in the built environment.

  A report of the Council meeting has been prepared and I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses once it has been translated into English.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the number of people who will have visited the Millennium Commission's sponsored events by the end of the year; and if he will make a statement. [140764]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

HEALTH

  Polio Vaccine (CJD)
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many doses of polio vaccine which breached the 1989 guidelines banning UK-sourced bovine materials have been administered since 1989; for what reason the use of the Medeva polio vaccine was not suspended in June; and how many doses of Medeva polio vaccine have now been recalled; [135759]

  (2) if Medeva has been able to establish that the batch of polio vaccine manufactured using UK bovine serum was BSE-free; [135761]

  (3) what penalties the polio vaccine manufacturer Medeva has incurred for being in breach of UK and European guidelines. [135760]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have asked the Chief Medical Officer to review all the advice given to Ministers on vaccines in relation to public health and vCJD. This review will include the circumstances leading to the withdrawal of the Medeva manufactured oral polio vaccine and advice to Ministers on withdrawal or recall of vaccines more generally.

  When the report of the CMO is available, I will respond to the specific points raised.

  Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what NHS provision is planned for the diagnosis of and research into Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome after the closure of MRC Connective Tissue Genetics Group in Cardiff; and where a practitioner who suspects Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome in a patient will refer the patient after November; [137202]

  (2) what representations he has received on the non-provision of those suffering from Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome from clinical genetic diagnosis, counselling and screening care under the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement. [137203]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 14 November 2000,Official Report, columns 602–03W.

  Research Spending
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available the amount spent on research into(a) Parkinson's disease and (b) stem cell therapy; and if he will make a statement. [139280]

  Mr. Denham
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. The Department of Health funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the National Health Service. The Department also provides NHS support funding for research commissioned by the research councils and charities that takes place in the NHS.
  629W
  The estimated expenditure figures available for directly commissioned research into Parkinson's disease and stem cell therapy are as shown. They include Medical Research Council and Department of Health support:

  £ million

  Parkinson's disease

  Stem cell therapy and related basic research

  1995–96

  1.7

  2.5

  1996–97

  1.7

  2.2

  1997–98

  1.8

  2.1

  1998–99

  1.8

  2.4

  1999–2000

  1.9

  2.4

  The stem cell research undertaken by the MRC involves mainly projects relating to stem cell transfer involving adult stem cells, for example in the treatment of leukaemia using bone marrow transplantation, which the MRC have been undertaking successfully for many years.

  In addition, the MRC has funded basic research into the development of animal embryos and the properties of stem cells—involving mostly mouse embryos—which, along with studies of human reproduction, informs current assessments of the potential for new stem cell therapies. None of this work involves specially created human embryos or the use of human cells for cell nuclear transfer.

  In addition, the Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council has a diverse programme of research in the basic science of stem cells, potentially underpinning therapeutic applications, which has involved about £15 million of expenditure over the last 10 years.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to provide for the fluoridation of the water supply in areas where this does not happen; and if he will make a statement. [139450]

  Mr. Denham
  We will be discussing the report of the systematic review of water fluoridation undertaken by the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York with representatives of the water industry. The Medical Research Council is establishing a working group to advise on whether further research in the area of water fluoridation and human health is required. We will review the need for legislation when this action is complete.

  Bone Marrow Donors
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 July 2000,Official Report, column 226W, on bone marrow donors, what further steps have been taken by the National Blood Service to recruit more blood and bone marrow donors from the Asian community. [139711]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department recently had a productive meeting with "Friends of Life", an organisation whose aim is to increase the number of Asian 630W
  bone marrow donors. The Department and the National Blood Service are continuing to look at how bone marrow donors are recruited in the United Kingdom and how the systems already in place could be improved to meet the needs of ethnic communities.

  NHS Lithotriptor Machines
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS Lithotriptor machines are available per head of population in each region of England and Wales; and where they are located. [140161]

  Mr. Denham
  We do not maintain an inventory of medical equipment. Central records show that in England in 1998–99 a total of 147 National Health Service trusts reported carrying out at least one lithotripsy procedure for kidney stones and of these 37 NHS trusts reported 100 or more procedures. These figures can only be used as an indication of the facilities available. Some trusts may use mobile lithotriptors to provide a local service.

  The provision of health services in Wales is a matter for the devolved Assembly.

  Acute Hospital Beds
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute hospital beds in each regional health authority have been closed as a direct result of staff shortages in each of the last five years. [140335]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  MRSA
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus incidents have occurred in hospitals in the(a) West Midlands and (b) London regions between July 1997 and June 2000. [140455]

  Mr. Denham
  The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) compiles aggregate data on the numbers of incidents of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (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.

  Incidents of MRSA

  Rate per 100,000 population

  1997

  North Thames

  544

  8

  South Thames

  385

  6

  West Midlands

  102

  2

  1998

  North Thames

  289

  4

  South Thames

  220

  3

  West Midlands

  169

  1

  1999

  London

  290

  4

  West Midlands

  30

  1

  631W

  Incidents of MRSA

  Rate per 100,000 population

  2000

  London

  100

  1—

  West Midlands

  30

  1—

  1 Data for 2000 are incomplete, therefore the rate per 100,000 cannot be calculated

  Notes:

  1. An incident is three or more patients infected or colonised by the same strain of MRSA in the same month from the same hospital.

  2. The criteria for submission of isolates of MRSA to the PHLS for specialist tests have been revised twice since 1997 (in January 1998 and January 2000)

  NHS Trust Liability
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the legislation governing the liability of NHS trusts in cases where a death is caused by management failure within the trust. [140451]

  Ms Stuart
  The Home Office has just completed a consultation exercise on reforming the law on involuntary manslaughter. This includes changes to the offence of corporate killing which, if implemented, would continue to include National Health Service bodies. The Department has responded to the consultation exercise, and we have no plans to make any other changes outside that process.

  NHS Treatments
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to ensure that additional funds allocated to health authorities to meet the cost of treatments recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence are used solely for that purpose. [140580]

  Mr. Denham
  We do not separately identify funding to meet the cost of National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommendations. Our spending plans announced in this year's Budget mean that the National Health Service will receive the largest level of sustained real-term growth over any four-year period in its history. This will enable the NHS to implement NICE recommendations.

  Royal Victoria Hospital, Newcastle
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the outline business case for the replacement of heating system boilers using PFI at the Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle was received; when it was approved; and when work will start. [140633]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals National Health Service Trust submitted an outline business case in October 1999, and the Northern and Yorkshire Regional Office agreed that the trust could proceed to the Official Journal of the European Community advert in November 1999.

  In line with normal capital investment procedure, a full business case is now awaited from the trust, and this is expected in the near future. Once that full business case has been evaluated and approved by Northern and Yorkshire Regional Office, the trust will then be permitted to proceed to contract signature, and works can commence thereafter.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 20 November 2000,Official Report, column 55W, concerning waiting times, what (a) estimate has been made of and (b) target set for the number of people waiting over 13 weeks by 2002. [140093]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 26 November 2000]: The National Health Service has been set two interim targets for outpatient waiting times for the year 2001–02. First, to reduce the number of patients waiting over 13 weeks. Secondly, to implement a maximum waiting time of 26 weeks for a first consultant appointment.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were awaiting hospital(a) first consultation and (b) treatment within the NHS on the most recent date for which figures are available; what the average waiting time is for both (a) and (b); and what are the upper and lower percentiles against which these averages are quoted. [140352]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: Information on the total number of people waiting for a first outpatient appointment is not collected centrally, however the average (median) time waited for a first outpatient appointment during the quarter ended 30 September 2000 was 7.45 weeks.

  The lower and upper quartiles are as follows: lower 2.95 weeks; upper 12.78 weeks.

  The total number of people waiting for elective admission to a National Health Service trust at 30 September 2000 was 1,031,824. The average (median) time waited by those on the list was 2.96 months.

  The lower and upper quartiles are as follows: lower 1.48 months; upper 6.02 months.

  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list for each NHS region the number of in-patient beds that cater for the needs of people with CFS/ME; how much is spent in each region on such inpatient services; and how many NHS staff, broken down by category, work in such services; [140544]

  (2) if he will list for each NHS region the number of out-patient clinics that cater for the needs of people with CFS/ME; how much is spent by each region on such services; and how many NHS staff, broken down by category, work in such services. [140545]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]: The information required is not available in the format requested.

  The National Health Service provides a considerable number of services to which people suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) access. These patients are seen within a wide range of hospital specialties including general medicine, neurology and immunology. The CFS/ME working group is developing guidance to improve the quality of care for CFS/ME patients.
  633W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of education and training of(a) medical, (b) nursing and (c) allied professions in the (i) diagnosis, (ii) treatment and (iii) management of CFS/ME. [140546]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]: Responsibility for the adequacy of education and training of medical, nursing and allied professions is primarily a matter for the statutory and professional bodies. The National Health Service Plan sets out proposals for ensuring that patient interests and the service needs of the NHS are fully aligned with the development of curriculum and approval of training programmes.

  The chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) working group is developing guidance to improve the quality of care and treatment for people with CFS/ME.

  Hospital Food
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the additional funding allocated to the Health Service within the Comprehensive Spending Review will be spent on improving food standards in hospitals in(a) England and (b) Devon; and if he will make a statement. [140489]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]: In addition to the increased overall funding announced as part of the health authority revenue allocations, we announced in the National Health Service Plan that £30 million would be allocated during the next three years, commencing 2001–02, specifically targeted at improving the quality of hospital food. £8 million will be allocated in the current financial year. This funding will be issued direct to trusts and will assist them in implementing the following elements of the better hospital food initiative.

  The introduction of a 24-hour NHS catering service with a new NHS menu, designed by leading chefs. It will cover continental breakfast, cold drinks and snacks at mid-morning and in the afternoon, light lunchtime meals and an improved two-course evening dinner. This will be a minimum standard for all hospitals.

  The introduction of "ward housekeepers" to ensure that the quality, presentation and quantity of meals meets patient needs; that patients, particularly elderly people, are able to eat meals on offer; and that the service patients receive is genuinely available round-the clock.

  The allocation of funding for the better hospital food initiative in the following three years will be informed by understanding the benefits that have taken place in NHS trusts as a result of the first round of funding allocation.

  NHS Estates
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will report the findings of the Quinquennial Review of the NHS Estates and Health Building Agency. [141099]

  Mr. Denham
  We are publishing today the report of the National Health Service Estates Quinquennial Review and copies have been placed in the Library. The Review concludes that the Agency has performed well in advising Ministers and the National Health Service Executive on policy and strategy for the NHS Estate and on the 634W
  performance of NHS trusts in managing their estate. It finds that Executive Agency status has been beneficial and recommends that NHS Estates should remain as an Agency.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the Strategic Direction 2000–01 to 2004–05, key tasks and targets for 2000–01 and Annual Plan 2000–01 for the NHS Estates Agency. [141100]

  Mr. Denham
  We have agreed the Agency's Strategic Direction 2000–01 to 2004–05, Key Tasks and Targets for 2000–01 and Annual Plan 2000–01 and have placed copies in the Library.

  Phenylpropanolamine
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of potential adverse health effects of phenylpropanolamine in proprietary medicines. [140803]

  Ms Stuart
  Ministers asked the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM), the expert advisory body to the licensing authority to consider the possible increased risk of haemorrhagic stroke associated with medicines containing phenylpropanolamine (PPA) at its meeting on 8 November 2000. This immediately followed action by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States of America, which had asked for withdrawal of medicines containing phenylpropanolamine (PPA), on the basis of the Yale Haemorrhagic Stroke Project.

  The Committee on Review of Medicines (CRM) in 1984, and the CSM in 1995, had previously considered the issue and as a result the maximum doses were reduced, and warnings and contraindications were strengthened. Following a preliminary review, the CSM concluded that the evidence of a link between haemorrhagic stroke and PPA is weak and mainly associated with uses that are not licensed in the United Kingdom. The CSM recognised that PPA products are used differently in the UK: appetite suppressants containing PPA, which have been linked to stroke in young women in the USA, are not available in the UK. Over the counter cold and flu remedies on the market in the UK have a lower maximum daily dose (100 mg) than similar products in the USA (150 mg).

  PPA-containing products should not be used by certain groups of patients, such as those with high blood pressure or heart disease. These warnings and contraindications are clearly stated on the packaging and patient information leaflets.

  The Department sent out a letter on 9 November from the chairman of the CSM to all general practitioners and pharmacists making them aware of the current situation, and reminding them of particular contraindications and warnings associated with PPA-containing products.

  A further detailed evaluation has been carried out to investigate fully the implications for use of PPA in the UK. This was considered by the CSM at its meeting on 23 November. The CSM confirmed the view taken previously and agreed that the advice given then should stand. They advised that there was no need for further urgent communication with health professionals. Minor

  635W
  amendments to product information to reinforce the existing warnings could be carried out on a non-urgent basis.

  The MCA continually monitor the safety of PPA-containing products, as for all medicines.

  Mrs. Jean Brett
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 12 July 2000,Official Report, column 578W, on Jean Brett, on what basis the Eastern Regional Office concluded that no further action need to be taken in respect of the case of Mrs. Jean Brett. [140589]

  Ms Stuart
  Following a request made by the Chief Medical Officer a review of the two clinical assessors reports from the Independent Review was carried out by the Eastern Regional Director of Public Health. On the basis of this review it was concluded that no further action needed to be taken.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham of 17 March (Ref. 115126) regarding hospital waiting times. [140800]

  Mr. Denham
  I replied to the hon. Member on 17 October and placed copies of the information requested in the Library.

  Nurses
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses(a) joined and (b) left the nursing profession in the NHS in each of the last 10 years. [140801]

  Mr. Denham
  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).

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Employees (HIV)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [137790]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Northern Ireland Office has a well established equal opportunities policy founded on the principle that people must have equality of opportunity for employment and advancement solely on the basis of their suitability for the work.

  RUC Investigations
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has received a report from the Chief 636W
  Constable of the RUC about the recent deaths of Paddy Joe Quinn in Magherafelt and Joseph O'Connor in Belfast; and if he will make a statement. [138284]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State receives regular briefings on security matters from the Chief Constable and his security advisers. It would not be appropriate to speculate who is responsible for these murders as the RUC investigation is still ongoing. If it becomes clear that the IRA were responsible for the murders of Patrick Joe Quinn and Joseph O'Connor it would have a direct impact on the Secretary of State's assessment of the IRA ceasefire.

  Juvenile Justice Estate
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for the juvenile justice estate. [141101]

  Mr. Ingram
  Custody is now reserved for the most serious and persistent juvenile offenders in Northern Ireland, which has led to a reduction both in the number of young people in custody and the length of time served. But it remains important to provide secure conditions for those juveniles who do receive custodial sentences, for the protection both of the public and of the juveniles themselves.

  There are currently two "open" centres (Rathgael and St. Patrick's) and one "closed" site (Lisnevin) in the juvenile justice estate in Northern Ireland. None of the centres is fully satisfactory, and their total capacity (115 places) is considerably in excess of requirements. Since April 2000, I have therefore been consulting on how best to restructure the estate in order to provide a progressive and balanced regime that fully meets the needs of young people in custody, and to achieve the most effective use of public resources.

  I am grateful to all those who responded to the consultation document. These responses recognised that changes were needed in the juvenile justice estate, with opinion fairly evenly divided between the one centre and two centre options. In considering the way forward, I have borne in mind that the accommodation must meet a number of needs. It should provide a safe and secure (but not oppressive) environment, since custody is reserved for the most serious and persistent offenders. It must cater for the diverse needs of different groups of juveniles. It must be child friendly and unthreatening. And it must also provide a progressive environment, without disruptive transfers around the system. A critical mass of inmates is needed to ensure the optimum provision of opportunities such as education and recreation.

  I have therefore concluded that, for an estimated maximum population of 50 juveniles (but with a working population of less than this), the most appropriate option is for a single site, offering comprehensive educational and recreational provision and housing the population in small living units. A modern construction would allow the best design features to be included, delivering intrinsic security in a safe and relatively welcoming environment.

  The existing accommodation fails to meet this requirement. Lisnevin provides the necessary security, but in an oppressive and outdated manner. The Criminal Justice Review, recommended its closure, and I agree with that. Both Rathgael and St. Patrick's provide relatively

  637W
  modern and bright living accommodation, but their campus-style environment does not offer the necessary security. Increasing security using the existing buildings would not represent the best opportunity to meet the needs of the population. The best option is therefore to make provision for a purpose-built modem facility on a single site.

  I accordingly considered the scope for a greenfield site. However, I believe the additional costs and delay involved in this option would be prohibitive. A new build at Lisnevin is the least attractive option in terms of location. I considered the site currently owned by the voluntary sector at St. Patrick's in West Belfast. While this is in a central location, the area is closely associated with one section of the community, and the perception is that it would not be fully accessible by the Protestant community. The voluntary sector in NI is precluded by law from the provision of secure care. In these circumstances it is more appropriate to have secure custody also delivered within the statutory sector. The St. Patrick's site is therefore not in my view the best option for the new centre. However, I am currently funding the delivery of community based diversionary projects at St. Patrick's and I intend to continue to do so and to discuss with management how these might be further developed to meet the needs of local young people.

  Finally, I considered the site at Rathgael in Bangor. While the site has some shortcomings and may not be perceived by all as an entirely neutral location, it has successfully catered for the needs of young people from both sides of the community for some years. I have decided therefore that the future provision for custody of juveniles should be a purpose-built facility at Rathgael.

  As indicated earlier, an important element in juvenile custodial provision is the maintenance of links with families. Every effort should be made to ensure that family links can be maintained and matured while the young person is in custody. This implies that innovative and progressive visiting arrangements must be provided. To facilitate this, purpose-built accommodation will be provided on site to facilitate overnight and weekend visits by family members. This will provide improved opportunities for visits by families from remote areas of Northern Ireland.

  In line with the requirements of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I have arranged for an impact assessment to be carried out on this decision by an independent consultant. The consultant concluded that while there is some adverse impact on Catholic families, the level of this impact is not likely to be significant. I have considered the position in the round and concluded that the business arguments justify the decision and outweigh any negative impact.

DEFENCE

  Cetaceans
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research is being conducted into the effects of military activities on cetaceans. [139354]
  638W
  Dr. Moonie
  Noise in the ocean has been recognised internationally as one of the potential problems for the marine environment. For this reason, we are actively involved in secondary research into the range of possible effects of sonar noise on cetaceans and other marine life. This involves collection of data in the public domain and analysing them to inform the way ahead on general policy and our approach to individual projects. We are supported in this work by leading independent experts both in the UK and the US. We also monitor relevant scientific and environmental research around the globe.

  Additionally, guidelines on minimising disturbance to cetaceans at sea are issued to all Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels. These are also incorporated into the trials orders for Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels participating in exercises.

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the annual cost is of maintaining the four sites within the Defence Aviation Repair Agency. [139331]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Defence Aviation Repair Agency's facilities management expenditure across its four sites in the financial year 1999–2000 was £22.6 million. This can be broken down as follows:

  £ million

  Staff Costs

  10.4

  Site Costs1

  9.8

  Operations Costs2

  0.6

  Administration3

  1.8

  1 Estate, utilities, communications, depreciation, interest

  2IT, machinery maintenance, consumable materials

  3Travel, vehicles, training, insurance, office supplies

  Unmanned Air Vehicles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has for separate programmes for the Royal Navy's UAV to support its new carrier battle groups and the RAF's UAV to supply ISTAR over extended ranges to the Future Offensive Air Capability; and if he will make a statement; [139724]

  (2) if he will make a statement on plans for the RAF's and RN's joint force UAV; what is the cost of the programme in relation to the overall cost of the single UAV capability, Watchkeeper, including BAE Systems' Phoenix UAV; and if he will make a statement. [139706]

  Dr. Moonie
  The defence requirement is for a balanced, robust and layered Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) capability that meets the information needs of all operation commanders and supports their decisions on force protection and targeting of weapons systems.

  The requirement for a future ISTAR UAV system to support commanders in the land and littoral battlespace is known as Watchkeeper. We are considering arrangements for disseminating the information we would derive from Watchkeeper, some of which, for example on targeting, may be of value to maritime task forces operating at sea.

  At present, we do not plan to procure a maritime version of Watchkeeper although work is continuing to determine whether a maritime UAV would be a

  639W
  cost-effective solution to meeting part of the maritime ISTAR requirement. Also, we have no plans to procure a UAV to provide an independent ISTAR capability for the Future Offensive Air System (FOAS), although it is possible that an element of FOAS would be an unmanned combat air vehicle. The ISTAR requirements of maritime task forces and deep strike weapons systems will be met within the framework of our future overall ISTAR capability.

  Part of the current assessment phase for Watchkeeper includes studying whether the existing Phoenix UAV system should form part of the solution of the requirement.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what ISTAR capabilities are operational for the short range UAVs, Spectator (Formation) and Sender (Battle Group) in the Watchkeeper programme; what is the estimated cost and the timetable for development and production of the short range UAVs; and if he will make a statement. [140710]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Watchkeeper programme is currently assessing the mix of Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs) which, alongside other assets, will be required to support future Formation level and Battle Group Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) requirements. In so doing, the assessment will determine the optimum range, or combination of range characteristics, to be specified for the UAVs. The Phoenix system, as the only UAV asset currently in the inventory, was originally procured with the primary function of providing a Target Acquisition and Surveillance capability but subsequently has shown sufficient flexibility to meet some other aspects of the ISTAR requirements. In undertaking the current assessment phase, the Watchkeeper programme is evaluating to what degree Phoenix may, or may not, contribute to the future UAV mix. Until the assessment phase is complete and all the options for providing the UAV contribution to the ISTAR capability have been evaluated, it will not be possible to give definitive estimates of either cost or time associated with the development and production of UAVs.

  EU Rapid Reaction Force
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what UK forces will be allocated to the proposed European rapid reaction corps. [139948]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK is not allocating forces to an EU rapid reaction corps.

  As was announced to the House on 20 November 2000, Official Report, column 10W, the UK has identified a pool of forces and capabilities which would enable it to contribute effectively to crisis management operations in support of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, where NATO as a whole is not engaged. UK participation in any particular operation, and the nature of our contribution, would be matters for decision by the UK Government in the light of circumstances at the time.

  In the maximum scale operation envisaged at Helsinki—a corps level deployment of up to 60,000 ground troops—the UK component could be around 12,500 strong. Maritime and air deployments of up to 18 warships and 72 combat aircraft could be made in addition.
  640W
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the use of EU insignia by UK armed forces on peacekeeping operations. [139947]

  Mr. Hoon
  British troops on EU-led crisis management operations would continue to operate under the UK flag and wear British uniforms and cap badges. Identifying insignia or armbands are often worn for NATO-led operations, and always with the UN, to identify the troops as belonging to that operation. There have been no discussions in the EU about adopting a similar approach for EU-led operations.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect on the expenditure on armed forces by EU countries his Department has estimated to result from the creation of a rapid reaction corps separate from NATO. [139957]

  Mr. Hoon
  There has been no creation of a European rapid reaction corps.

  The EU, with the assistance of NATO, has identified the pool of forces and capabilities required to carry out the full range of Petersberg tasks. EU member states have nominated those elements of their own national forces they believe could contribute to this requirement and have committed themselves to make further improvements to meet a defined level of capability (the "Headline Goal") by 2003.

  Decisions on spending in response to this commitment are a matter for individual countries. Next year, however, according to figures given to NATO by its member nations, defence spending will rise in real terms in 11 of the European Union member states.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the outcome of his Department's work referred to on page 5 of its paper "Defence Medical Services: A Strategy for the Future" under the heading "Numbers for the Future". [139702]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 22 November 2000]: As a result of the work referred to on page 4 of "Defence Medical Services: A Strategy for the Future" the Department has found that personnel requirement for the Defence Medical Services, resulting from work initiated by the Strategic Defence Review, currently stands at 8,543. This requirement can be broken down into the main categories as follows: Doctors—1,250; Dentists—304; Nurses—2.010; Medical Support Officers—344; Technicians—1,266; and Medical Assistants/Combat Medical Technicians—3,369. These figures include those required for command and staff posts and the manning and training margins.

  Further analysis of potential casualty rates in different operational circumstances, and of resulting demands on medical resources, is a continuing task and may result in detailed adjustments to the assessed personnel requirements of the Defence Medical Services.

  SA80
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the modified SA80 weapons will enter service with the armed forces. [140020]
  641W
  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: It is planned that the first 40,000 of the modified SA80 Weapon System will enter service by August 2002.

  Tornado
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will implement the safety recommendations resulting from the investigation into the crash of RAF Tornado ZD809 on 14 October 1999. [140439]

  Dr. Moonie
  The RAF Board of Inquiry recommended a thorough review of bad weather low-level abort procedures. This has been carried out and where appropriate guidance has been revised in the relevant publications.

  The Board of Inquiry also recommended that the fitting of a Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) to all RAF aircraft be considered. The Jaguar, Tristar and the C130J aircraft have all had GPWS fitted, and it is planned to fit such a system to the Tornado GR4, Harrier, Tornado F3 and Eurofighter. The installation of GPWS into other current RAF aircraft is not being pursued for a variety of reasons, such as the length of service life remaining and compatibility with their existing avionics packages.

  Defence Budget (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the defence budget was spent in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available(a) in actual terms and (b) as a percentage of the total defence budget. [140436]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Department is organised financially into Top Level Budgets reflecting major outputs rather than geographical location. Expenditure records reflect this organisation and have no relationship to regional boundaries. Nevertheless, the Defence Bills Agency paid defence contractors based in Wales some £158 million during 1999–2000, which represents 0.7 per cent. of Defence expenditure. These figures do not take account of purchases by sub-contractors.

  Military Attachés
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the proportion of military attachés' time allocated to promoting military exports; and if he will indicate what priority this is given in their job description. [140460]

  Mr. Spellar
  Support to the Defence Export Sales Organisation (DESO) is one of the core functions of an attaché. However, the priority given in their job description varies according to the export prospects in the host country. Defence Sections in embassies and High Commissions are set annual objectives that reflect British interests in that country.

  A survey of attache output in Financial Year 1999–2000 revealed that, on average, 11 per cent. of attaches' time was devoted to supporting DESO.

  Ships
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for a future offshore patrol 642W
  vessel for the Royal Navy; when he will place an order for Type 45 destroyers; and which Royal Navy ships will participate in Exercise Saif Sareea II. [140220]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: We are currently examining whether our requirement for offshore patrol vessels could be provided more cost effectively through leasing or other innovative arrangements. To that end, initial expressions of interest have been sought from industry and the response is being considered.

  As I announced on 11 June 2000, Official Report, columns 701–02, we expect to place a contract with BAE Systems for the construction of the first three Type 45 Destroyers by the end of this year.

  Saif Sareea II will involve a Naval Task Force, led by HMS Illustrious, of up to 24 Royal Navy vessels and support ships. Its composition has yet to be finalised.

  Depleted Uranium (Gulf Veterans)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations were made to his Department at the International Conference on Hazards of Depleted Uranium in November; and if he will make a statement on progress on the testing of former(a) servicemen and women and (b) medical auxiliaries who served in the Gulf War for depleted uranium contamination. [140515]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department was not represented at the Campaign against Depleted Uranium's International Conference against Depleted Uranium Weapons held on 4 and 5 November 2000. No representations have been received subsequently.

  My Department's policy on testing Gulf veterans for uranium was set out in the paper, "Testing for the presence of depleted uranium in UK veterans of the Gulf conflict: The Current Position" dated 19 March 1999, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. On 8 September 1999, I offered independent tests specifically for depleted uranium to those Gulf veterans who privately had their urine tested for depleted uranium in Canada before that date. A draft protocol under which that testing might take place was sent to veterans' representatives on 1 November 1999 for comment. My officials are hoping to have further discussions on this protocol with veterans and their representatives.

  LR5 Vessel
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operational capabilities of the LR5 submersible rescue vessel and the procedure for rescuing trapped submarines in cases where rescue submersible vessels cannot lock on the submarine concerned. [140762]

  Mr. Spellar
  The LR5 has the capability to rescue from all Royal Navy submarines to depths of up to 400m and to angles of up to 60 degrees. In addition, by using the Scorpio, a remotely operated vehicle, emergency life support supplies can be provided to a distressed submarine to increase the probability of survival. RN submarines also carry an escape system which allows for
  643W
  escape from a stricken submarine by use of survival suits and escape towers. This system is effective to a depth in the region of 180m.

  HMS Kent
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what renovations have been carried out on HMS Kent since it was recommissioned to the Royal Navy; what was the cost of these renovations; and if he will make a statement. [140708]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Kent was first commissioned on 8 June 2000. No renovations have been undertaken but a package of work to install a recently introduced upgrade to the weapon system, which was not part of the original build contract, was undertaken along with other planned maintenance by Fleet Support Ltd. at Portsmouth between 7 August and 27 October. The total cost was about £1.8 million.

  HMS Ocean
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase the crew on the HMS Ocean; what plans he has to(a) repair and (b) replace its engine; how the cabin flat vibration will be resolved; what the cost will be of the necessary renovation; and if he will make a statement. [140713]

  Mr. Spellar
  As a result of operational experience, we plan to increase the overall complement for HMS Ocean by 33 personnel, including six in the Air Department, by April 2001.

  There are no plans to replace HMS Ocean's main engines. The only significant repairs in this area will be to the main engine governors, and I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 20 November 2000, Official Report, column 12W. It is estimated that these repairs will cost about £75,000.

  There are currently no problems with cabin flat vibration. Following rectification work by the shipbuilder on the starboard gearbox, vibration has been reduced, and a Lloyd's Register noise survey in February confirmed that noise levels in the accommodation spaces were generally satisfactory. This work was undertaken under guarantee procedures, at no cost to the Department.

  US National Missile Defence
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer of 3 July 2000,Official Report, column 2, when he expects to receive proposals from the US Government on Fylingdales. [140741]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]: We would not expect a request regarding the use of facilities in the UK until after a decision by the US to begin deployment of their proposed National Missile Defence system. President Clinton announced on 1 September his decision not to authorise the deployment of such a system at the present time and it will now be for his successor to decide how to proceed. We have made it clear that we would consider any such request carefully in the light of circumstances in which it were made.

  Vanguard Submarines
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to inspect the four Vanguard class submarines following the discovery of reactor defects on HMS Sceptre and HMS Tireless. [140386]

  Mr. Spellar
  Vanguard Class submarines have a different design of reactor plant and are not at risk from the defect seen in HMS Sceptre. Consequently, there is no need to inspect them specifically for this defect.

  Vanguard Class submarines have a component on their reactor plant that has the same function as the defective component in HMS Tireless. However, the component is of a different design and is far less susceptible to failure. Having taken advice from the Design Authority (Rolls-Royce Naval Marine) and from our independent nuclear safety advisers (AEA Technology), Ministry of Defence safety authorities are satisfied that the component is not at risk of failure and have endorsed the continued operation of these submarines. This component, on the Vanguard Class submarines, will be inspected during a maintenance period as part of the routine reactor plant in-service inspection programme.

  Nuclear Decommissioning
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the total cost of nuclear decommissioning to his Department over the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement on how this will be funded. [140388]

  Mr. Hoon
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  RAF St. Athan
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the size of the site at Royal Air Force St Athan. [140987]

  Mr. Spellar
  The site covers approximately 1,000 acres.

  Death and Injury Cases
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases of death and serious injury to civilian and military personnel and members of the public have led to compensation payments by the(a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) RAF in each of the last 10 years; what total settlements were made in compensation cases involving death and injury for each year in the same period; and if he will make a statement. [140752]

  Mr. Spellar
  Common law claims against the Ministry of Defence are handled centrally and compensation is paid from central funds. Our claims databases do not, at present, record information in such a way that it can be comprehensively broken down into the categories set out in the question. Additionally, our records do not go back as far as the ten years requested. The following table does, however, set out the total number of claims of all types received, the total number settled and the overall in-year claims expenditure since 1992–93. When reading these figures, it must be borne in mind that claims may not
  645W
  always be settled in the year they are received. There is therefore no direct correlation between the numbers received and settled in any one year.

  Year

  Received

  Settled

  Cost (£m)

  1992–93

  9,652

  4,590

  25.0

  1993–94

  9,983

  4,709

  35.3

  1994–95

  9,788

  4,917

  69.6

  1995–96

  7,927

  4,825

  52.2

  1996–97

  7,686

  4,811

  49.9

  1997–98

  7,678

  5,242

  69.2

  1998–99

  7,328

  4,791

  75.2

  1999–2000

  6,739

  4,668

  75.9

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Crown censures have been issued against the armed forces in each of the last 10 years as a consequence of death and injury cases involving civilian and military personnel and members of the public; and if he will make a statement. [140753]

  Mr. Spellar
  Over the last 10 years a total of nine Crown censures have been issued against the armed forces as a consequence of death and injury cases involving civilian and military personnel and members of the public. The details by year, Service and category are as follows:

  Year

  Service

  Injuries

  1990

  Navy

  Injury to MOD civilian

  1992

  Army

  Injury to member of the public

  1993

  Army

  Death of two children1

  1993

  Army

  One death and one injury1

  1995

  Navy

  Injury to two MOD civilians

  1997

  Army

  Death of child1

  1999

  Army

  Injury to MOD civilian

  1999

  Army

  Death of MOD civilian

  2000

  Army

  Death of Service cadet

  1 Members of the public

  In addition, a Crown censure is currently pending against the Navy, concerning injury to a Serviceman.

  The MOD takes its health and safety responsibilities seriously and has acted upon the lessons learned from the Crown censure hearings. In all cases, procedures and control measures have been modified with a view to preventing any reoccurrence of the incidents that led to censure.

  Trade Partners UK
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the costs of defence related business for(a) Trade Partners UK and (b) the Trade Fair Support Scheme in the last 12 months. [140704]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Defence Export Services Organisation of the MOD is responsible for defence exports. In certain circumstances, Trade Partners UK staff both in London and at Missions overseas may work in support of major defence contracts including those where indirect offset (sometimes called economic offset) is part of the overall package.
  646W
  In addition, Trade Partners UK schemes including the Support for Exhibitions and Seminars Abroad (SESA) scheme, which replaced the Trade Fair Support scheme, are available to British companies in all sectors. The cost of support to overseas exhibition and seminar participants in the Fire, Police, Security Industries and Equipment sector (within which data for defence related business are grouped) for 1999–2000 was £317,000. A further £44,000 was spent on supporting Inward Missions within the same overall sector. It is not possible, without incurring disproportionate cost, to identify within these sums the cost of support to defence related business alone, or the overall cost of staff time on defence related work.

  The cost of support to Outward Missions with a defence element in 1999–2000 was £14,500.

PRIME MINISTER

  Prime Minister's Office
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister, (1) pursuant to his answer of 5 June 2000,Official Report, column 50W, on special advisers, if he will list the destination and the total cost, including travel, accommodation and subsistence allowance of each of the occasions when members of the No. 10 Policy Unit travelled abroad in an official capacity; and on how many occasions members of the No. 10 Policy Unit accompanied him on official visits abroad; [135256]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 5 June 2000, Official Report, column 50W, on special advisers, if he will list the destination and the total cost, including travel, accommodation and subsistence allowance of every occasion when his Chief Press Secretary, and each of the occasions when his Chief of Staff accompanied him on overseas visits since 28 February. [135257]

  The Prime Minister
  In the period 31 March 1999 to 31 March 2000, members of the Policy Unit have travelled overseas on official business on 47 occasions. The average cost of their official travel was approximately £430 per visit. All visits have been in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code.

  In this period members of the Policy Unit accompanied me on overseas visits on three occasions. The costs of all officials who accompanied me on overseas visits, including my Chief Press Secretary, Chief of Staff and members of the Policy Unit, were fully accounted for in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) of 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 969W.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 575W, regarding his office costs, if he will provide a breakdown of how the £5.4 million was spent. [137537]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 November 2000]: Expenditure was as follows:

  £ million

  Pay

  3.3

  Running costs

  1.7

  Capital

  0.6

  Note:

  Income was £0.2 million

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he has made to the letter sent to him on 13 November by the Reverend John Mosey of UK Families Flight 103, with particular reference to(a) the role of US Government officials and (b) an international criminal court. [139394]

  The Prime Minister
  I have replied to Reverend Mosey's letter today.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Employees (HIV)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [137787]

  Dr. Reid
  The Scotland Office would respect the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in respect of any member of staff who developed any illness as a consequence of being HIV positive. The Scotland Office would seek to make reasonable adjustments in the circumstances of their employment, in consultation with the individual concerned.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to improve postal services in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [140831]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am closely involved with colleagues and the Post Office in developing plans to implement the recommendations of the PIU report on the modernisation of the post office network.

  We wish to see the post office network thrive, not just survive, and are providing the support to make this happen. As a first stage in implementing the PIU report ring-fenced support of £270 million over the next three years has been allocated. Plans include modernising and maintaining the rural network, restructuring of the urban network, setting up the Universal Bank, and trials of the Government General Practitioner and internet access and learning point facilities.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Teacher Numbers
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers have(a) left and (b) joined the profession in the state sector in each of the last 10 years. [140796]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The head-counts of teachers leaving and entering full-time or part-time service in the maintained schools sector in England were as follows:

  Financial year

  Leavers1

  Entrants2

  1989–90

  39,800

  38,100

  1990–91

  41,400

  35,500

  1991–92

  35,400

  34,900

  1992–93

  32,900

  32,800

  648W

  Financial year

  Leavers1

  Entrants1

  1993–94

  35,000

  35,000

  1994–95

  33,900

  36,900

  1995–96

  35,400

  35,400

  1996–97

  35,600

  36,100

  1997–98

  38,800

  37,100

  1998–991

  31,100

  35,000

  1 Excludes teachers who entered and left or left and entered within the year.

  2 Data for 1998–99 are provisional.

  The number of teachers leaving on early or ill health retirement has now stabilised at a lower level, following the reform of the Teachers Pensions Scheme in 1997.

  The full-time equivalent number of regular teachers in the maintained sector has increased by 6,900 since January 1998.

  There was a growth of 2000 in the number of people training to be teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  Muslim Schools
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the grant maintained(a) boys, (b) girls and (c) mixed sex Muslim schools. [140965]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  From September 1999, grant maintained schools became foundation, community, voluntary controlled or voluntary aided schools.

  There are two maintained Muslim primary schools in England—Islamia in Brent and Al Furqan in Birmingham. Both are voluntary aided schools and cater for boys and girls.

  Truancy
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority the truancy figures and percentage of pupils involved in the last 10 years, indicating the factors at work where reductions have been most marked. [140942]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The precise data requested in this question are not available centrally. I have today placed in the Library a table that provides rates of unauthorised absence in secondary schools in England by local education authority for each year since 1993–94, when absence figures were first collated centrally. I will write to my hon. Friend further with data for primary schools and place a copy in the Library.

  Over three years, we are investing in excess of £500 million across England on projects tackling truancy and school exclusion, and other initiatives to get children back into school and learning. Effective projects include the purchasing of electronic equipment to monitor attendance, additional staff to chase-up truants, and reward schemes for acknowledging regular attendance. Schools are also being encouraged to set up pupils mentoring schemes and to develop home-school liaison through the implementation of home-school agreements. Schools can also set aside part of the National Curriculum at Key Stage 4 to allow certain pupils to spend more time on work-related learning.
  649W
  Last month, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, we announced further measures to tackle truancy. This includes a co-ordinated national programme with truancy sweeps; an extra £43 million in 2001–02 to tackle poor behaviour in schools with truancy as the top priority; extra Learning Mentors in Excellence in Cities areas; increased penalties for parents who take no action to secure the attendance of their children; and asking schools with above average truancy records to set new targets for attendance.

  Together, these initiatives are designed to help schools reduce truancy and raise overall attendance levels.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support is available to unemployed single people over 25 to get work; what plans he has for further initiatives in this field. [140529]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government are determined to tackle long-term unemployment. As a result of our economic and active labour market policies, the number of people aged 25 and over unemployed for two years or more has fallen by 63 per cent. since May 1997.

  The New Deals are a key part of our efforts to tackle long-term unemployment. From April 2001 we will be introducing an enhanced New Deal for those aged 25 and over, which will provide high quality, intensive and individually tailored help. It will be much more flexible to ensure that we can address the barriers faced by each individual. Alongside this new programme, we are also testing a more radical approach in 15 "Employment Zones", in which individuals are, through the Personal Job Account, given a real say in how the money is spent in the effort to help them back into work.

  This help for long-term unemployed people is part of an improved range of support for all unemployed people aged 25 and over to be introduced next year, which will begin on the first day of registered unemployment and increase in intensity in proportion to the individual's labour market disadvantage. There will be access to an extensive database of jobs, regular contact with people who can give advice on jobs and training opportunities, help with improving interview and job hunting techniques, help with fares to interview and training to refresh skills or learn new ones.

  After-school Clubs
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about the provision of after-school clubs. [140857]

  Jacqui Smith
  Earlier this year MORI and BMRB International conducted a series of surveys on the provision of out-of-school hours learning activities in schools. The survey showed that sports, music and the creative and performing arts were the most popular activities, offered at nearly all secondary schools and a significant number of primary schools. Seven out of 10 schools said the amount of out-of-school activities on offer had increased over the last two years. For the first time, dedicated funding has been made available to schools, local education authorities and their partners through the New Opportunities Fund (£160 million from 650W
  April 1999) and the Standards fund (£20 million for 2000–01 and £60 million for 2001–02), to develop structured programmes of activities.

  Since April 1999 Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships have reported the creation of 21,138 new childcare places in after school group provision, 12,098 places in before and after school group provision and a further 15,0171 in all year around group provision offering both term-time and holiday care. These 48,253 new places have provided care to some 96,500 children and, taking into account turnover, have added almost 40,000 places to the stock of places available across England.

  1 It is not possible to separate after school group provision from all year provision. A small percentage of this figure may only include before school and holiday provision.

  New Deal (Disabled People)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the results of the pilots for the New Deal for Disabled People and the incorporation of their experience into the national scheme. [140395]

  Ms Hodge
  The contribution that the pilots are making to our learning and experience is vital to the progress of the New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP). Interim findings from the NDDP pilots were published in December 1999. These findings, and the lessons currently being derived from work still under way, have fed into the design of the national extension of NDDP. We plan to publish the final evaluation reports in late spring 2001. The extension of NDDP will continue to test out, on a larger scale, what works in helping long-term sick and disabled people into work.

  On 13 November 2000, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), and I launched a prospectus outlining the key elements for extending the New Deal for Disabled People on a national basis. The prospectus paved the way for an invitation to tender published on 27 November for organisations that are interested in delivering the Job Broker service element of the national extension of NDDP, which will begin in July 2001.

  Religious Liberties
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what changes his Department has proposed to the draft EU Employment Directive to ensure that the religious liberties of individuals and groups are respected. [134770]

  Ms Hodge
  The Employment Directive was agreed by the Council of Ministers on 17 October.

  The UK secured a number of amendments to the original proposal with a view to improving its clarity, workability and appropriateness to particular national contexts. The final text outlaws discrimination at work and in training on grounds of a person's religion or belief, and on three other grounds. It also contains a new

  651W
  provision, which allows member states to make special arrangements for organisations whose ethos is based on religion or belief to permit them:
  to treat employees differently on the basis of their religion or belief where, because of the ethos of the organisation concerned, religion or belief is a genuine occupational requirement. This would, for example, allow a religious organisation to exercise a preference for members of the same faith when recruiting staff; and
  to require employees to act in good faith and loyalty towards that ethos.

  These provisions have been widely welcomed by Churches and other religious organisations. The Government believe that they represent an effective, balanced safeguard for the religious liberties of individuals and groups.

  PFI Projects (Schools)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) the average value for money figure for PFI schemes for schools measured by the difference between the risk adjusted public sector comparator and the net private cost, broken down by (i) average for bundled projects and (ii) average for single school projects and (b) list the highest and lowest value for money figures for bundled and single PFI education projects. [139506]

  Jacqui Smith
  Value for money is the prime consideration in any decision to support a schools PFI project. To date, all schools' PFI schemes have demonstrated a positive value for money benefit against the assessed cost of a comparable public sector project.

  One of the methods through which local authorities ensure that value for money is achieved is by letting PFI contracts through a competitive tendering process. The value for money achieved by previous schemes, whether as an average or for individual projects, could be very useful information to potential bidders, as it would enable them to target their bids. To ensure that any future tenders for schools PFI projects continue to achieve best value, I must respect the commercial confidentiality of the value for money figures provided by local authorities.

  Nuffield Language Inquiry
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the report of the Nuffield Language Inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [139285]

  Jacqui Smith
  We recognise the importance of the Nuffield Languages Inquiry's research, and will be producing a clear statement of response in the new year which takes account of Nuffield's main recommendations, and highlights the positive languages policies already in place. We are already doing a great deal to promote learning in this field, for example by expanding our numbers of Specialist Language Colleges and offering attractive incentives to teacher trainees. The statement will reinforce our commitment to broadening opportunities and will point to where there will be scope for development. Our Languages National Training Organisation has already indicated its readiness to participate in vocational language learning initiatives. Additionally we are working with our key partners to promote the programme of events for next year's European Year of Languages. We have recently 652W
  broached these matters in discussions with our Nuffield colleagues and in formulating our statement we will be working in consultation with them.

  Schools (Internet)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provision he has made for training teachers in the safe use of the internet in the classroom; what estimate he has made of the number of teachers who have received such training; what proportion of schools have received the Superhighway safety pack; and what plans he has to ensure all schools receive the pack. [140791]

  Mr. Wills
  Teachers are being provided with the opportunity to undertake training on the pedagogical use of ICT through the £230 million new opportunities fund funded programme. This includes training in the safe use of the Internet in the classroom. Over 140,000 teachers are signed up with providers and we estimate that around 90,000 have completed or are about to complete their training.

  In addition, advice to schools and teachers on acceptable use policies is included within the Superhighway safety pack. The Superhighway safety pack was not dispatched to all schools. Information about it, including details of where to obtain it, is made available in a number of different ways, including: the regular listings of DfEE publications sent to all schools; the Teachers magazine and various departmental websites. Since its first production in September 1999 around 18,000 copies of the guide have been despatched.

  Student Rents
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what comparative studies he has commissioned into the rate of change of rents for student accommodation and public resources available to students. [140399]

  Mr. Wicks
  No study has been commissioned to look specifically into the rate of change of rents for student accommodation. However, every three years the DfEE commissions research which monitors HE students' income and expenditure. The Student Income and Expenditure Report 1998–99 is due to be published in December 2000.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has for extending the tolerance margin for recruitment deficits in further education into the first year of operation of the Learning and Skills Council. [140398]

  Mr. Wicks
  I expect the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) to continue, in its first year of operation, with tolerance margin arrangements currently operated by the Further Education Funding Council for England. It will be for the LSC to consider appropriate arrangements for future years.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate(a) the latest annual running costs of the (i) Further Education Funding Council and (ii) Training and Enterprise

  653W
  Councils, (b) the anticipated initial cost of the first year of operation of the Learning and Skills Council and its local councils and (c) the anticipated wind-up costs of the FEFC and TECs together with the establishment costs of the LSC and local LSCs. [139168]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: For the financial year 2000–01, the Further Education Funding Council's (FEFC) running costs are set at £26.7 million. TEC statutory accounts for 1998–99, the latest available year, show Training and Enterprise Council (TEC) staff and other operating costs to be £271.8 million.

  The running costs for the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) in 2001–02 have yet to be finalised, but will be announced in the Annual Letter of Guidance to the LSC which will be placed in the Library of the House shortly. We expect the new streamlined structure of the LSC to release annual savings of at least £50 million on running costs in steady state, compared to the bodies that the LSC replaces.

  It is too early to say what the wind-up costs of the FEFC and TECs will be because of uncertainty about potential staffing and premises costs associated with winding up these bodies.

  We estimate that the cost of setting up the LSC over the next two years will be between £60 and £65 million. These costs include the development of new IT systems, premises and a significant investment in staff training and development.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on current recruitment to higher education, with particular reference to full-time enrolments for those with a background in socio-economic classes C2, D and E. [140396]

  Mr. Wicks
  The number of students accepted for entry to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in autumn 2000 has increased 1.9 per cent. since 1999. The number of part-time undergraduate entrants in 1999–2000 has increased 2.4 per cent. since 1998–99. The following table shows a steady trend in the proportion of full-time applicants/acceptances from Social Classes Illn-m, IV and V since 1996. The Government are spending £151 million over three years to get more young people from these groups to enter higher education.

  UK domiciled applicants and accepted applicants from Social Classes 111n-m, IV and V to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in the UK via UCAS institutions in the UK

  Year of entry

  111n-m, IV and V

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Number of accepted applicants

  65,700

  73,900

  72,200

  73,100

  Percentage of accepted applicants

  27

  28

  28

  28

  Number of applicants

  93,600

  100,800

  97,200

  96,800

  Percentage of applicants

  29

  29

  29

  29

  Note:

  The data are based on the Social Class (SC) classification rather than the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising Social Grade (SG) classification indicated in the question. While both are based on occupation there are differences in derivation. The lower grades in SC (IIIn-m, IV and V) can nevertheless be regarded as broad approximations to the lower grades of SG (C2,. D and E).
  654W

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements have been made to evaluate the Connexions service pilots. [140392]

  Mr. Wicks
  We appointed GHK Economics and Management Ltd. as the `National Evaluator' for the Connexions pilots in July 2000. They are carrying out a comprehensive programme of action research to identify the added value, emerging good practice, and other issues arising from the piloting and initial development of the Connexions service. In addition, the pilots are resourced to carry out their own local evaluations, which will contribute to the national study.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in developing a training programme for personal advisers. [140390]

  Mr. Wicks
  A `Diploma for Personal Advisers' course, designed to train those advisers who will be working with young people who need significant amounts of help, is currently being piloted. Four other elements of the training programme are also being developed: an `Understanding Connexions' course, for advisers working with the wider group of young people; an access course; a Connexions management course; and an extension programme for those holding the Diploma.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if all young people will have access to a personal adviser with the Connexions service; and what proportion are expected to need one. [140389]

  Mr. Wicks
  All young people between the ages of 13 and 19 will have access to a Connexions service personal adviser, and are expected to have some contact with the service, but there will be a large variation in the amount of help they will need. Some young people will need only advice about qualifications or career options, while others will need intensive, sustained help to overcome severe barriers to learning.

  Teacher Assessment
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what evidence he has assessed concerning the methods of making a reliable measurement of the progress of pupils. [140607]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]: The Department also publishes (jointly with the QCA and Ofsted) information about the progress of pupils nationally in the annual "Autumn Package of Pupil Performance Information". This shows the distribution of pupil outcomes at the end of each key stage, for pupils with similar achievement at the end of the previous key stage. Schools are encouraged to use the Autumn Package to evaluate the progress made by their own pupils, compared to national patterns.

  My officials monitor closely the debate about methods of measuring pupil progress and the "value added" by schools and other educational institutions. The Department has consulted interested organisations on a number of occasions about approaches to measuring and

  655W
  reporting value added in school and college performance tables and we have carried out two pilots—one, in 1998, in relation to pupils between the ages of 14 and 16 and the other, this year, in relation to students between the ages of 16 and 18. The results of both pilots have been published and are available in the House of Commons Library. We intend to consult on the inclusion of value added measures in school and college performance tables early next year.

  New Technologies in Schools
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what targets have been set for increasing the percentage of high specification computers in schools for(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [140433]

  Mr. Wills
  Our target is that there should be a computer for every 8 pupils in primary schools, and for every five pupils in secondary schools by 2004. In doing so we are committed to achieving a baseline level of access to ICT—equivalent to access to a computer for every 11 pupils in all primary schools, and for every seven pupils in all secondary schools—by 31 August 2002.

  The Department does not prescribe the specification of computers to be used in schools as this will change as technology develops, and schools will be best placed to provide the ICT they consider necessary to improve educational opportunities for their pupils.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Cereal Farming
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current state of cereal farming in England. [136740]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 6 November 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on 2 November 2000, Official Report, column 620W.

    GM Technology
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much funding he has provided for research into GM technology in each of the past five years. [136841]

    Ms Quin
    The information requested is set out in the table:

    £ million

    Year

    MAFF research funding in respect to GM technology

    1999–2000

    4.2

    1998–99

    2.7

    1997–98

    1.9

    1996–97

    1.7

    1995–96

    1.8

    656W
    Of the £4.2 million for 1999–2000, £1 million was in respect of food safety research, which became the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency in April this year.

    EU Sugar Regime
    Mr. Gill
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of current levels of employment dependent upon the British sugar beet crop and the impact implementation of the new EU sugar regime would have on such employment. [137592]

    Ms Quin
    Industry sources estimate that around 24,000 people are involved in the sugar beet industry. These figures are not full-time equivalents; much employment in the sugar beet sector is on a seasonal basis. We have received no representations to suggest that the Commission's immediate sugar regime reform proposals would of themselves have a significant effect on employment.

    Mr. Gill
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect upon farm incomes of implementing the new EU sugar beet regime. [137593]

    Ms Quin
    No agreement has yet been reached on the proposals for reform of the EU sugar regime. The impact on farm incomes of the proposal in its current form is not expected to be significant.

    Mr. Keetch
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had with the European Commission concerning the financing of the UK sugar beet industry; and if he will make a statement. [138907]

    Ms Quin
    [holding answer 17 November 2000]: In discussions in Brussels on the EU sugar regime and its reform, the Government regularly draw the Commission's attention to the economic position of the UK sugar industry, both cane and beet.

    Plant Species Testing Regime
    Joan Ruddock
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what external Counsel's opinion he has received on the French testing regime for variety distinctness, uniformity and stability. [138841]

    Ms Quin
    It is not the practice of Government to provide information on whether external legal advice has been sought in any particular matter.

    Joan Ruddock
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many varieties have been placed on(a) the National List of Agricultural Plant Species since 1995 on the basis of tests for distinctness, uniformity and stability carried out by the French authorities, categorised by species and year and (b) the EU Common Catalogue of Agricultural Plant Species since 1995 on the basis of decisions made in other member states relying on tests for distinctness, uniformity

    657W
    and stability carried out by the French authorities, categorised by (i) member state species and (ii) in the case of genetically modified varieties, variety name. [138797]

    Ms Quin
    The number of varieties which have been placed on the UK National List of Agricultural Plant Species since 1995 on the basis of tests for distinctness, uniformity and stability carried out by the French authorities is as follows:

    Species

    Year

    Number

    Wheat

    1996

    1

    1997

    1

    1999

    2

    Barley

    1996

    1

    1998

    3

    1999

    1

    Lucerne

    1996

    1

    Cocksfoot

    1997

    1

    1998

    2

    2000

    1

    Tall fescue

    1995

    1

    Spring field bean

    1997

    2

    Oilseed rape

    1995

    1

    1998

    1

    Red fescue

    1995

    1

    1996

    2

    1997

    1

    1998

    2

    Maize

    1995

    11

    1996

    16

    1997

    16

    1998

    21

    1999

    17

    2000

    21

    Soya bean

    1999

    1

    2000

    1

    Flax/linseed

    1996

    1

    1998

    4

    White lupin

    1996

    2

    1997

    1

    Sunflower

    1995

    5

    1996

    2

    1997

    2

    1998

    2

    1999

    2

    Fodder beet

    2000

    1

    Where varieties have reached the Common Catalogue through National Lists in other member states, information as to whether those decisions were based on tests undertaken by the French authorities would be held by the member states concerned rather than by the UK authorities. No GM varieties have been placed on the UK National List.

    Joan Ruddock
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the varieties seeking addition to the National List of Agricultural Plant Species for the testing for distinctness, uniformity and stability for which he has made arrangements to be carried out by the French authorities, categorised by(a) species and (b) year of application. [138794]

    Ms Quin
    The varieties, which are currently seeking addition to the UK National List of Varieties of Agricultural Plant Species, and which have been or are being tested for distinctness, uniformity and stability by the French authorities are in the table:
    658W

    Species Variety/breeder reference

    Year of application

    Wheat

    Electron

    1997

    Frelon

    1998

    Virtuose

    1998

    GAIE 59

    1999

    HYB 96.130

    1999

    H 97265

    2000

    2799 ZT2

    2000

    98 ST125

    2000

    Barley

    5747 WH

    1998

    Orkney

    1998

    Tabora

    1998

    75734 ZH

    1999

    MHYP 7.3.4.

    1999

    Epona

    2000

    Tandem

    2000

    Italian Ryegrass

    Firstyl

    1999

    Storial

    1999

    Virgyl

    2000

    Lucerne

    NIVA

    1999

    Cocksfoot

    87.1

    2000

    Red Fescue

    PICK FRC4–92

    1999

    Maize

    Chardon LL

    1998

    Biarritz

    1999

    Goldcrest

    1999

    Goldcob

    1999

    Pentop

    1999

    Baltis

    1999

    Nescio

    1999

    LZM 148/81

    1999

    LZM 148/54

    1999

    LZM 147/41

    1999

    Rodrigo

    1999

    Calas

    1999

    Diplomat

    1999

    Vogue

    1999

    Vergil

    1999

    VR9201

    1999

    Crown

    1999

    Columbus

    1999

    Sheridan

    1999

    PR39H53

    1999

    PR39B29

    1999

    PR39A51

    1999

    Sirenis

    1999

    DK237

    1999

    SK289 874

    1999

    Buxxil

    1999

    SWS 11380

    1999

    Anjou 199

    1999

    Option

    1999

    CSM 6135

    1999

    RPG 804

    1999

    RPG 906

    1999

    SL 2336 0439

    2000

    Z 0103

    2000

    Z 0102

    2000

    Z 0101

    2000

    659W

    Species Variety/breeder reference

    Year of application

    MAS-12199

    2000

    MAS-30333

    2000

    MAS-15341

    2000

    MAS-10589

    2000

    KX 0002

    2000

    KZ 0003

    2000

    KZ 0004

    2000

    A 9712

    2000

    SN 4813

    2000

    SN 4992

    2000

    LZM 148/31

    2000

    12M 149/88

    2000

    CSM 9201

    2000

    CS0021

    2000

    X0750B

    2000

    X0709X

    2000

    ADV 8006

    2000

    ADV 9001

    2000

    ADV 9059

    2000

    ADV 9067

    2000

    ADV 9069

    2000

    ADV 9070

    2000

    ADV 9071

    2000

    RH 0006

    2000

    RH 0005

    2000

    SK 297955

    2000

    VR 0301

    2000

    RPG 0107

    2000

    RPG 0112

    2000

    RPG 0115

    2000

    RPG 716

    2000

    PAU 0109

    2000

    PAU 0111

    2000

    PAU 0114

    2000

    PAU 0118

    2000

    PAU 0119

    2000

    SWS 9703561

    2000

    SWS 11586

    2000

    CSM 9111

    2000

    Soya Bean

    Progres

    1999

    Aldana

    1999

    Milvus

    1999

    Polan

    1999

    U-2

    2000

    K-27

    2000

    Chernyatka

    2000

    K-98

    2000

    Northern Star

    2000

    White Lupin

    Lunivers

    1995

    Common Vetch

    SZD799

    1999

    Winter Field Pea

    Hardy

    1999

    Sunflower

    XF 3911

    2000

    GM Seeds
    Joan Ruddock
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 8 November 2000,Official Report, columns 262–63W, on GM seeds, if
    660W
    he will specify, in respect of each variety set out in the table, in which country tests for distinctness, uniformity and stability have been, or are being, carried out. [138996]

    Ms Quin
    The information is set out in the table.

    Genetically modified plant varieties national list applications—November 2000

    Name of breeder's ref

    Species

    Dus tests conducted in

    Archimedes

    Spring Oilseed Rape

    United Kingdom

    Socrates

    Spring Oilseed Rape

    United Kingdom

    PHW98–407

    Winter Oilseed Rape

    United Kingdom

    PH96S452

    Spring Oilseed Rape

    United Kingdom

    PH96S443

    Spring Oilseed Rape

    United Kingdom

    PHW99–429

    Winter Oilseed Rape

    United Kingdom

    PHW00–433

    Winter Oilseed Rape

    United Kingdom

    PHW00–434

    Winter Oilseed Rape

    United Kingdom

    PHW01–441

    Winter Oilseed Rape

    United Kingdom

    PHW01–446

    Winter Oilseed Rape

    United Kingdom

    Sturgeon

    Sugar Beet

    United Kingdom

    KWS8191

    Sugar Beet

    United Kingdom

    DS 8003

    Sugar Beet

    United Kingdom

    KWS 9193

    Sugar Beet

    United Kingdom

    HM 1976

    Sugar Beet

    United Kingdom

    Andorra

    Sugar Beet

    United Kingdom

    HI 0156

    Sugar Beet

    United Kingdom

    H75011

    Sugar Beet

    United Kingdom

    Chardon LL

    Maize

    France

    Sheridan

    Maize

    France

    Farmers' Co-operatives
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support he plans to give to farmers' co-operatives in the(a) dairy sector, (b) sheep sector and (c) beef sector. [139272]

    Ms Quin
    The Government are keen to encourage the development of co-operatives and similar collaborative groups across all agricultural sectors. Collaboration can help farmers and growers to secure the scale required to do business with today's major buyers, strengthen members' buying power, and provide access to professional expertise in important areas such as marketing and new production techniques. The England Rural Development Programme, launched last month, identifies improved levels of co-operation and collaboration as a national priority. In particular, collaborative groupings will be able to put forward projects for funding under the new Processing and Marketing Grant, Rural Enterprise Scheme and Vocational Training Scheme. Over £200 million of funding is available under these schemes over seven years.

    ERDP
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 7 November 2000,Official Report, column 152W, on ERDP, if he will provide a breakdown of each measure by the schemes under which farmers will he able to claim the funds allocated. [139697]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 21 November 2000]: The following table shows the planned expenditure for each measure under the ERDP over the period 16 October 1999 to 15 October 2006, broken down by scheme within each measure.
    661W

    £ million

    FEOGA years1

    Measure and scheme

    2000

    2001

    2002

    2003

    2004

    2005

    2006

    Total

    Investment in Agricultural Holdings

    Energy Crops (Miscanthus)

    0.0

    0.7

    0.8

    0.9

    0.9

    0.9

    0.9

    4.9

    Diversification (RES)2

    0.0

    0.3

    0.7

    1.4

    2.4

    2.8

    4.0

    11.6

    Total

    0.0

    1.0

    1.5

    2.3

    3.3

    3.7

    4.8

    16.6

    Training

    Vocational Training Scheme

    0.0

    2.1

    2.5

    3.6

    4.0

    4.0

    5.7

    22.0

    Less Favoured Areas

    Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances (2000)/Hill Farm Allowance (2001–06)

    42.4

    43.8

    40.9

    37.4

    34.8

    27.2

    27.2

    253.8

    Agri-environment

    Countryside Stewardship3

    27.5

    37.9

    53.0

    68.0

    83.0

    98.0

    113.0

    480.4

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas

    39.1

    50.1

    48.3

    48.2

    48.2

    48.2

    48.2

    330.4

    Organic Farming

    13.4

    20.6

    19.0

    19.9

    22.3

    22.9

    22.6

    140.7

    Nitrate Sensitive Areas

    3.7

    2.7

    1.8

    1.4

    0.0

    0.0

    0.0

    9.6

    Total

    83.6

    111.3

    122.1

    137.6

    153.5

    169.2

    183.8

    961.1

    Improving Processing and Marketing of Agricultural Products

    Processing and Marketing Grant

    0.0

    2.2

    6.3

    8.0

    8.0

    8.0

    11.4

    44.0

    Afforestation of Agricultural Land

    Farm Woodland Premium Scheme

    7.5

    8.0

    9.0

    10.0

    11.0

    12.0

    13.0

    70.8

    Woodland Grant Scheme

    8.0

    9.0

    11.0

    12.0

    12.0

    13.0

    13.0

    78.0

    Energy Crops (S.R.C.—agricultural land)

    0.0

    3.3

    3.9

    4.0

    4.0

    4.0

    4.0

    23.2

    Total

    15.5

    20.3

    23.9

    26.1

    27.1

    29.1

    30.1

    172.0

    Other Forestry Measures

    Energy Crops (S.R.C.—non-agricultural land)

    0.0

    0.5

    0.7

    0.7

    0.7

    0.7

    0.7

    4.1

    Woodland Grant Scheme

    7.8

    8.0

    9.0

    9.0

    9.0

    9.0

    9.0

    60.8

    Total

    7.8

    8.5

    9.7

    9.7

    9.7

    9.7

    9.7

    64.9

    Adaptation and Development of Rural Areas2 Rural Enterprise Scheme

    0.0

    4.3

    9.5

    17.5

    28.6

    33.2

    47.2

    140.3

    Total expenditure

    149.3

    193.5

    216.6

    242.1

    269.1

    284.0

    320.0

    1.674.7

    1FEOGA years run from 16 October to 15 October

    2 The Rural Enterprise Scheme also includes diversification projects under Article 4 of the Rural Development Regulation (EC Reg. No. 1257/99), which covers measures in support of investment in agricultural holdings

    3Includes expenditure on closed schemes

    Broiler Chickens
    Mr. Etherington
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many broiler chickens were dead on arrival at UK poultry slaughterhouses in 1999. [139721]

    Mr. Morley
    The Meat Hygiene Service reports that 989,053 broiler chickens were dead on arrival at licensed poultry slaughterhouses in England between 28 December 1998 and 26 December 1999. This compares with the total number of 644,202,192 birds of all types of poultry arriving at slaughterhouses in England during this same period. Broilers constitute the great majority of the birds delivered to the slaughterhouses.

    The comparable information for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland may be obtained by asking the Ministers responsible for the respective Departments.

    Farm Animal Feed
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of poultry offal meal and hydrolysed feather meal in the feed of farm animals, including poultry. [138914]
    662W
    Ms Quin
    [holding answer 21 November 2000J]: The use of poultry meal and feather meal in farmed livestock feed in the UK is permitted providing it has been processed to appropriate standards. However, in practice this material is used largely for pet food rather than livestock feed and a voluntary industry code currently excludes the use of these materials in poultry feed. These are issues being considered in the FSA Review of BSE Controls.

    Sheep
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the estimated number of sheep in England at five year intervals since 1970 and (b) the off-land price for (i) lamb and (ii) mutton (1) in each of these years and (2) at 1999 values discounted by RPI indices. [139972]

    Ms Quin
    The following tables show:

    (a) Estimated number of sheep in England at five year intervals since 1970

    Year

    Total sheep and lambs

    1970

    11,627,455

    1975

    13,065,998

    1980

    14,554,451

    663W

    (a) Estimated number of sheep in England at five year intervals since 1970

    Year

    Total sheep and lambs

    1985

    16,440,497

    1990

    20,586,427

    1995

    19,607,285

    1999

    20,030,6015

    b Off-land price for (i)and (ii) mutton in (1) each of these years and (2) at 1999 values discounted by RPI indices

    Year

    Prices for sheep and lambs (UK)—£per head

    Prices for mutton (finished sheep pence per kilo1

    1970

    8.03

    238.6

    1975

    14.4

    375.5

    1980

    25.7

    3125.7

    1985

    36.4

    175.2

    1990

    33.8

    174.5

    1995

    44.5

    236.4

    1999

    28.6

    180.3

    2000

    434.9

    5198.1

    DCW =Dead Carcase Weight

    1Estimated DCW for England, unless noted

    2England/Wales

    3UK

    4Estimate 9 to 10 months data

    5Estimate prior to 31 October 2000

    £ million

    Subject to LFDC recommendations

    Current 2000–01 budget

    2001–02 budget

    2002–03 budget

    Kent

    Sussex

    Kent

    Sussex

    Kent

    Sussex

    Coastal investments

    1.6

    1.5

    3.6

    1.7

    11.0

    8.1

    Other capital investments/defences1

    2.7

    2.3

    4.2

    5.1

    5.7

    4.0

    Maintenance

    3.8

    2.5

    4.0

    2.7

    4.0

    2.6

    Total

    8.1

    6.3

    11.8

    9.5

    20.7

    14.7

    1Inc. fluvial and flood warning

    Following the recent floods, the Government announced an increase of £51 million to MAFF's flood defence budget nationally over this and the next three financial years. This will be used predominantly to accelerate river flood defence works and the Ministry is working with the operating authorities to establish their plans with a view to determining the content of the enhanced national river works programme. Some of the additional funding will be used for whole catchment area planning and to allow an earlier start to be made on planned flood warning improvements. The expenditure figures above may increase as a result of this.

    Some flood defence work is undertaken by local authorities and internal drainage boards, but the figures are not readily available.

  CABINET OFFICE

    Drugs
    Mr. Savidge
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what measures are being taken to assist other countries in reducing the production of illicit drugs. [139180]
    664W

    Year

    Prices for sheep and lambs deflated by RPI at 1999 values

    Prices for mutton 1999 values

    1970

    71.7

    344.6

    1975

    69.7

    365.4

    1980

    63.6

    311.1

    1985

    63.7

    306.4

    1990

    44.3

    228.9

    1995

    49.4

    262.3

    1999

    28.6

    180.3

    2000

    33.9

    192.5

    Flood Defences
    Mr. Norman
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the planned expenditure on flood defence in(a) Kent and (b) Sussex for (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03, (A) overall and (B) broken down by coastal defence and other defences. [140718]

    Mr. Morley
    Flood defence works are mainly undertaken by the Environment Agency. The following table shows planned expenditure by the Agency (capital and maintenance) over this and the next two financial years in the areas of the Kent and Sussex Local Flood Defence Committees.

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    The Government recognise that illicit drugs must be tackled on a global basis and support programmes in a number of countries. These include: provision of training; supply of equipment; sharing of best practice; and loan of personnel to help with anti-drug activities ranging from coca crop monitoring in Peru to anti-money laundering training in Turkey.

    My right hon. Friend the Minister has visited Colombia this year to demonstrate UK support for the Colombian Government's counter-drugs efforts and to see how the international community can help in addressing the problems of illicit drug production and trafficking.

    These and other anti-drug measures are now having an impact. For example:

    During 1999–2000 Class A drugs worth £1.25 billion were prevented from reaching our streets;
    UK intelligence has played a key role in seizing Class A drugs worth hundreds of millions of pounds outside the UK during this year.

    Significant increased funding under the SR2000 settlement will help to fund initiatives seeking to reduce the availability of illegal drugs on our streets.
    665W
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will estimate the total value of the illegal drugs trade in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years. [140379]

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    There are no reliable data as to the total value of the UK drugs trade over the past 10 years. The ONS 1998 estimation of the drugs market was between £4,334 and £9,927 million.

    The National Economic Research Associates produced a draft figure for 1998 when assessing methodology and subsequently calculated the total value for the UK market for illicit drugs estimated in 1998 as £6,613.5 million.

    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the relationship between the street price and purity of(a) cocaine and (b) heroin over the last 10 years. [140370]

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    (a) It appears that cocaine purity levels have gradually risen over the past 10 years and the price has dropped. In 1990 the average purity was 40 per cent. and this now stands at 60 per cent. The average price in 1993 was estimated to be £80 per gram and is now estimated at £65 per gram.

    (b) Information available to the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) suggests that the street level purity of heroin has risen over the last seven years, and that the price has dropped. Taking the South East as an example, in 1993, a gram bag of heroin cost about £ 100 in London and the South East, with a purity level of between 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. The latest figures available to NCIS (September 2000) show that a gram bag of heroin, with a purity level of between 30 per cent. and 35 per cent. costs between £60 and £70 in London and the South East.

    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will estimate the global production of(a) opium and (b) coca in each of the last 10 years. [140374]

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    (a) The figures given in the following table for opium are based on UNDCP figures. Dividing each figure by 10 will give the amount of annual potential heroin production, although by no means all opium produced will be processed into heroin.

    Year

    Opium (metric tons)

    1990

    3,760

    1991

    4,274

    1992

    4,143

    1993

    4,610

    1994

    5,620

    1995

    4,452

    1996

    4,355

    1997

    4,823

    1998

    4,348

    1999

    5,778

    (b) The estimated global production figures for coca and cocaine are listed in the following table. The second column is for coca net cultivation in hectares, and the thrid column represents the cocaine produced in metric tons from the coca production figures.
    666W

    Year

    Coca (net)

    Cocaine (metric tons)

    1990

    30,040

    837

    1991

    24,670

    889

    1992

    20,260

    916

    1993

    21,590

    941

    1994

    20,160

    877

    1995

    20,600

    869

    1996

    19,030

    843

    1997

    19,057

    844

    1998

    19,080

    824

    1999

    18,300

    765

    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the average age of heroin users was in each of the last 10 years. [140366]

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    Information is available from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases for drug users presenting to treatment services in England for the first time (or for the first time for six months or more). This shows that the average age of those who reported heroin as their main drug of misuse has been 27 years for each six month period from 1 April—30 September 1996 to 1 April—30 September 1999. Between 1990 and 1996 the average age of addicts notified to the Home Office's Addicts Index for the first time fell by about 12 months to 25.9 years. During the same period the average age of addicts renotified remained fairly constant at between 30.1 and 30.8 years. Typically, female addicts were between 6 and 12 months younger than their male counterparts.

    Drugs (Gloucestershire)
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many drug misusers there are in Gloucestershire. [139181]

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    Figures provided by the Gloucestershire Drug Action Team indicate that some 1,224 drug misusers accessed one or other form of treatment service within Gloucestershire during 1999–2000.

    Some £2.3 million has been made available to fund treatment services within the DAT area this year. This will rise to over £2.4 million next year. To improve the efficient delivery of these vital services representatives from the statutory and non-statutory sector met recently to agree priorities for ensuring the more effective delivery of treatment in the region.

    Rural Affairs
    Mr. David Heath
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what work has been done by the Cabinet Committee on Rural Affairs to address constraints on the growth of the economy of rural areas. [139182]

    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the work of the ministerial committee on rural affairs. [139189]

    Mr.Stringer
    The Terms of Reference of the Ministerial Group on Rural Affairs are

    to co-ordinate the Government's policies affecting rural areas.

    The Rural White Paper, Published yesterday, is a statement of the Government's rural Policy.
    667W

    Drug Education
    Mr. Pickthall
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools have anti-drug education policies. [139183]

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    A survey conducted by the Office for Standards in Education of some 30 local education authorities indicates that 75 per cent. of primary and 93 per cent. of secondary schools have policies on drug education. This compares with 61 per cent. of primary and 86 per cent. of secondary schools in 1997.

    While this is a significant improvement we are working to encourage all schools to have such policies. We aim to ensure that a 100 per cent. of secondary schools have policies in place within two years.

    Government Services Online
    Mr. White
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made on achieving Government targets for electronic access to Government services. [139184]

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    The Government continue to make strong progress towards the target that by 2005 all services should be available online.

    A leading example of the progress that we are making towards this goal is the development of the UK online Citizen Portal which is due to go live early next month. This site will offer a new way to access all UK Government information and services available online. For example, a "Life Events" area of the portal takes situations important to lots of people, like having a baby or moving house, and pulls together packages of information and services in one convenient place.

    We shall be asking the public to tell us how they would like to see the portal evolve so that it is focused around the way citizens want to do business online with Government including call centres supported by computer databases and face to face meetings where appropriate.

    Central Government have already put online one third of the 451 services we have identified to the citizen and to business; 70 per cent. are expected to be online by 2002.

    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on progress made in meeting the targets for providing Government services online. [139199]

    Mr. Healey
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on progress in meeting the Government's targets for the provision of e-access to public information and services. [139202]

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    The Government continue to make strong progress towards the Prime Minister's target that by 2005 all Government services should be available online.

    We have a good story to tell, for central Government have identified 451 services to the citizen and to business and already one third of them are available online.

    Things you can do online now include:

    ordering and paying for a company's financial returns;

    checking to see if you need hospital treatment;

    finding out if it is safe to visit foreign countries;

    and filling out a tax form.

    668W
    The public can also keep up to date with what is happening in Parliament and contact the Ombudsman online.

    Employees and employers can interactively calculate pay rates and entitlements under the national minimum wage regulations with further interactive guides to employment law to follow.

    People can get a local weather forecast to help plan their day using their mobile phone (SMS or WAP).

    Much more detail about Government service than I can give here may be found in the reports monitoring progress towards the targets for electronic service. These include details of the innovative approaches that Departments have planned for future services.

    The spring 2000 report has been placed in the Libraries of the House. My Department is preparing the autumn 2000 monitoring report which I will also be placing in the Libraries of the House.

  Drugs Misuse
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on trends in fatalities due to misuse of illegal drugs. [139187]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Changes in the way these data have been collected and recorded make it difficult to compare accurately year-on-year figures.

  The Government are currently considering the recommendations contained within the Advisory Council on the recent Misuse of Drugs report "Reducing Drug Related Deaths". These include proposals for improving the collection and analysis of data.

  What is absolutely clear is that the number of these tragedies has risen steeply over the last 20 years. Last year there were 3,000 drug related deaths within the United Kingdom.

  As part of the Government's 10 year strategy for tackling drugs misuse we are committed to reducing the number of these deaths and we have committed the resources to make this possible. By 2003–04 we plan to spend some £996 million tackling the root causes of drug misuse compared with the £700 million being spent this year.

  Public Services (Diversity)
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress her Department is making in promoting diversity in public services. [139188]

  Mr. Stringer
  We are making real progress in promoting diversity in the Civil Service. In the past six months, we have led a Managing Diversity and Cultural Change event for departments and agencies, for disabled staff a Supported Employment in the Civil Service Workshop, and we have set up the first Civil Service-wide diversity survey. We are also promoting diversity in the delivery of public services.

  A new Civil Service-wide network for disabled people is being launched today by Sir Richard Wilson, Head of the Home Civil Service.
  669W
  The Civil Service Disability Network has been set up by a group of disabled people from a cross-section of Government departments and agencies. It will provide a forum for dialogue between senior managers and disabled people in the Civil Service.

  The Disability Rights Commission will also be attending the launch.

  Drugs Strategy
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the main achievements of the drugs strategy. [139190]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Good progress is being made in all areas of the Government's anti-drugs strategy. Key achievements to date are outlined in the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator's Annual Report for 1999-2000, published on 7 November.

  In particular:

  Young people

  There has been a steady expansion of drug education in schools (with 93 per cent. of secondary and 75 per cent. of primary schools now having a drug education policy in place) and targeted drug prevention programmes focusing on young people at risk.

  Treatment

  The number of drug misusers receiving treatment continues to rise.

  Communities

  We have made good progress in breaking the link between drugs and crime by identifying and helping drug misusing offenders to tackle their problems. We have rolled out the Drug Treatment and Testing Orders across England and Wales, and are well ahead of our 2002 target of ensuring that Arrest Referral Schemes cover all custody suites in all police forces in England and Wales.

  Availability

  Class A drugs with a value of £1.2 billion were prevented from reaching the UK, an increase of 33.5 per cent. on the previous year, and an increase of 9.2 per cent. in the number of Class A trafficking groups disrupted—nearly double the target.

  We know there is still more to do. And new money made available to us under the recent Spending Review 2000 will help us to drive the Strategy aims forward.

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what improvements have been made to the regulatory framework by the Better Regulation Task Force in the last 12 months. [139191]

  Mr. Stringer
  A statement of the responses to Better Regulation Task Force's recommendations over the last 12 months is included in its third annual report.

  Copies of the report, which was published in mid-October, have been sent to the Library of the House.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the administrative and running costs of the Better Regulation Task Force in each of the last three years. [140834]

  Mr. Stringer
  The administrative and running costs of the independent Better Regulation Task Force in each of the last three years are set out in the table.
  670W

  £

  Financial year

  Administrative costs

  Running costs

  1998–99

  1—

  58,000

  1999–2000

  2187,000

  93,000

  2000–01

  3149,000

  342,000

  1 Not available

  2 For the nine months July-March 2000

  3 For the six months April 2000-September 2000

  Notes:

  1. Administrative costs are here interpreted to mean staffing costs.

  2. Running costs are here interpreted to mean ancillary costs such as printing of reviews, travel and subsistence, etc.

  Before July 1999, when a dedicated support team was established, the administrative costs for the Task Force were met from within the budget of the Regulatory Impact Unit (and its predecessor) in the Cabinet Office. It is not possible to identify specific costs within this overall budget.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many deregulation orders she plans to introduce in the next 12 months. [139193]

  Mr. Stringer
  There are 11 proposals under consideration at the moment.

  The Government plan to introduce the Regulatory Reform Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows. This Bill would repeal sections 1–4 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. Following Royal Assent any deregulation orders not already before Parliament would need to be taken forward by way of the order-making power in the Regulatory Reform Bill.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she has taken to assess the impact of Government regulation on small businesses with fewer than 10 employees. [139196]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Government are concerned to monitor the impact of regulation on both small and large businesses.

  New guidance was published in August of this year for the production of regulatory impact assessments on legislative proposals, which specifically requires that the impact of the regulation on small firms should be considered. This Monday, 27 November, the Prime Minister announced an important further package of measures intended to help make Britain the best place in the world to set up and grow a business.

  Heroin Deaths
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what changes have taken place in the number of heroin deaths in the United Kingdom in the past 12 years. [139197]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Due to significant changes in the way data were collected and recorded prior to 1993 it is not possible to provide direct comparisons over the last 12 years.
  671W
  However, in 1993 there were 254 deaths in England and Wales where heroin, or heroin and morphine, were recorded on the death certificate. For 1998 this figure has risen to 1,039.

  The Government are determined to reduce the number of these deaths as part of our anti-drugs strategy. We have recently announced our plans to spend some £996 million by 2003–04 tackling the root causes of drug misuse compared with the £700 million being spent this year.

  In addition the Government are currently considering how we can most effectively implement the recommendations contained within the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs report "Reducing drug related deaths".

  Drug Treatment Services
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she is taking to expand the availability of anti-drug treatment services across the United Kingdom. [139198]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  A key objective of the Government's 10 year strategy for tackling drug misuse is to increase the participation of problem drug misusers, including prisoners, in drug treatment programmes which have a positive impact on health and crime by 100 per cent. by 2008 compared with 1998. The Anti-Drug Co-ordinator's report for 1999–2000 shows an increase of some 7 per cent. in those presenting to services compared to 1998 figures. In order to improve further the availability of treatment services the recent spending review announced plans to increase expenditure on treatment services from £243 million in 2000–01 to £401 million for 2003–04.

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress she has made in arrangements for the non-sports initiatives for the Commonwealth games in 2002. [139203]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games will be the biggest multi-sport event ever hosted in Britain. They will take place during the Queen's Golden Jubilee year, a fact which is likely to give the event special significance nationally and internationally. This Government place great importance on the need for the Games to be successful—positive perceptions across the world are fundamental to the success of future bids for other major events—and as demonstrated by the magnificent Sydney Olympics, international sporting events can bring considerable gains to a nation.

  There are two key non-sporting initiatives associated with the Manchester 2002 Games—the Volunteer Programme and the nationwide 'Spirit of Friendship' Festival.

  The experience of the Sydney Olympics has demonstrated that the Volunteer Programme is a key factor in delivering a successful Games.

  Fifteen thousand volunteers are needed to fulfil important roles at sporting venues and the athletes' village; they will act as drivers and stewards, they will help to escort athletes and officials around the city and above all they will act as `Ambassadors' for Manchester,
  672W
  the North-West and Britain. They will come from all walks of life, men and women, young and old—a true cross section of a community which is proud to host the Games in England. A pre-Volunteer programme will focus on disadvantaged areas in the North-West and use the Games as a catalyst to encourage long-term unemployed, ethnic minority and young (16–24 years) people into work, through the Commonwealth Games experience. Manchester's Volunteer Programme will be launched officially in spring 2001.

  The 'Spirit of Friendship' Festival is planned to be a vibrant arts, cultural, educational and sporting festival reaching out across the UK and beyond Manchester. It is designed to maximise public participation, generate a sense of pride, embrace the Government's priorities of social inclusion, youth and multi-culturalism and celebrate the extensive cultural contribution of people from Commonwealth originating communities living in this country.

  Plans are progressing on the four strands of the Festival and in particular, the education strand—a series of cross curricular programmes promoting good citizenship—will be launched in March 2001 and rolled-out nationwide in schools by September 2001. The sports strand will engage thousands of school children in regional `Youth Games' and 'Taster' days and millions of people will be given the chance to see the Queen's Baton in a relay around the UK and across the Commonwealth. Colleagues in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Arts Councils are committed to a programme that will celebrate diversity of talents in the arts and cultural arena.

  Ombudsman System
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she expects to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the review of the ombudsman system. [139204]

  Mr. Stringer
  In June of this year, we published a consultation paper seeking comments on the recommendations of the "Review of the Public Sector Ombudsmen in England". We are currently evaluating the responses to the consultation paper, and we hope to announce our conclusions early in the new year.

  Magistrates (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the appointment of magistrates in Lancashire. [139201]

  Mr. Stringer
  In her absence, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply. When considering magisterial appointments in Lancashire she is advised by the Lancashire Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace which has five Sub-Committees covering the 10 Benches in the county. The procedures on magisterial appointments used by the Duchy Office are substantially the same as those used by the Lord Chancellor's Department for the remainder of the country. Regular quarterly meetings between the Duchy Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department will ensure continued close working on magisterial issues.

  People's Panel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the five policy initiatives which were most recently tested on the People's Panel. [139505]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Panel is primarily used for research about service delivery questions. The five initiatives most recently tested using the People's Panel, are as given:

  Satisfaction with Public Services

  The fifth wave of research, published in September 2000, was carried out to support the consumer focus for public services initiative. It looked at how satisfied people were with public services and what they expected from them; and at perceptions about how public services deal with complaints.

  Policy in Deprived Areas

  The Social Exclusion Unit in the Cabinet Office commissioned a re-analysis of data from the first wave of the research to examine responses from deprived areas, to determine how they differed from those living in other areas. The results were also published in September 2000.
  Public service provision and ethnic minority communities: In June 2000, the results of a first wave of research with the recruitment of an ethnic minority booster to the Panel were published. These covered a range of questions on what ethnic minorities think of the services they receive, with comparisons across different ethnic minority groups.

  Extended Hours Provision of Public Services

  Research carried out in 1999 asked which out-of-hours services people wanted access to; what sort of business they would use them for; when they would want to be able to make contact; and how. The results were published in April 2000.

  Notifying Change of Address On-line

  The Panel was used to assess reactions to a proposal for enabling electronic notification of change of address details to be passed to Government departments in one transaction. Panel members joined workshops testing out the technology. The results were published in April 2000.

  The results of all People's Panel research projects have been placed in the Library of the House and published on the internet.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    House of Commons (Maintenance)
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee, pursuant to his answer of 14 November 2000,Official Report, column 588W, if he will provide a detailed breakdown of the £25 million spent during the 1999–2000 financial year on repairing, improving and maintaining the House buildings. [140268]

    Mr. Stuart Bell
    [holding answer 24 November 2000]: This is a matter for the Director of Works. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

    Occasions on which Bills have been subject to allocation of time (guillotine) motions—sessions 1979–80 to 1997–98

    Date

    Bill

    Session 1979–80

    29 January 1980

    Education (No. 2) Bill

    25 February 1980

    Social Security Bill

    Portcullis House
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what measures were taken in the design and construction of Portcullis House to protect the building from the threat of flooding; and if he will make a statement on the recent floodings. [140269]

    Sir Sydney Chapman
    [holding answer 24 November 2000]: I am assuming that the hon. Member has in mind the two unrelated incidents that have occurred since hon. Members started to move into the building.

    The incident on 15 September caused a short lived and precautionary closure of the building. Full details were given in my answer to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on 31 October 2000, Official Report, column 352W. Measures are now being taken to prevent this problem recurring.

    The flooding last week affected the Refreshment Department's kitchens and the post room for a few hours. Although the investigations are not yet complete, there appears to have been a combination of reasons. The tank to one of the water features had been switched to "manual fill", which cut out the automatic shut off when the tank was full. It appears that the overflow pipe did not then discharge the excess water as quickly as it should. The contractor is being required to improve the safety of the system.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee when construction work outside Portcullis House will be completed. [140349]

    Sir Sydney Chapman
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The road works are expected to be completed before Christmas, as is the work to complete the shop fronts and other panelling on the ground floor.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what arrangements have been made to facilitate full access by disabled people to Portcullis House while external building works continue. [140348]

    Sir Sydney Chapman
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: Whilst work is under way in Bridge street and the Embankment, access is possible via the underground station and the subway entrance. It is expected, however, that within a few days the work will have progressed sufficiently to permit easier access via Bridge Street and the main entrance.

    Allocation of Time Motions
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the President of the Council if she will list the occasions on which Bills have been subject to allocation of time motions between 1979 and 1998. [140596]

    Mrs. Beckett
    The table shows dates on which allocation of time (guillotine) orders were made, or on which time was allocated to subsequent stages of a Bill already subject to such an allocation of time order.
    675W

    Occasions on which Bills have been subject to allocation of time (guillotine) motions—sessions 1979–80 to 1997–98

    Date

    Bill

    2 April 1980

    Education (No.2) Bill [supplemental: Lords Amendments]

    16 April 1980

    Housing Bill

    6 May 1980

    Social Security (No.2) Bill

    22 May 1980

    Social Security Bill [Supplemental: Lords Amendments]

    6 August 1980

    Housing Bill [Supplemental: Lords Amendments]

    Session 1980–81

    9 March 1981

    Transport Bill

    29 April 1981

    British Nationality Bill

    28 July 1981

    Transport Bill [supplemental: Lords Amendments]

    26 October 1981

    British Nationality Bill [supplemental: Lords Amendments]

    Session 1981–82

    8 March 1982

    Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill

    20 April 1982

    Employment Bill

    22 June 1982

    Northern Ireland Bill

    24 June 1982

    Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill [supplemental: Lords Amendments]

    25 October 1982

    Employment Bill [supplemental: Lords Amendments]

    Session 1982–83

    17 January 1983

    Transport Bill

    16 February 1983

    Telecommunications Bill

    16 February 1983

    Housing and Building Control Bill

    Session 1983–84

    21 November 1983

    Telecommunications Bill

    29 February 1984

    Rates Bill

    5 March 1984

    Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

    Session 1984–85

    11 February 1985

    Local Government Bill

    1 April 1985

    Transport Bill

    8 July 1985

    Local Government Bill [supplemental: Lords Amendments]

    29 October 1985

    Transport Bill [supplemental: Lords Amendments]

    Session 1985–86

    17 February 1986

    Gas Bill

    15 April 1986

    Social Security Bill

    1 July 1986

    European Communities (Amendment) Bill

    21 July 1986

    Gas Bill [supplemental: Lords Amendments

    23 July 1986

    Social Security Bill [supplemental: Lords Amendments]

    Session 1986–87

    26 January 1987

    Local Government Finance Bill

    11 February 1987

    Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill

    11 March 1987

    Local Government Finance Bill [supplemental: Lords Amendments]

    13 May 1987

    Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill [supplemental: Lords Amendments]

    Session 1987–88

    1 February 1988

    Education Reforn Bill

    22 February 1988

    Local Government Finance Bill

    14 March 1988

    Social Security Bill [Lords Amendments]

    25 May 1988

    Firearms (Amendment) Bill

    18 July 1988

    Education Reform Bill [supplemental: Lords Amendments]

    20 July 1988

    Local Government Finance Bill [supplemental: Lords Amendments]

    2 November 1988

    Firearms (Amendment) Bill [supplemental: Lords Amendments]

    11 November 1988

    School Boards (Scotland) Bill, and Housing Bill [Lords Amendments]

    Session 1988–89

    23 January 1989

    Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions)Bill

    6 February 1989

    Water Bill

    13 February 1989

    Official Secrets Bill

    14 March 1989

    Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill [supplemental: Lords Amendments]

    2 May 1989

    Official Secrets Bill [supplemental: Lords Amendments]

    3 May 1989

    Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill

    8 May 1989

    Dock Work Bill

    3 July 1989

    Water Bill [supplemental: Lords Amendments]

    17 July 1989

    Football Spectators Bill [Lords]

    26 October 1989

    Companies Bill [Lords] and Children Bill [Lords]

    8 November 1989

    Local Government and Housing Bill, and Employment Bill [Lords Amendments]

    14 November 1989

    Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill [supplemental: Lords Amendments]

    Session 1989–90

    14 March 1990

    National Health Service and Community Care Bill

    28 March 1990

    Social Security Bill

    2 April 1990

    Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]

    676W 677W

    Occasions on which Bills have been subject to allocation of time (guillotine) motions—sessions 1979–80 to 1997–98

    Date

    Bill

    4 April 1990

    Education (Student Loans) Bill [Lords Amendments]

    27 June 1990

    National Health Service and Community Care Bill [supplemental:Lords Amendments]

    9 July 1990

    Social Security Bill [Supplemental:Lords Amendments]

    Session 1990–91

    26 March 1991

    Community Charges (General Raduction)Bill

    10 June 1991

    Dangerous Dogs Bill

    24 July 1991

    Dangerous Dogs Bill [supplemental:Lords Amendments]

    Session 1991–92

    12 November 1991

    Local Government Finance Bill

    30 January 1992

    Education (Schools) Bill

    11 February 1992

    Furher and Higher Education Bill [Lords]

    17 February 1992

    Local Government Bill [Lords]

    4 March 1992

    Local Government Bill [supplemental:Lords Amendments]

    13 March 1992

    Finance Bill and Further and Higher Education (Scotland)Bill

    13 March 1992

    Education (Schools) Bill [supplemental:Lords Amendments]

    Session 1992–93

    27 October 1992

    Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill

    15 December 1992

    Education Bill

    19 July 1993

    Education Bill [supplemental:Lords Amendments]

    2 November 1993

    Railways Bill

    3 November 1993

    Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [supplemental:Lords Amendments]

    Session 1993–94

    14 December 1993

    Statutory Sick Pay Bill, and Social Security (Contributions) Bill

    13 January 1994

    Non-Domestic Rating Bill

    1 February 1994

    Finance Bill

    9 February 1994

    Statutory Sick Pay Bill[supplemental:Lords Amendments]

    Session 1994–95

    Nil

    Session 1995–96

    25 March 1996

    Family Law Bill [Lords]

    2 April 1996

    Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill

    Session 1996–97

    18 November 1996

    Firearms (Amendment) Bill

    18 February 1997

    Firearms (Amendment) Bill [supplemental:Lords Amendments]

    Session 1997–98

    3 June 1997

    Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill

    14 July 1997

    Finance Bill

    30 July 1997

    Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill [supplemental:Lords Amendments]

    17 December 1997

    European Communities (Amendment) Bill

    9 June 1998

    European Communities (Amendment) Bill[supplemental:Lords Amendmentes]

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have made applications since the coming into force of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; on how many of these applications an initial decision has been made; what the average time was for such asylum seekers from application to decision in cases where they have dependent children; and how many such cases(a) have been determined and (b) remain to be determined. [140465]

    Mrs. Roche
    37,095 asylum seekers made applications between 1 April 2000, when major provisions of the 1999 Act came into force, and 30 September 2000. Information on the number of those applications on which an initial decision has been taken is not available.

    The information available shows that over the same period, 2,890 family applications had been made and, of
    678W
    those applications, 2,255 have received an initial decision while the remainder, 635, have not.

    Most new substantive family applications lodged between 1 April 2000 and 30 September 2000, had an initial decision within two months.

    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for those asylum seekers in respect of whose applications an initial decision has been made during(a) 1999 and (b) 2000, what the average time was between the application and the decision. [140417]

    Mrs. Roche
    Average decision times for initial decisions were calculated until the end of 1999. During 1999 the average time taken to reach an initial decision was 35 months. By December 1999 the average time taken to reach an initial decision had fallen to 13 months.

    The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) is setting in place new systems, which will enable average decision times to be calculated and to report the percentage of applications receiving an initial decision within two months.
    679W
    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers who made an application before the end of 1995 have not yet had an initial decision on their application. [141416]

    Mrs. Roche
    The monitoring systems we have in place record no more applications made before 1996 where there has been no initial decision.

    Police Recruitment (Greater Manchester)
    Miss Widdecombe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police Constabulary regarding the current level of recruitment to the force; how many recruits have been taken on by the Greater Manchester force since 31 March; and if he will make a statement. [140662]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    [holding answer 28 November 2000]: My officials have received a request from Greater Manchester Police to defer part of the force's allocation of Crime Fighting Fund Officers for 2000–01 into 2001–02. This request is presently under consideration.

    Police personnel statistics, including figures for recruitment, for the six months to 30 September 2000 are presently being validated and we expect to publish them in December.

    National Asylum Support Service
    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the local authority regional consortia and other accommodation providers with which the National Asylum Support Service has entered into contracts to date. [140237]

    Mrs. Roche
    Contracts have now been signed with five consortia: Glasgow City Council on behalf of the Scottish Consortium, North East England, Yorkshire and Humberside, West Midlands and North West (East Region). Other contracts have been signed with: YMCA Glasgow, Safe Haven Yorkshire, Roselodge Ltd., Leena Corporation, Landmark Liverpool Ltd., Clearsprings Management Ltd., Capital Accommodation Ltd., Angel Group, Adelphi Hotels Ltd. and Accommodata Ltd., (Shallan).

    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many units of accommodation supplied by National Asylum Support Service accommodation providers have been contracted from(a) local authority regional consortia and (b) private landlords; and what proportion of the units provided in 2000–01 will be contracted through regional consortia. [140238]

    Mrs. Roche
    As at 24 November, the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) had procured 15,306 bedspaces from private landlords and 8,673 from local authority regional consortia. The NASS has to retain a stock of available property. The exact number of units changes day by day as providers notify the NASS of properties. Equally, the number of asylum seekers provided with accommodation by the NASS changes daily.

    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the total number of units of accommodation required by the National Asylum Support Service for(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [140239]
    680W
    Mrs. Roche
    The total number of bedspaces required by the National Asylum Support Service for 2000–01 is 44,000. The latest estimate for 2001–02 is 55,000 bedspaces.

    Marches
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors are taken into account in granting permission for marches to pass the Houses of Parliament while the Commons and Lords are sitting; and if he will make a statement. [140790]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Enforcement of the Sessional Order enacted by Parliament is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. This order instructs the Commissioner to keep all streets leading to the Houses of Parliament free from obstruction, and to ensure that Lords and Members are not obstructed in their passage to and from the Houses. Police officers are expected to clear any assemblies or processions which are likely to cause obstruction or disorder.

    In deciding to allow a march or procession to pass the Houses of Parliament, the Commissioner must first consider the Sessional Order. Any proposed march that appeared likely to cause obstruction or disorder during a Parliamentary sitting would not be allowed.

    Internet
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many National Hi-Tech Crime Unit staff will(a) be dedicated to the policing of internet chatrooms, (b) have the priority of protection of children on the internet and (c) have specific training in dealing with child protection law; and what the framework for liaison between the internet crime squad child protection team and other police units will be. [140792]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The deployment of staff in the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit and the allocation to them of specific tasks and priorities will be an operational matter for the Head of the Unit to determine. Members of the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit who are engaged in the investigation of serious and organised paedophile activity or who support local police investigations of paedophile activity will be appropriately trained. The National Hi-Tech Crime Unit will provide local police units with advice and best practice guidance on the conduct of internet crime investigations through the provision of a helpdesk function, an information network and liaison events.

    Gammahydroxbutyrate
    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the classification of GHB. [139195]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Gammahydroxbutyrate (GHB) is not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. It is regarded as an unlicensed medicinal product under the provisions 'of the Medicines Act 1968. The Medicines Control Agency investigates reports of the unlawful manufacture, advertising, sale and supply of GHB in the United Kingdom and has brought a number of successful prosecutions in the last few years.
    681W
    The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has considered whether GHB should be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act on a number of occasions, most recently on 16 November 2000. On each occasion ACMD has concluded, based on the available information about its misuse, that control of GHB under the Misuse of Drugs Act is not appropriate. But the Council has asked for further information to be gathered with a view to reviewing this decision at its next meeting on 31 May 2001.

    Separately, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has completed a risk assessment on GHB. The European Commission presented its draft recommendations on this risk assessment to the European Union Horizontal Drugs Group (HDG) of officials on 22 November. HDG will consider the matter further at its next meeting on 19 December.

    In addition, the World Health Organisation has recommended that GHB should be scheduled under Schedule IV of the United Nations (UN) Convention of Psychotropic Substances 1971. This recommendation will be considered at the meeting of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in March 2001.

    Drugs Strategy
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of the criminal law in furtherance of the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [139395]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The criminal law underpins much of the Government's drugs strategy, "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain", particularly the key aims of protecting communities from drug-related anti-social and criminal behaviour and stifling the availability of illegal drugs on our streets.

    Enforcement of the law is a matter for the enforcement agencies, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts.

    Establishment

    Escapes

    Assault rate (%)

    Mandotary drug testing rate (%)

    Purposeful activity

    OBPs1

    SOTPs2

    Cost per place (£ cash)

    Staff sickness

    Correspondence (%)

    Ashfield

    0

    87.3

    12.6

    24.0

    0

    0

    343,032

    n/a

    96.7

    Aylesbury

    0

    34.5

    12.7

    18.4

    63

    0

    23,412

    22.8

    95.8

    Castington

    0

    58.8

    14.8

    19.8

    0

    0

    21,651

    22.8

    88.0

    Deerbolt

    2

    19.0

    15.3

    21.1

    0

    0

    18,145

    11.8

    99.1

    Dover

    0

    27.0

    12.1

    23.4

    0

    0

    19,910

    12.2

    86.7

    Feltham

    1

    37.7

    21.2

    15.2

    34

    7

    21,849

    18.6

    84.6

    Glen Parva

    0

    29.8

    14.7

    16.0

    70

    0

    20,659

    9.8

    99.3

    Guys Marsh

    0

    6.3

    25.8

    27.9

    19

    0

    16,079

    11.8

    78.0

    Hatfield

    0

    21.3

    9.0

    40.6

    0

    0

    17,578

    8.4

    100.0

    Huntercombe

    1

    24.9

    24.9

    26.3

    14

    0

    21,935

    10.7

    91.2

    Onley

    0

    37.6

    9.4

    17.4

    74

    0

    18,302

    15.2

    93.3

    Portland

    0

    17.3

    8.8

    22.8

    12

    0

    18,714

    9.8

    100.0

    Reading

    0

    19.4

    16.6

    31.7

    17

    0

    28,204

    13.5

    91.5

    Stoke Heath

    0

    50.5

    8.9

    22.5

    0

    0

    17,043

    14.8

    100.0

    Swinfen Hall

    0

    15.5

    2.8

    30.2

    145

    24

    21,612

    9.0

    100.0

    Thorn Cross

    1

    15.8

    22.7

    45.3

    110

    0

    20,815

    12.1

    n/a

    Werrington

    0

    38.8

    4.0

    37.9

    0

    0

    41,147

    12.8

    100.0

    Wetherby

    0

    45.2

    9.2

    27.9

    22

    0

    20,747

    10.7

    100.0

    1OBPs—Offending Behaviour Programmes

    2 SOTPs—Sex Offender Treatment Programmes

    3Includes an element of capital repayment

    Prison Officers
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the last five years, how many prison officers by grade have had(a) complaints made against their conduct generally and (b) complaints of ill-treatment of prisoners; in each case (i) how many were upheld, (ii) what was the nature of the offences, (iii) what penalties resulted and (iv) how many offences resulted in criminal charges; and if he will make a statement [140559]

    Mr. Boateng
    The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost to the Prison Service.

    Young Offender Institutions
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how each young offender institution, including those managed privately, has performed against the key performance indicators in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [140548]

    Mr. Boateng
    Performance against Key Performance Indications (KPI) for young offender institutions for the financial year 1999–2000 is set out in the table.

    Establishments are categorised by their main function only. For establishments with a multiple function, these figures represent the average of all activity in that establishment.

    Ashfield young offender institution (operated by the private sector as a result of a Design, Construct, Manage and Finance [DCMF] contract) opened in November 1999 and performance shown is for the part-year only. Sickness data are not collected for private prisons and cost per place data are not comparable with public prisons' data as the cost includes an element of capital repayment.

    The overcrowding KPI is formulated in terms of overall Prison Service capacity and population levels and is not applicable to individual prisons. Correspondence data from Thorn Cross young offender institution are not available. KPI results for all establishments were published in the Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts for 1999–2000, a copy of which was placed in the Library.

    Detective Inspector John Redgrave
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Police Complaints Authority was advised that the allegation of corruption, made against Detective Inspector John Redgrave had been withdrawn; and if he will make a statement. [140070]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    An undated letter was received from the informant by the Police Complaints Authority on 29 January 1997. In that letter the informant made a number of serious new allegations, and asserted that certain allegations which he had previously made were false.

    Criminal Records Bureau
    Sandra Gidley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department has commissioned an Impact Assessment Survey on the proposed Criminal Records Bureau charges; and if he will make a statement. 138303]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 20 November 2000,Official Report, column 87W.

    Agricultural Shows (Policing)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he issues to police authorities concerning their policies for charging for policing agricultural shows. [139448]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The decision whether to charge for costs of policing at local events is a matter for the local police authority and the Chief Constable.

    Under Section 25 (1) of the Police Act 1996
    the Chief Officer of Police may provide, at the request of any person, special police services at any premises or in any locality in the police area for which the force is maintained, subject to the payment to the police authority of charges on such scales as may be determined by that authority.

    The rationale behind charging is that the taxpayer at large should not be asked to pay for services provided at private events or events which benefit only a relatively small section of the community. It is for the Chief Officer concerned to determine whether a given service would constitute a special police service. Special police services are not defined in the 1996 Act or elsewhere. I would expect them to be services that meet some or all of the following criteria:
    They are not part of the general duty of the police to keep the peace and protect life and property;
    The service to be provided is on private land; and,
    The service to be provided is for a commercially organised event.

    Guidance on the policing of public events is provided by the Association of Chief Police Officers. This recognises the key role of event organisers and local agencies, particularly local authorities, in ensuring public safety at such events. The key role for the police is to ensure that public order is maintained and to deal with any criminal offences, which occur.

    Police Manpower
    Mr. Ruane
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in each police authority area in each of the last 20 years; and what the predicted numbers of officers are for the next three years in each case. [140477]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Rydale (Mr. Greenway) on 10 November 1999, Official Report, column 590W, for the years 1991 to 1999. I also wrote to the hon. Member for Rydale on 19 January 2000 providing information for the earlier years (1979 to 1990). A copy of the letter and tables were placed in the Library.

    For police numbers on 31 March 2000, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 19 July 2000, Official Report, column 178W.

    Projecting police numbers is difficult. Apart from special arrangements like the Crime Fighting Fund—where money is provided specifically for additional recruitment—Ministers have no control over local decisions on the mix of officer strength and other resources that police authorities and chief constables may consider best for their police forces. It is even more difficult to attempt projections at the level of individual forces. In addition to the changes that may flow from the decisions of police authorities and chief constables, transfers take place between forces and between forces and the national agencies (NCS and NCIS) and central services).

    We have provided funds to ensure that there is a step-change in the number of officers inside the service from, overall, 126,000 in 2000–01, rising to 128,000 in 2001–02 and to 130,000 in 2002–03. There may be some slippage, but the aim is to ensure a significant change in the number.

    No projections have been made for 2003–04.

    Animal Experiments
    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to establish an independent judicial review into the actions of Imutran and HLS in relation to animal welfare and transplant experiments. [140726]

    Mr. Straw
    I have no plans to establish such a review.

    On 17 July 2000, the House of Lords decided to set up an ad hoc Select Committee on the use of animals in scientific experiments. The House of Lords inquiry will provide an opportunity for the wider issues raised in the context of the Imutran case to be considered.

    Although Imutran's licences authorising surgical procedures are no longer in force and this research is not now carried out at HLS, I have asked the Chief Inspector of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate to examine, as part of the Inspectorate's normal statutory inspection and reporting fusiction, the available evidence relating to compliance with the authorities granted to Imutran for its xenotransplantation work between 1995 and 2000. I expect to receive the Chief Inspector's

    685W
    findings and advice on these matters in the new year and will make these available, subject to the requirements of section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

    Young Offenders
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list for each police authority area the(a) number and (b) percentage of pupils permanently excluded from school who committed a criminal offence in each of the last 10 years; [140645]

    (2) if he will list, for each police authority area, over the last 10 years the level of detection of crimes committed by young offenders who (a) were and (b) were not permanently excluded from school. [140644]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Recorded crime figures and court proceedings statistics do not provide information on offences committed by young people according to whether or not they had been permanently excluded from school. However, information is available from the 1998–99 Youth Lifestyles Survey (YLS). The YLS showed that two per cent. of 12 to 30-year-olds interviewed had been permanently excluded from school at some time. Of these, 34 per cent. admitted one or more of a list of 27 offences in the last year compared to 18 per cent. of those who had not been excluded. Nine per cent. of those who had been permanently excluded from school had been cautioned (either formally or informally) or taken to court in the past year, against two per cent. of those who had not been permanently excluded.

    A study for the Youth Justice Board, conducted by MORI, used a broader definition of offending, and targeted those who were currently permanently excluded from school. Of those permanently excluded, 72 per cent. admitted offending in the last year compared to 22 per cent. of those currently in school.

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police authority area the number of re-convictions of young offenders and the percentage this represents of all young offenders, indicating the type of sentence originally passed. 140642]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Estimates of the percentage of young offenders reconvicted within two years of original sentence in each police authority area in England and Wales are in the table. The information is based on a sample of 4,490 offenders aged under 18, who were sentenced to non-custodial sentences in 1996. 2,865 (63.8 per cent.) were reconvicted within two years of the original sentence.

    Due to the small numbers of offenders sampled in many areas, it is not possible to provide robust estimates of the types of sentence originally passed.

    Table A Number of young offenders, aged 10–17, sentenced at all courts for indictable offences by type of offence, 1990

    Total sentenced

    Discharge1

    Fine

    Community sentence2

    Immediate custody3

    Other

    Police force area

    [=100%]

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Avon and Somerset

    919

    256

    28

    273

    30

    311

    34

    59

    6

    20

    2

    Bedfordshire

    449

    159

    35

    94

    21

    133

    30

    53

    12

    10

    2

    Cambridgeshire

    540

    120

    22

    214

    40

    167

    31

    25

    5

    14

    3

    Cheshire

    879

    275

    31

    192

    22

    321

    37

    73

    8

    18

    2

    686W
    Many factors influence the reconviction rates for police authority areas, including differing offender characteristics, such as age, offence and previous criminal history, and variations in police and prosecution practice.

    Two year reconviction rates for young offenders by police authority area in 1996

    Police authority area

    Percentage reconvicted

    Number of offenders sampled

    Avon

    54

    59

    Bedfordshire

    74

    31

    Cambridgeshire

    70

    43

    Cheshire

    60

    82

    Cleveland

    81

    129

    Cumbria

    61

    56

    Derbyshire

    53

    93

    Devon

    69

    65

    Dorset

    59

    34

    Durham

    68

    98

    Essex

    56

    98

    Gloucestershire

    54

    41

    Greater Manchester

    66

    327

    Hampshire

    65

    106

    Hertfordshire

    65

    63

    Humberside

    67

    106

    Kent

    55

    110

    Lancashire

    69

    121

    Leicestershire

    49

    81

    Lincolnshire

    71

    36

    Merseyside

    65

    185

    Metropolitan Police1

    61

    552

    Norfolk

    57

    30

    Northamptonshire

    85

    41

    Northumbria

    69

    262

    North Yorkshire

    53

    53

    Nottinghamshire

    76

    133

    South Yorkshire

    55

    152

    Staffordshire

    56

    97

    Suffolk

    74

    34

    Surrey

    50

    28

    Sussex

    62

    52

    Thames Valley

    64

    107

    Warwickshire

    57

    44

    West Mercia

    59

    71

    West Midlands

    67

    275

    West Yorkshire

    64

    228

    Wiltshire

    57

    30

    North Wales

    61

    75

    South Wales

    68

    155

    Dyfed-Powys

    71

    42

    Gwent

    73

    59

    1 Includes City of London

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for each police authority area, the(a) number, (b) percentage and (c) type of sentences given to young offenders in each of the last 10 years. [140643]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Information, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, is given in the tables. Selected years only are given to reduce the cost of this answer below the level of disproportionate costs.
    687W

    Table A Number of young offenders, aged 10–17, sentenced at all courts for indictable offences by type of offence, 1990

    Total sentenced

    Discharge1

    Fine

    Community sentence2

    Immediate custody3

    Other

    Police force area

    [=100%]

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    City of London

    23

    6

    26

    8

    35

    8

    35

    —

    —

    1

    4

    Cleveland

    745

    200

    27

    96

    13

    310

    42

    124

    17

    15

    2

    Cumbria

    598

    119

    20

    176

    29

    235

    39

    56

    9

    12

    2

    Derbyshire

    741

    215

    29

    173

    23

    262

    35

    72

    10

    19

    3

    Devon and Cornwall

    677

    150

    22

    206

    30

    247

    36

    65

    10

    9

    1

    Dorset

    444

    111

    25

    166

    37

    134

    30

    17

    4

    16

    4

    Durham

    766

    225

    29

    120

    16

    302

    39

    88

    11

    31

    4

    Essex

    894

    241

    27

    297

    33

    274

    31

    59

    7

    23

    3

    Gloucestershire

    362

    125

    35

    99

    27

    114

    31

    11

    3

    13

    4

    Greater Manchester

    3,460

    1,191

    34

    602

    17

    1,289

    37

    314

    9

    64

    2

    Hampshire

    1,283

    484

    38

    297

    23

    418

    33

    60

    5

    24

    2

    Hertfordshire

    569

    112

    20

    169

    30

    226

    40

    54

    9

    8

    1

    Humberside

    1,095

    333

    30

    192

    18

    431

    39

    119

    11

    20

    2

    Kent

    704

    154

    22

    177

    25

    298

    42

    45

    6

    30

    4

    Lancashire

    1,501

    444

    30

    318

    21

    594

    40

    117

    8

    28

    2

    Leicestershire

    670

    126

    19

    123

    18

    308

    46

    87

    13

    26

    4

    Lincolnshire

    569

    156

    27

    136

    24

    216

    38

    47

    8

    14

    2

    Merseyside

    1,805

    582

    32

    575

    32

    515

    29

    109

    6

    24

    1

    Metropolitan Police

    5,237

    1,483

    28

    1,497

    29

    1,640

    31

    462

    9

    155

    3

    Norfolk

    594

    176

    30

    180

    30

    195

    33

    33

    6

    10

    2

    North Yorkshire

    513

    110

    21

    195

    38

    165

    32

    36

    7

    7

    1

    Northamptonshire

    263

    73

    28

    73

    28

    76

    29

    31

    12

    10

    4

    Northumbria

    1,770

    625

    35

    314

    18

    654

    37

    148

    8

    29

    2

    Nottinghamshire

    1,524

    510

    33

    255

    17

    532

    35

    155

    10

    72

    5

    South Yorkshire

    1,669

    521

    31

    302

    18

    673

    40

    137

    8

    36

    2

    Staffordshire

    878

    232

    26

    193

    22

    333

    38

    97

    11

    23

    3

    Suffolk

    475

    151

    32

    127

    27

    161

    34

    25

    5

    11

    2

    Surrey

    521

    120

    23

    219

    42

    149

    29

    12

    2

    21

    4

    Sussex

    853

    229

    27

    321

    38

    227

    27

    47

    6

    29

    3

    Thames Valley

    1,327

    408

    31

    397

    30

    414

    31

    67

    5

    41

    3

    Warwickshire

    294

    80

    27

    78

    27

    99

    34

    32

    11

    5

    2

    West Mercia

    815

    236

    29

    199

    24

    299

    37

    65

    8

    16

    2

    West Midlands

    3,259

    959

    29

    646

    20

    1,212

    37

    382

    12

    60

    2

    West Yorkshire

    2,411

    556

    23

    517

    21

    1,093

    45

    215

    9

    30

    1

    Wiltshire

    449

    127

    28

    160

    36

    130

    29

    16

    4

    16

    4

    Dyfed Powys

    253

    72

    28

    77

    30

    80

    32

    18

    7

    6

    2

    Gwent

    619

    137

    22

    272

    44

    162

    26

    41

    7

    7

    1

    North Wales

    774

    271

    35

    267

    34

    168

    22

    38

    5

    30

    4

    South Wales

    1,726

    639

    37

    390

    23

    515

    30

    142

    8

    40

    2

    England and Wales

    45,917

    13,499

    29

    11,382

    25

    16,090

    35

    3,853

    8

    1,093

    2

    1Discharge includes absolute and conditional discharge.

    2Community sentences include probation orders, supervision orders, community service order, attendance centre order, combination order and curfew order.

    3Immediate custody includes s53 of Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and detention in a young offender institution.

    Table B Number of young offenders. aged 10–17, sentenced at all courts for indictable offences by type of offence, 1997

    Total sentenced

    Discharge1

    Fine

    Community sentence2

    Immediate custody3

    Other

    Police force area

    [=100%]

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Avon and Somerset

    731

    204

    28

    57

    8

    370

    51

    78

    11

    22

    3

    Bedfordshire

    370

    83

    22

    32

    9

    155

    42

    86

    23

    14

    4

    Cambridgeshire

    496

    159

    32

    58

    12

    198

    40

    69

    14

    12

    2

    Cheshire

    809

    283

    35

    88

    11

    329

    41

    95

    12

    14

    2

    City of London

    4

    1

    25

    1

    25

    —

    —

    2

    50

    —

    —

    Cleveland

    1,035

    358

    35

    80

    8

    462

    45

    130

    13

    5

    0

    Cumbria

    577

    191

    33

    86

    15

    221

    38

    62

    11

    17

    3

    Derbyshire

    624

    170

    27

    37

    6

    327

    52

    82

    13

    8

    1

    Devon and Cornwall

    643

    182

    28

    60

    9

    302

    47

    89

    14

    10

    2

    Dorset

    237

    63

    27

    26

    11

    111

    47

    33

    14

    4

    2

    Durham

    885

    345

    39

    77

    9

    355

    40

    90

    10

    18

    2

    Essex

    1,205

    343

    28

    168

    14

    510

    42

    143

    12

    41

    3

    Gloucestershire

    363

    107

    29

    50

    14

    166

    46

    34

    9

    6

    2

    Greater Manchester

    3,225

    969

    30

    216

    7

    1,467

    45

    536

    17

    37

    1

    Hampshire

    1,322

    528

    40

    127

    10

    524

    40

    121

    9

    22

    2

    Hertfordshire

    415

    95

    23

    62

    15

    209

    50

    43

    10

    6

    1

    Humberside

    844

    272

    32

    61

    7

    376

    45

    129

    15

    6

    1

    Kent

    1,436

    376

    26

    196

    14

    684

    48

    154

    11

    26

    2

    688W 689W

    Table B Number of young offenders, aged 10–17, sentenced at all courts for indictable offences by type of offence, 1997

    Total sentenced

    Discharge1

    Fine

    Community sentence2

    Immediate custody3

    Other

    Police force area

    [=100%]

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Lancashire

    1,583

    525

    33

    190

    12

    643

    41

    197

    12

    28

    2

    Leicestershire

    897

    133

    15

    81

    9

    466

    52

    194

    22

    23

    3

    Lincolnshire

    466

    179

    38

    59

    13

    181

    39

    42

    9

    5

    1

    Merseyside

    1,585

    574

    36

    239

    15

    574

    36

    181

    11

    17

    1

    Metropolitan Police

    5,893

    1,664

    28

    936

    16

    2,227

    38

    950

    16

    116

    2

    Norfolk

    490

    179

    37

    72

    15

    202

    41

    26

    5

    1l

    2

    North Yorkshire

    485

    132

    27

    65

    13

    214

    44

    66

    14

    8

    2

    Northamptonshire

    408

    177

    43

    29

    7

    156

    38

    43

    11

    3

    1

    Northumbria

    2,271

    915

    40

    209

    9

    845

    37

    280

    12

    22

    1

    Nottinghamshire

    1,303

    392

    30

    74

    6

    609

    47

    212

    16

    16

    1

    South Yorkshire

    1,417

    455

    32

    79

    6

    634

    45

    227

    16

    22

    2

    Staffordshire

    856

    302

    35

    80

    9

    375

    44

    91

    11

    8

    1

    Suffolk

    444

    115

    26

    61

    14

    221

    50

    40

    9

    7

    2

    Surrey

    381

    142

    37

    74

    19

    114

    30

    38

    10

    13

    3

    Sussex

    749

    202

    27

    71

    9

    355

    47

    88

    12

    33

    4

    Thames Valley

    1,092

    318

    29

    147

    13

    503

    46

    117

    11

    7

    1

    Warwickshire

    314

    82

    26

    23

    7

    172

    55

    34

    11

    3

    1

    West Mercia

    691

    228

    33

    74

    11

    294

    43

    83

    12

    12

    2

    West Midlands

    3,588

    968

    27

    318

    9

    1,724

    48

    557

    16

    21

    1

    West Yorkshire

    2,559

    699

    27

    198

    8

    1,300

    51

    303

    12

    59

    2

    Wiltshire

    368

    112

    30

    51

    14

    164

    45

    31

    8

    10

    3

    Dyfed Powys

    404

    176

    44

    26

    6

    163

    40

    26

    6

    13

    3

    Gwent

    684

    224

    33

    152

    22

    223

    33

    57

    8

    28

    4

    North Wales

    464

    163

    35

    71

    15

    183

    39

    43

    9

    4

    1

    South Wales

    1,688

    672

    40

    155

    9

    637

    38

    204

    12

    20

    1

    England and Wales

    46,301

    14,457

    31

    5,016

    11

    19,945

    43

    6,106

    13

    777

    2

    1Discharge includes absolute and conditional discharge.

    2Community sentences include probation orders, supervision orders, community service order, attendance centre order, combination order and curfew order.

    3Immediate custody includes s53 of Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and detention in a young offender institution.

    Table C Number of young offenders, aged 10–17, sentenced at all courts for indictable offences by type of offence, 1999

    Total sentenced

    Discharge1

    Fine

    Community sentence2

    Immediate custody3

    Other

    Police force area

    [=100%]

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Avon and Somerset

    669

    217

    32

    62

    9

    326

    49

    50

    7

    14

    2

    Bedfordshire

    381

    110

    29

    34

    9

    159

    42

    74

    19

    4

    1

    Cambridgeshire

    660

    203

    31

    96

    15

    272

    41

    76

    12

    13

    2

    Cheshire

    786

    236

    30

    113

    14

    343

    44

    89

    11

    5

    1

    City of London

    1

    —

    —

    1

    100

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Cleveland

    987

    405

    41

    76

    8

    394

    40

    98

    10

    14

    1

    Cumbria

    627

    200

    32

    77

    12

    271

    43

    66

    11

    13

    2

    Derbyshire

    679

    161

    24

    65

    10

    323

    48

    120

    18

    10

    1

    Devon and Cornwall

    676

    216

    32

    62

    9

    320

    47

    69

    10

    9

    1

    Dorset

    390

    124

    32

    41

    11

    172

    44

    46

    12

    7

    2

    Durham

    1,029

    302

    29

    78

    8

    467

    45

    129

    13

    53

    5

    Essex

    1,110

    304

    27

    176

    16

    497

    45

    112

    10

    21

    2

    Gloucestershire

    322

    92

    29

    43

    13

    158

    49

    25

    8

    4

    1

    Greater Manchester

    3,466

    995

    29

    263

    8

    1,664

    48

    505

    15

    39

    1

    Hampshire

    2,142

    313

    15

    296

    14

    729

    34

    220

    10

    584

    27

    Hertfordshire

    437

    140

    32

    52

    12

    189

    43

    53

    12

    3

    1

    Humberside

    986

    302

    31

    68

    7

    445

    45

    150

    15

    21

    2

    Kent

    1,493

    431

    29

    239

    16

    653

    44

    135

    9

    35

    2

    Lancashire

    1,591

    532

    33

    190

    12

    655

    41

    180

    11

    34

    2

    Leicestershire

    815

    148

    18

    48

    6

    8

    55

    156

    19

    15

    2

    Lincolnshire

    529

    181

    34

    83

    16

    215

    41

    39

    7

    11

    2

    Merseyside

    1,457

    551

    38

    251

    17

    491

    34

    149

    10

    15

    1

    Metropolitan Police

    6,436

    1,708

    27

    1,129

    18

    2,577

    40

    823

    13

    199

    3

    Norfolk

    591

    183

    31

    96

    16

    247

    42

    47

    8

    18

    3

    North Yorkshire

    654

    214

    33

    91

    14

    261

    40

    78

    12

    10

    2

    Northamptonshire

    647

    262

    40

    37

    6

    267

    41

    69

    11

    12

    2

    Northumbria

    2,813

    1,138

    40

    286

    10

    1,056

    38

    297

    11

    36

    1

    Nottinghamshire

    1,371

    407

    30

    108

    8

    637

    46

    198

    14

    21

    2

    South Yorkshire

    1,476

    391

    26

    122

    8

    611

    41

    168

    11

    184

    12

    Staffordshire

    801

    247

    31

    80

    10

    351

    44

    110

    14

    13

    2

    Suffolk

    458

    111

    24

    75

    16

    199

    43

    63

    14

    10

    2

    690W 691W

    Table C Number of young offenders, aged 10–17, sentenced at all courts for indictable offences by type of offence, 1999

    Total sentenced

    Discharge1

    Fine

    Community sentence2

    Immediate custody3

    Other

    Police force area

    [=100%]

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Number

    %

    Surrey

    363

    114

    31

    96

    26

    117

    32

    22

    6

    14

    4

    Sussex

    709

    220

    31

    61

    9

    326

    46

    80

    11

    22

    3

    Thames Valley

    1,061

    334

    31

    143

    13

    468

    44

    107

    10

    9

    1

    Warwickshire

    372

    87

    23

    30

    8

    209

    56

    43

    12

    3

    1

    West Mercia

    837

    256

    31

    89

    11

    385

    46

    98

    12

    9

    1

    West Midlands

    3,869

    1,080

    28

    398

    10

    1,634

    42

    598

    15

    159

    4

    West Yorkshire

    2,971

    777

    26

    232

    8

    1,487

    50

    400

    13

    75

    3

    Wiltshire

    424

    129

    30

    58

    14

    185

    44

    43

    10

    9

    2

    Dyfed Powys

    400

    135

    34

    53

    13

    180

    45

    23

    6

    9

    2

    Gwent

    671

    161

    24

    147

    22

    264

    39

    84

    13

    15

    2

    North Wales

    577

    164

    28

    92

    16

    251

    44

    58

    10

    12

    1

    South Wales

    1,815

    553

    30

    173

    10

    782

    43

    291

    16

    16

    1

    England and Wales

    50,549

    14,834

    29

    6,010

    12

    21,685

    43

    6,241

    12

    1,779

    4

    1Discharge includes absolute and conditional discharge.

    2Community sentences include probation orders, supervision orders, community service order, attendance centre order, combination order and curfew order.

    3Immediate custody includes secure training order, S53 of Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and detention in a young offender institution.

    Police Information Technology Organisation
    Dr. Ladyman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whom he will appoint to succeed Sir Trefor Morris as Chairman of the Police Information Technology Organisation. [141133]

    Mr. Straw
    I have today appointed Lieutenant-General Sir Edmund Burton to succeed Sir Trefor Moms as Chairman of the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO). Sir Edmund will take up the appointment on 1 January next year.

    I would like to pay tribute to Sir Trefor Morris for his contribution over the past three years, during which the Organisation has assumed an increasingly important role in delivering police technology. I am very pleased that we have found someone of Sir Edmund Burton's calibre to take over from him, and to lead the Organisation at a time when we are investing unprecedented amounts of money in new IT and communications projects to improve the efficiency and operational effectiveness of the police.

    Tote
    Mrs. Golding
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the progress that has been made with his plans to abolish the Horserace Betting Levy Board and to sell the Tote. [141134]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    On 2 March this year, I announced that the Government had decided to bring to an end the statutory betting levy system, to abolish the Horserace Betting Levy Board and, in principle, to sell the Horserace Totalisator Board (the Tote) to racing.

    Following that announcement, I invited the British Horseracing Board (BHB), as the sport's governing authority, to prepare a realistic plan for the future funding of racing without a statutory levy. The BHB's plan was submitted to Government on 13 October. The Government have also been considering, in discussion with the Levy Board, the BHB and other stakeholder interests, a range of practical issues arising from the abolition decision.
    692W
    So far as the sale of the Tote is concerned, racing, with the support of the Tote's own management team, are continuing to develop their detailed proposals for the acquisition of the business. The Government, meanwhile, have been considering what the detailed terms of the Tote's exclusive licence might be following the sale and developing proposals for the future regulation of horserace pool betting. We have also formally notified the European Commission of our proposals in order to obtain state aid clearance, and expect to receive its views shortly.

    The Government are also publishing today "A consultation paper on the proposed abolition of the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the licensing of racecourse betting and pool betting on horseracing".

    This consultation paper takes account of the BHB's plan and sets out the Government's detailed proposals for the abolition of the Levy Board. Specific areas covered include the BHB's proposal that it should replace the Levy Board as racing's central funding body and take control of related Levy Board's assets; the Board's responsibilities for advancing veterinary science and education and the improvement of breeds of horses; and the future of the National Stud. It also contains interim proposals, ahead of the outcome of the independent review of gambling, for the licensing and regulation of racecourse betting, including the Tote's pool betting operations.

    Publication of this paper represents the next important step towards ending the Government's direct involvement in the administration and financing of racing. The Government wish to see both racing and bookmaking flourish and we remain committed to working closely with both industries as we implement these reforms.

    Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library. The closing date for responses is 28 February 2001. Thereafter the Government intend to bring forward legislation, when parliamentary time allows, that will provide for both the abolition of the Levy Board and the sale of the Tote.

    Anti-discrimination Training
    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the companies authorised by his Department to organise specialist courses for race relations and equal opportunities training in the police force. [140341]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The Home Office has a contract with Ionann Management Consultants Ltd. to provide consultancy support and training to the police service in community race relations. Forces may take up the service of this provider if they so wish. The choice of consultant to provide such training is a matter for individual forces; the Home Office does not authorise particular companies for this purpose.

    Probation and Bail Hostels
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation and bail hostels are situated within prison grounds. [140684]

    Mr. Boateng
    There are currently no approved probation and bail hostels situated within the secure perimeter fence of any prisons.

    Blantyre House
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the closure of Blantyre House: [140970]

    (2) Who took the decision to close Blantyre House. [140971]

    Mr. Boateng
    There are no plans to close Blantyre House prison.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Earnings Top-up
    Mr. Insley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to complete his evaluation of the Earnings Top-up pilot scheme. [140595]

    Mr. Bayley
    The final results from the evaluation of the Earnings Top-up pilot will he published in the Department of Social Security Research Series at the end of January 2001. Interim findings from the evaluation were published in May 2000 (DSS Research Reports No. 112 and 113).

    Pension Schemes
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the numbers of contributors to(a) defined benefit occupational pension schemes, (b) defined contribution occupational pension schemes and (c) personal pensions in (i) 1992, (ii) 1997 and (iii) the most recent year for which figures are available. [140626]

    Mr. Rooker
    The numbers in the table are active members in contributory occupational schemes. Members of non-contributory schemes and those in schemes contracted-out of SERPS that only receive the National Insurance rebate have been excluded from the figures. Some members may not be paying contributions as some schemes are having a contribution holiday because the 694W
    pension funds are in surplus. The latest figures available are for 1995. Information is not available for 1992, so 1991 data have been chosen instead.

    Active members in schemes in year shown

    Million

    Type of scheme

    1991

    1995

    Private sector:

    Defined benefit:

    Contributory

    4.3

    4.2

    Defined contribution:

    Contributory

    0.5

    0.6

    Total

    4.8

    4.8

    Public sector:

    Defined benefit:

    Contributory

    4.0

    4.0

    Total

    4.0

    4.0

    Grand total

    8.8

    8.8

    Note:

    There are no contributory defined contribution schemes in the public sector

    Source:

    Government Actuary's Department

    The numbers of contributors to personal pensions

    Year

    Million

    1991–92

    7.3

    1996–97

    7.8

    1997–98

    8.2

    Source:

    Inland Revenue Statistics 1999

    Pensions Provision Group Reports
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Government have received the reports from the Pensions Provision Group on the self-employed and on pensions in the context of the labour market; and when it plans to publish them. [140682]

    Mr. Rooker
    The Pension Provision Group have provided us with their reports on pension provision for self-employed people and the impact on pensions of changes in the labour market. However, they are now considering whether their findings need any further development in the light of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's Statement of 9 November 2000,Official Report, column 451–71. The reports will be published in due course.

    New Deal (Disabled People)
    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had with(a) the NHS and (b)0 insurers concerning the New Deal for Disabled People and its extension. [140340]

    Mr. Bayley
    The New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP), is a joint initiative of the Department of Social Security and the Department for Education and Employment. Consultation on the national extension consisted of four strands:

    (i) consultation with NDDP Personal Adviser Service (PAS) pilots at a PAS conference in April 2000;

    695W

    (ii) consultation with NDDP providers, disability organisations, employers, clients and partnerships through a set of consultation materials and a consultation seminar held in May 2000;

    (iii) a three-day programme of discussions in May 2000 facilitated by Goodwill Global Inc with departmental officials, NDDP providers, disability and employer organisations; and

    (iv) consultation with NDDP researchers at a meeting held in May 2000.

    Contributions were invited from a range of health service organisations; and the Department of Health, an NHS Trust and a re-insurance company representing the insurers and re-insurers working in partnership with PAS pilots have all contributed to the consultation on the extension of the NDDP.

    Welfare-to-work
    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the(a) social, (b) vocational and (c) financial benefits of a rehabilitation policy that assists people to return to work. [140339]

    Mr. Bayley
    As part of the extension of the New Deal for Disabled People, the Education and Employment, Social Security and Health Departments are developing plans for the launch of the Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilots announced within Budget 2000. The pilots are due to start late next year.

    The pilots will provide robust evidence about the overall impacts of job retention and rehabilitation services and their cost effectiveness, and the relative effectiveness of different delivery and intervention strategies. The pilots are just one part of the Government's support for disabled people, helping them to achieve a better future rather than just leaving them to a life on benefits.

    Low-income Households
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioners(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in Wales live in a low-income household. [140323]

    Mr. Rooker
    The information requested can be found in the DSS publication "Households Below Average Income 1994/95-1998/99" (page 48), a copy of which is held in the Library.

    Benefit Fraud
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, for each social security administrative region, the(a) number, (b) type and (c) value of detected fraudulent claims in each of the last 10 years. [140653]

    Mr. Rooker
    The information requested is not available.

    Pension Credit
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if the savings element of pension credit will be assessed as resources for those pensioners receiving (a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit at less than the full rebate of rent and council tax; [140627]
    696W
    (2) if the savings element of the proposed pension credit will count as resources for the assessment of (a) council tax benefit and (b) housing benefit. [140632]

    Mr. Rooker
    Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit are important ways of ensuring that pensioners do not fall into poverty. The relationship between the Pension Credit and Housing and Council Tax Benefits needs to be designed carefully in order to achieve this. We have asked for views on how best this can be achieved. I refer my right hon. Friend to paragraph 34 of chapter 4 in the Pension Credit consultation document (Cm4900).

    Pensions Reforms
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 27 July 2000,Official Report, column 840W, on the effects of pensions reforms, for what reason it is not possible to provide the estimates requested; and if estimates can be made if the effects of income tax offsets are excluded. [138249]

    Mr. Rooker
    The Department's Policy Simulation Model does not enable the question put by the hon. Member to be answered.

    Euro 2000
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 4 July 2000,Official Report, column 164W, how many of the cases of people travelling to the Euro 2000 Football Championships investigated by the Benefits Agency have led to loss of benefits. [137774]

    Mr. Rooker
    Fifty-two cases were investigated by the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service following referrals from the Belgian Authorities.

    To date as a result of these investigations four claims have been withdrawn and two overpayments identified. There are a further six cases where investigations are still ongoing.

    Benefits Fraud Inspectorate
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the original budget and final expenditure for the Benefits Fraud Inspectorate in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [139007]

    Mr. Rooker
    The requested information is detailed in the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Annual Reports. Copies are available in the Library.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) of 27 March 2000,Official Report, column 31W, and hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mr. Goggins) of 8 November 2000, Official Report, columns 218–19W, for what reason the figures showing the spending on pensioners as a proportion of GDP in (a) 1996–97 and (b) 2001–02 have changed; and what is the value of public expenditure on pensioners both as a proportion of GDP and in real terms on (i) basic state retirement pensions, (ii) SERPS, (iii) income support, (iv) other means-tested benefits,

    697W
    (v) winter fuel payments, (vi) free TV licences and (vii) other benefits for pensioners, for each year between 1996–97 and 2001–02. [139252]

    Mr. Rooker
    Figures for Social Security spending on pensioners as a proportion of GDP may be revised as a result of either new forecasts of Social Security expenditure and GDP or revisions to GDP outturn figures. Detailed forecasts of expenditure on individual pensioner benefits will be published with the DSS Departmental Report next spring.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people aged over 60 are not entitled to the winter fuel payment, broken down into each of the different groups that are not entitled to the benefit. [139120]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.0

  Provisional information on the estimated numbers of people aged 60 or over who will not benefit from a winter fuel payment

  Number

  Residential Care/Nursing homes/Part III accommodation

  220,100

  Hospital in-patients (over 52 weeks)

  1400

  Sentenced prisoners

  1,100

  Notes:

  1. Pensioners are defined as benefit units where either the claimant and/or partner are aged 60 or over.

  2. Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3. Numbers are based on 5 per cent. sample data, and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  4. Numbers marked1 are based on very few sample cases and are subject to a high degree of error. These figures should be used as a guide to the current situation only.

  5. The entry under Residential Care homes also includes Polish Resettlement Homes.

  Sources:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, August 2000. Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 2000.

  Home Office Statistics. October 2000.

  Payroll Administration
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 16 November, Official Report, column 793W, on payroll administration what estimate he has made of the(a) total wages and (b) total expenses in fiscal years (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01 of administering his Department's integrated pay, personnel and expenses system. [139768]

  Mr. Rooker
  The staff costs associated with administration of the Department's payroll, personnel and expenses system for 1999–2000 was £4,788,800 on salaries and £33,000 on expenses. For 2000–01, it is estimated at £4,096,400 on salaries and £36,000 on expenses. For 2001–02, after completion of payroll restructuring in January 2001, it is estimated that costs will reduce to £2,077,400 for salaries and 30,000 for expenses.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which exchange rates are used to convert income denominated in foreign currencies into sterling when assessing income for benefits purposes; and how often these exchange rates are reviewed. [140403]
  698W
  Mr. Rooker
  With the exception of the Irish pound, the income is converted into sterling using the Bank of England exchange rates of transfer at the date of receipt. Daily rates are published in newspapers and a record of earlier rates is kept at the Department's Overseas Branch in Newcastle.

  Details of the exchange rate for the Irish pound at the date of receipt are obtained from the Bank of Ireland.

  Expenditure (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of the social security budget was spent in Wales, broken down by the expenditure headings of his Departmental budget, in the most recent year for which figures are available. [140435]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  The benefit expenditure for Wales for 1999–2000

  Benefit

  £ million

  Retirement Pension—basic

  1,752

  Retirement Pension—AP

  236

  Christmas bonus

  6

  Widow's Benefit—basic

  40

  Widow's Benefit—AP

  13

  Jobseeker's Allowance contributory

  26

  Incapacity Benefit-Basic

  574

  Incapacity Benefit-AP

  73

  Statutory Sick Pay

  3

  Maternity Allowance

  1

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  28

  Guardian's Allowance and CSA

  1—

  Non-Contributory Retirement

  1

  Non-Contributory Christmas Bonus

  1

  War Pension

  58

  Attendance Allowance

  219

  Invalid Care Allowance

  69

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  69

  Disability Living Allowance

  475

  Disability Working Allowance

  4

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  62

  Industrial Death Benefit

  5

  Other II benefits

  1—

  Jobseeker's Allowance income-based

  139

  Income Support-under 60

  487

  Income Support-over 60

  213

  Child Benefit (with Lone Parent addition)

  420

  Family Credit

  116

  Earnings Top-Up Pilots † VDP

  2

  Independent Living Fund

  10

  Motability and Blesma

  1—

  Social Fund

  14

  Winter Fuel Payments

  51

  Rent Allowance

  224

  Council Tax Benefit

  101

  Rent Rebate—DSS

  1

  Misc funding for savings

  1

  DSS AME Total

  5,492

  Grand total of benefit expenditure

  5,802

  1 Expenditure of less than £0.5 million

  Notes:

  1. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  2. The proportions of benefit expenditure in Wales have been calculated for each benefit, to give an overall proportion of 5.9 per cent. for the DSS AME total. This proportion has then been applied to the grand total of benefit expenditure to give the total expenditure for Wales of 5.8 billion.

  3. The grand total of benefit expenditure includes all local authority spending on Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit in addition to the money funded directly from Central Government.

  Source:

  Pre-Budget report 2000.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the(a) real terms and (b) percentage changes in child benefit in each of the last 20 years. [140479]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The information is in the tables.

  Eldest child rates

  Uprating date

  Rate of Child Benefit

  Actual difference

  Percentage difference

  November 1980

  4.75

  —

  —

  November 1981

  5.25

  0.50

  10.53

  November 1982

  5.85

  0.60

  11.43

  November 1983

  6.50

  0.65

  11.11

  November 1984

  6.85

  0.35

  5.38

  November 1985

  7.00

  0.15

  2.19

  July 1986

  7.10

  0.10

  1.43

  April 1987

  7.25

  0.15

  2.11

  April 1988

  7.25

  0.00

  0.00

  April 1989

  7.25

  0.00

  0.00

  April 1990

  7.25

  0.00

  0.00

  April 1991

  8.25

  1.00

  13.79

  October 1991

  9.25

  1.00

  12.12

  April 1992

  9.65

  0.40

  4.32

  April 1993

  10.00

  0.35

  3.63

  April 1994

  10.20

  0.20

  2.00

  April 1995

  10.40

  0.20

  1.96

  April 1996

  10.80

  0.40

  3.85

  April 1997

  11.05

  0.25

  2.31

  April 1998

  11.45

  0.40

  3.62

  April 1999

  14.40

  2.95

  25.76

  April 2000

  15.00

  0.60

  4.17

  Housing Benefit expenditure

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  North East

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  522

  543

  537

  539

  North West

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,335

  1,430

  1,424

  1,420

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  796

  832

  830

  831

  East Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  548

  573

  568

  565

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  875

  914

  901

  900

  Eastern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  776

  808

  789

  780

  London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,644

  2,735

  2,611

  2,528

  South East

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,225

  1,283

  1,234

  1,211

  South West

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  764

  789

  766

  757

  England (Total)

  3,493

  4,274

  5,423

  6,721

  8,002

  8,787

  9,484

  9,907

  9,661

  9,531

  Wales

  221

  247

  294

  358

  410

  452

  484

  506

  501

  500

  Scotland

  519

  573

  642

  733

  805

  864

  907

  967

  1,014

  1,036

  Great Britain

  4,233

  5,094

  6,359

  7,812

  9,217

  10,103

  10,875

  11,380

  11,176

  11,067

  Note:

  As a breakdown by GOR is not available for earlier years the reply provides figures for each of the countries and Great Britain from 1994–95 to 1998–99

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Subsidy claim forms from local authorities and Housing Revenue Account data from the Department of the Environment

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will review the advice given in Paying Child Maintenance Direct for Your Earnings that working
  700W

  subsequent child rates

  Uprating date

  Rate of Child Benefit

  Actual difference

  Percentage difference

  November 1980

  4.75

  —

  —

  November 1981

  5.25

  0.50

  10.53

  November 1982

  5.85

  0.60

  11.43

  November 1983

  6.50

  0.65

  11.11

  November 1984

  6.85

  0.35

  5.38

  November 1985

  7.00

  0.15

  2.19

  July 1986

  7.10

  0.10

  1.43

  April 1987

  7.25

  0.15

  2.11

  April 1988

  7.25

  0.00

  0.00

  April 1989

  7.25

  0.00

  0.00

  April 1990

  7.25

  0.00

  0.00

  April 1991

  7.25

  0.00

  0.00

  October 1991

  7.50

  0.25

  3.45

  April 1992

  7.80

  0.30

  4.00

  April 1993

  8.10

  0.30

  3.85

  April 1994

  8.25

  0.15

  1.85

  April 1995

  8.45

  0.20

  2.42

  April 1996

  8.80

  0.35

  4.14

  April 1997

  9.00

  0.20

  2.27

  April 1998

  9.30

  0.30

  3.33

  April 1999

  9.60

  0.30

  3.23

  April 2000

  10.00

  0.40

  4.17

  Note:

  1. The Retail Prices Index (all items) has been used, as published by the Office for National Statistics.

  2. The rate of Child Benefit for Lone Parents has not been included.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was spent for each social security administrative region on Housing Benefit over the last 10 years. [140685]

  Angela Eagle
  The available data are given in the table. The information is given by Government Office Regions as Social Security administrative regions are not coterminous with those of local authorities who administer Housing Benefit.

  Families Tax Credit should not be classed as earnings and Part II Child Support (maintenance Assessments and special cases) Regulation 1992 paragraph 7(2) that payments to a person by way of Family Credit shall be treated as income; [140606]
  701W
  (2) if Working Family Tax Credit is claimed as earnings in a maintenance assessment by the Child Support Agency. (140602]

  Angela Eagle
  As a supplement to earnings, Working Families Tax Credit paid to a non-resident parent is properly treated as income in the calculation of maintenance liability. The formula makes separate allowance for any children in a non-resident parent's second family. Working Families Tax Credit paid to the parent with care is not taken into account as he or she is already meeting the day to day costs of raising the child.

  All leaflets on child support are kept under regular review.

  Benefits (Selby)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the constituency of Selby have been in receipt of(a) Income Support, (b) Disability Living Allowance, (c) Incapacity Benefit, (d) Unemployment Benefit and (e) Housing Benefit in each of the last 10 years. [140243]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. John Grogan, dated 28 November 2000:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Alexis Cleveland to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people in the constituency of Selby have been in receipt of (a) income support, (b) disability living allowance. (c) incapacity benefit, (d) unemployment benefit and (e) housing benefit in each of the last 10 years. Due to annual leave I ani replying on her behalf.

  The data is not available in the requested format however the information that is available is supplied in the attached tables. Data has also been provided for the Local Authority of Selby, as figures at Constituency level are only available from 1998.

  I hope this is helpful.

  (a) Income Support

  Year

  Selby local authority

  Selby constituency

  May

  1992

  3,200

  —

  1993

  3,100

  —

  1994

  3,400

  —

  1995

  3,500

  —

  1996

  3,000

  —

  1997

  2,800

  —

  1998

  2,700

  3,200

  1999

  2,700

  3,200

  2000

  3,000

  3,400

  Notes:

  1. Constituency information represents constituency boundaries as at May 1997.

  2. Parliamentary constituency data are only available from 1998 onwards.

  3. The numbers are based on a 5 per cent. sample data and are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  4. Jobseeker's Allowance replaced Unemployment Benefit and Income Support for the unemployed from October 1996.

  5. There were changes in the boundaries covering Selby local authority during May 1995.

  6. Local authority figures are unavailable before 1992.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, May 1992—May 2000 (5 per cent. samples)
  702W

  (b) Disability Living Allowance

  Year

  Selby local authority

  Selby constituency

  May

  1993

  1,400

  —

  1994

  1,200

  —

  1995

  1,500

  —

  1996

  1,600

  —

  1997

  1,700

  —

  1998

  1,770

  2,054

  1999

  1,845

  2,145

  2000

  1,916

  2,219

  Notes:

  1. Constituency information represents constituency boundaries as at May 1997.

  2. Parliamentary constituency data are only available from 1998 onwards.

  3. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample apart from 1998, 1999 and 2000, which are based on 100 per cent. data and are not rounded.

  4. There were changes in the boundaries covering Selby local authority during May 1995

  Sources:

  Information Centre sample data (DLA) May 1993-May 1997 (5 per cent. samples)

  Information Centre sample data (DLA) May 1998-May 2000
  (100 per cent. data)

  (c) Incapacity Benefit

  Year

  Selby local authority

  Selby constituency

  May

  1995

  2,100

  —

  1996

  2,100

  —

  1997

  2,100

  —

  1998

  2,200

  2,400

  1999

  2,000

  2,200

  2000

  2,000

  2,200

  Notes:

  1. Constituency information represents constituency boundaries as at May 1997.

  2. Parliamentary constituency data are only available from 1998 onwards.

  3. Incapacity Benefit figures exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

  4. The numbers are based on 5 per cent. sample data and are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  5. There were changes in the boundaries covering Selby local authority during May 1995.

  Source:

  Incapacity Benefit: Figures are taken from 5 per cent. samples of the benefit computer system.

  (d) Unemployment Benefit/Jobseeker's Allowance

  Year

  Selby local authority

  Selby constituency

  November 1996

  1,900

  —

  May 1997

  1,700

  —

  May 1998

  1,500

  1,700

  May 1999

  1,100

  1,300

  May 2000

  900

  1,000

  Notes:

  1. Constituency information represents constituency boundaries as at May 1997.

  2. Parliamentary constituency data are only available from 1998 onwards.

  3. Jobseeker's Allowance replaced Unemployment Benefit and Income Support for the unemployed from October 1996.

  4. Jobseeker's Allowance numbers include claimants receiving either Income-based and/or contribution-based JSA and claimants receiving no benefit, but sign for National Insurance credits only.

  5. Estimates for local authority areas or parliamentary constituency are not available for Unemployment Benefit.

  6. The figures are based on 5 per cent. sample data and are rounded to the nearest hundred.
  703W
  7. There were changes in the boundaries covering Selby local authority during May 1995.

  8. Care should be taken when using the figure for November 1996 due to the seasonal nature of unemployment. This is the first available data for JSA, which was introduced in October 1996.

  Source:

  Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, November 1966-May 2000 (5 per cent. samples)

  (e) Housing Benefit

  Year

  Selby local authority

  May

  1992

  3,560

  1993

  2,660

  1994

  2,790

  1995

  3,640

  1996

  3,400

  1997

  3,390

  1998

  3,200

  1999

  3,360

  2000

  3,060

  Notes:

  1. Parliamentary constituency data are unavailable for Housing Benefit.

  2. Housing Benefit figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  3. Housing Benefit figures are based on 100 per cent data.

  4. Housing Benefit data refers to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  5. Housing Benefit figures exclude Extended Payment cases, which were only available from May 1997.

  6. There were changes in the boundaries covering Selby local authority during May 1995.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit quarterly 100 per cent. caseload counts.

  TREASURY

    Personal Pension Schemes
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people with personal pension schemes are owed outstanding national insurance contribution rebates;

    Economically inactive rates1 by regions (GORs)2, spring (March to May) 1992-2000

    Spring

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    United Kingdom

    36.9

    37.3

    37.4

    37.6

    37.5

    37.3

    37.5

    37.1

    36.9

    Great Britain

    36.8

    37.2

    37.3

    37.5

    37.4

    37.2

    37.4

    37.0

    36.7

    England

    36.5

    36.7

    37.0

    37.1

    36.9

    36.9

    37.0

    36.5

    36.3

    North East

    40.9

    41.3

    41.8

    42.3

    41.5

    41.5

    42.8

    42.8

    41.3

    North West

    38.7

    39.1

    39.3

    40.4

    39.6

    40.0

    40.9

    39.7

    38.7

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    37.6

    37.5

    38.2

    37.9

    38.4

    38.9

    38.5

    38.5

    37.6

    East Midlands

    35.9

    35.8

    36.8

    36.5

    35.9

    35.8

    36.1

    36.3

    35.3

    West Midlands

    37.2

    37.4

    36.8

    37.4

    37.3

    37.5

    37.0

    36.8

    37.7

    East

    34.2

    34.2

    34.7

    34.5

    35.2

    35.6

    34.6

    34.8

    34.9

    London

    36.2

    35.5

    36.4

    36.4

    35.9

    35.3

    36.4

    35.0

    35.4

    South East

    33.7

    35.0

    34.6

    34.6

    34.0

    34.0

    33.7

    33.4

    33.0

    South West

    37.5

    37.6

    37.4

    37.3

    37.9

    36.7

    36.8

    36.1

    36.3

    Wales

    42.3

    43.6

    42.8

    42.5

    42.7

    41.8

    43.6

    42.6

    42.5

    Scotland

    36.6

    38.2

    37.3

    38.0

    38.5

    38.0

    8.1

    38.5

    37.5

    Northern Ireland

    39.9

    41.6

    42.3

    41.3

    40.8

    40.3

    40.6

    40.5

    42.2

    1Total economically inactive as a percentage of all persons in each region

    2Government Office Regions (GORs) only available since 1992

    Source:

    ONS—Labour Force Survey
    704W
    how much these rebates are worth in total; and when the Government expects to have paid all the outstanding rebates. [135725]

    (2) how many people with personal pension schemes have already received national insurance contribution rebates that were previously outstanding; and how much these rebates are worth in total. [135723]

    Dawn Primarolo
    There are approximately 119,000 people awaiting rebates for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 tax years. About £80.75 million of rebates remain to be paid.

    Approximately 4 million people have received rebates that were previously outstanding and these rebates amount to about £2.1 billion.

    We expect to have reached the normal situation in relation to payment of outstanding rebates by March 2001.

    Labour Force Inactivity
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the labour force inactivity rates were for each of the last 10 years in each standard planning region. [140683]

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

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Win Griffiths, dated 29 November 2000:
    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about the labour force inactivity rates for the last 10 years.
    The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is the main source of labour market data on individuals used by National Statistics. Government Office Regions (GORs) have only been used by the LFS since 1992. Previous to 1992 the Standard Statistical Regions (SSRs) were used. For comparability, only data from spring 1992 has been supplied. The table overleaf shows the inactivity rates in each of the GORs in the UK since spring 1992.
    People aged 16 or over are classed as economically inactive by the LFS if they are neither employed or ILO unemployed. This group includes for example all those who were looking after a home or retired.

    Overseas Assets
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total value is of the United Kingdom's overseas assets; and if he will give a breakdown of the countries in which they are held. [139477]

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

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Bercow, dated 29 November 2000:

    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the total value of UK assets held abroad and the countries in which they are held. (139477)

    The latest estimates for UK assets held abroad are shown in the following table.

    £ billion

    1989

    942.8

    1990

    896.4

    1991

    938.8

    1992

    1,144.9

    1993

    1,351.2

    1994

    1,337.9

    1995

    1,539.4

    1996

    1,634.4

    1997

    1,942.2

    1998

    2,112.5

    1999

    2,343.2

    Source:

    Table 8.1, UK Balance of Payments Pink Book 2000

    The Office for National Statistics does not compile a geographical breakdown of the United Kingdom's assets held abroad.

    National Insurance
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the increase in revenue to the Exchequer in the financial year 2001–02 as a result of(a) raising the upper earnings limit on employee national insurance contributions to the threshold of the higher rate of income tax of £629.28 per week and (b) removing the upper earnings limit on employee national insurance contributions. [140208]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The estimated full year effects for 2001–02 are in the table:

    £ million

    2001–02 full year effects

    Raising the upper earnings limit to the weekly equivalent of the higher rate threshold for income tax of £652.60 per week

    †700

    Abolishing the upper earnings limit

    †3,050

    Scottish Taxpayers
    Mr. Swinney
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much(a) income tax and (b) national insurance contributions was raised from the (i) top 1 per cent., (ii) top 5 per cent., (iii) top 10 per cent. and (iv) bottom 50 per cent. of taxpayers in Scotland in the last year for which figures are available; [139819]
    706W
    (2) how many people in Scotland paid no income tax in the last year for which figures are available. [139820]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 24 November 2000]: The amount of income tax and National Insurance contributions raised from the different quantile groups of taxpayers in Scotland in 2000–01 are given in the table.

    Estimated liability of income taxpayers

    £ billion

    Quantile group1

    Income tax

    National insurance contributions

    Top 1 per cent.

    1.12

    0.26

    Top 5 per cent.

    2.34

    0.79

    Top 10 per cent.

    3.13

    1.30

    Bottom 50 per cent.

    0.93

    0.75

    1 Quantiles are in terms of income tax liabilities

    In 1999–2000 about 2.8 million people in Scotland paid no income tax including children.

    Budget Council
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the Budget Council held in Brussels on 23 and 24 November; and if he will make a statement. [140782]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Budget Council gave its second reading to the Draft EC Budget for 2001 on 23 and 24 November. This was consistent with UK objectives. Council was firmly against any reopening of the financial perspective agreed at Berlin. The Council fully respects the EU's obligations with respect to needs in Serbia, and it is clear that the EU's share of reconstruction activity in Serbia can be met without revising the financial perspective ceiling.

    Mortgage Lending Regulation
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action she is taking to regulate the giving of advice on the selling of mortgage products. [140900]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 27 January 2000,Official Report, column 263W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) on the question of regulation of mortgage lending.

    Royal Mint
    Mr. Ian Stewart
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what performance target he has set for the Royal Mint for the financial year 2000–01. [141163]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    I have set the Royal Mint the target of achieving a rate of return on net assets of 7 per cent. for 2000–01. This is a decrease from the target of 14.6 per cent. set for 1999–2000, owing to the operational problems the Royal Mint has recently been experiencing.
    707W
    Some of the Royal Mint's other performance targets (for customer service) have been tightened, while others remain as before. The targets for 2000–01 are:
    97 per cent. of accepted orders from UK banks and the Post Office for UK circulating coin to be delivered within 11 working days.
    95 per cent. of UK collector coin orders from individual UK customers to be delivered within 25 days.
    97 per cent. of medals orders to be delivered by the agreed delivery date;
    99.7 per cent. of collector products accepted by individual UK customers.

    Church Repairs (VAT)
    Mr. Gale
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has received from the European Commission to his request for a reduction in VAT for repairs to churches; and if he will make a statement. [140590]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The Commission are currently considering our request.

    Judges' Lodgings
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions the Inland Revenue has had with the Lord Chancellor's Department concerning the benefit of judges' lodgings; and if he will make a statement. [140788]

    1. Appointments in the calendar years 1990–961

    1990

    1991

    1992

    1993

    Total

    Solicitors

    Total

    Solicitors

    Total

    Solicitors

    Total

    Solicitors

    High Court Judges

    5

    0

    5

    0

    10

    0

    20

    1

    Circuit Judges

    27

    2

    47

    10

    54

    9

    47

    7

    Assistant Recorders

    37

    6

    32

    12

    35

    5

    39

    10

    District Judges2

    6

    5

    27

    24

    40

    40

    40

    38

    Deputy District Judges2

    29

    27

    79

    79

    82

    76

    105

    101

    1994

    1995

    1996

    Total

    Solicitors

    Total

    Solicitors

    Total

    Solicitors

    High Court Judges

    8

    0

    12

    0

    9

    0

    Circuit Judges

    35

    4

    48

    16

    45

    5

    Assistant Recorders

    50

    13

    58

    9

    8

    16

    District Judges2

    31

    28

    31

    30

    24

    22

    Deputy District Judges2

    20

    17

    63

    56

    7

    6

    1These figures are those that are the most readily available from existing computerised records but may not be wholly comprehensive because of changes in recording procedures. The figures for the earlier years in particular may be incomplete because of appointees who had been removed from the computer database because of death, retirement etc. before the recording procedures changed.

    2Including Family Division

    2. Appointments in the last three financial years

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    Total

    Solicitors

    Total

    Solicitors

    Total

    Solicitors

    High Court Judges

    9

    0

    7

    0

    8

    0

    Circuit Judges1

    34

    3

    15

    1

    31

    8

    Assistant Recorders2

    93

    12

    150

    10

    113

    9

    District Judges1,3

    37

    36

    43

    39

    27

    34

    Deputy District Judges1,3

    63

    57

    100

    86

    125

    102

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

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

    3Including Family Division

    708W
    Dawn Primarolo
    The same rules governing the taxation and reporting of benefits apply to Government Departments as to other employers. Discussion about particular issues is a matter between the employer or taxpayer concerned and the Revenue.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Solicitors
    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many solicitors have been appointed as judges in each year since 1990. [140497]

    Jane Kennedy
    The following tables give the numbers of solicitors appointed to the main full-time and part-time judicial offices since 1990. The first table provides the figures which are readily available for appointments in the calendar years 1990 to 1996 inclusive. The second table provides the figures for appointments for the last three complete financial years. A further table gives the statistics for those judges in the same categories appointed between 1 April and 31 October 2000. Of all appointments in the main open competition in 1999–2000, 46.6 per cent. were of solicitors.
    709W

    3. Appointments 1 April 2000 to 31 October 2000

    Total

    Solicitors

    High Court Judges

    11

    1

    Circuit Judges1

    8

    6

    District Judges2,3

    3

    2

    1Candidates who were interviewed in the competitions in 1999–2000, were originally on the reserve list, and were subsequently appointed. The total figures for those who have taken up post since 1 April 2000 are, therefore, the figures in table 2 plus those in table 3.

    2 Including Family Division

    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if, prior to being appointed as a judge, a solicitor is required to have sat as a recorder. [140470]

    Jane Kennedy
    The statutory qualifications for appointment as a Circuit Judge (under s.16(3) of the Courts Act 1971 as subsequently amended) are:

    i. to have a 10 year general qualification within the meaning of s.71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (i.e. a right of audience in the Crown Court or county court); or

    ii. to be a Recorder; or

    iii. to have held for three years one of the judicial posts specified in Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.

    The Lord Chancellor's general policy is to expect candidates for appointment who meet one of the other two statutory requirements to have served as a Recorder but he operates this policy flexibly in the light of particular circumstances.

    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what specific training a qualified solicitor will have to undertake prior to taking up an appointment as a judge. [140498]
    710W
    Mr. Lock
    Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB), an independent non-departmental public body which is chaired by Lord Justice Waller.

    Solicitors may be appointed to a variety of judicial offices and the training provided by the JSB is specific to each one. It is normally a requirement for an individual to have served in a part-time judicial capacity before being appointed to a permanent judicial office. In general, anyone appointed to a part-time office must attend a four or five day induction course run by the JSB, and undertake a period of sitting-in with an experienced judge before sitting judicially for the first time. Thereafter, all full and part-time judges receive continuation training from the JSB, in each of the jurisdictions that they exercise, every three years.

    Judges' Lodgings
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance he issues to High Court judges, when completing their tax returns, in relation to the benefits in kind of judges' lodgings accommodation, entertaining and transport; and if he will make a statement. [140789]

    Mr. Lock
    None.

  PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    People's Peers
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the President of the Council what plans the Government have to introduce a special allowance, on appointment, to people's peers to help with the cost of incidental expenses. [140336]

    Mrs. Beckett
    None. Those recommended for life peerages by the Appointments Commission will receive exactly the same entitlement to expenses allowances as all other life peers.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Supermarkets: Competition Commission Report
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
What importance they attach to the recommendations in the Competition Commission's report on supermarkets, published in October, that a code of practice should be drawn up to counter adverse practices that supermarkets inflict on suppliers and that an independent third party should be established to report breaches to the Office of Fair Trading.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Government have welcomed the Competition Commission's report, the recommendations of which have been accepted by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We are keen to establish effective relationships within the supply chain and have pursued this aim as part of our long-term strategy for agriculture. We therefore attach particular importance to the development of a code of practice with suppliers.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am pleased that her Ministry will attach particular importance to relationships with suppliers. Does she agree that one of the difficulties for the public is that they do not know what price farmers and growers receive from supermarkets and it is confusing for them to hear that farmers are receiving almost nothing for their produce when consumers are paying a fair price for it? Does she further agree that farmers' markets are popular because that link is obvious? Will she ensure that the code is drawn up in a way which helps small producers and co-operatives, and that it will include a requirement on supermarkets to publish figures of the amount of local and British produce sold and the percentage of the price that farmers receive for that produce? Does she further agree that it is very important that the code does not deter supermarkets from buying British produce by driving them to buy overseas?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Baroness said, in particular with regard to the desire of consumers to have the opportunity to buy British food and local food, which has advantages for both the environment and local producers. The rise in the popularity of farmers' markets confirms that. As
1314
to the code, it will follow very closely the specific concerns about competitiveness identified in the commission's report. It will require that supermarkets' standard terms of business are available on request; that supermarkets do not delay payments to suppliers; it will outlaw retrospective price reductions and prevent supermarkets from seeking payments as a pre-condition of supply—many of the things that suppliers were concerned about. The OFT will seek the views of suppliers on the draft code when it has been drawn up.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the National Farmers Union told the Competition Commission that very few individual farmers were willing to give details of the bullying tactics to which they had been subjected by supermarkets because they feared reprisals? Bearing that in mind, does the Minister feel that a code of practice will be effective if it is dependent upon individual farmers and other producers making complaints to the Office of Fair Trading? Indeed, what will be the sanctions if supermarkets ignore the requirements laid down by the Competition Commission and the code?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there are often difficulties in going from the anecdotal to the evidence. I have outlined the areas that the code will cover. They represent exactly the kinds of situations that one has heard farmers complaining about, such as retrospective price reductions and the imposition of unfair penalty payments and so on. I should make clear that the code of practice will be binding. The supermarkets will be expected to give legally binding undertakings to comply with these remedies, which will include provision for independent dispute resolution. So there will be legal remedies. The Secretary of State has made clear that he wants the code finalised quickly and has asked the Director-General of Fair Trading to report back to him on progress by mid-January.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that yesterday I received a reply from one of her colleagues saying that the age of the marketing board was over? Does she not agree that under the marketing board—and possibly subsequently under Milk Marque, which has now been broken up—the price of milk for consumers in this country was the lowest in Europe and the farmers got a fair return? Does she think that the new body will have any effect whatever?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we are all aware—and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will make sure that we remember—of the problems there have been recently in the dairy industry. We welcome the recent announcement of price increases for the autumn of around 2p per litre and that both the international commodity market and UK production point towards more optimism, in the short term at least. The noble Lord will also be pleased about the setting up of the Milk Task Force, announced on 23rd November, which has been welcomed by the NFU. Its membership will reflect the key areas of the

1315
dairy food chain, from production to retail. It will ensure greater efficiencies and greater long-term stability in the dairy industry.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister agree with her noble friend Lord Borrie that some producers showed great hesitation in giving evidence to the commission? If she does agree, is she not equally concerned that they will also hesitate to report supermarkets to whom they are suppliers? This is part of the difficulty. Does she agree that it is important that we should revisit the issue of labelling? We currently have the "red tractor" promotion, but we are still unable to label our products as UK products. Now that our beef has to be labelled "UK" for French purposes, is it not high time that all UK-grown produce should be "UK" labelled as well?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is perfectly possible for people voluntarily to label produce with its country of origin. That can be done very distinctively. The red tractor mark, which covers a variety of issues about quality assurance, is important for consumers. As to the reluctance of people to give evidence, the importance of the code is that it will lay down that legal undertakings must be given by the supermarkets to abide by its terms. It will address the practices that have been of concern to suppliers and enable them to take action against supermarkets. It will also provide for independent arbitration, if necessary, when there are disputes.

NHS and the Euro
2.38 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will postpone instructions to the National Health Service to incur expenditure on preparations for Britain joining the euro until such time as Britain decides to do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, NHS bodies were asked to undertake a measure of pre-planning for possible UK entry to the single currency. This has been a limited management exercise and resources have not been diverted from patient care.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House who authorised health authorities and trusts not to tell MPs how much money was being spent on this exercise, and why the instruction was given? Is this not taxpayers' money? Can he further inform the House of the volume of trade carried on by the NHS with the 11 countries mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of
1316
Haringey, during Questions on 25th October? Why is it thought that the NHS is incapable of carrying out currency conversions?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we do not have specific information on trade with other countries. It is thought that most trade with such countries would be through wholesalers. I understand that the National Blood Authority mentions trade with foreign countries in its annual accounts.
As regards the implications of potential entry into the euro, if this were to happen the NHS could expect to receive euro invoices under the "no compulsion, no prohibition" rule and would need to be covered by a multi-currency financial system. However, I assure the noble Baroness that no expenditure has been diverted from patient care to undertake what has been a very limited pre-planning exercise. Information has been made available in Answers to parliamentary Questions, or could be made available centrally. Thus, we sought to ensure that 500 different NHS bodies did not have the bureaucratic burden of responding individually.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps I may help the House on this matter. Clearly, the National Health Service must import drugs and equipment from Asia and North America and from various parts of Europe, in and outside the European Union. Why should it have difficulty in adding one more currency to the large number in which it already deals?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, surely that is the whole point of a limited pre-planning exercise: to examine the implications for the National Health Service in the event that this country were to enter the euro. As I explained, if Britain were to enter, during any transition period the NHS could expect to receive euro invoices under the "no compulsion, no prohibition" rule.
Noble Lords: So what?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, noble Lords say, "So what?". If that were to occur, the NHS would have to be geared up to be able to deal with it. That is the whole point of pre-planning—to see exactly what would be involved for the National Health Service.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, whether we are in or out of the single currency, wise preparation for the euro now will mean considerable savings of pounds for the NHS, which increasingly uses the euro base and the developing single European market in medical goods and pharmaceuticals? This is a sprat to catch a very considerable mackerel.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend puts it very well. The National Health Service needs to develop the most up-to-date financial systems possible to ensure that its financial management procedures are as effective as they can be. If, as part of

1317
that process, multi-currency systems can be developed, the NHS will incur little extra cost, its financial systems will be better, and, in the event of this country entering the euro, it would be fully prepared.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister considers it good for the health of Members of the Official Opposition to continue to worry about this issue. Is this not a typical "euro-myth" over a matter of a few hundred pounds of expenditure?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the health of the Opposition is a matter of great concern to all of us. Noble Lords are getting themselves unduly exercised in this area. Surely we want a National Health Service that is prepared for potential possible change. That is all that is happening. A very limited pre-planning exercise has taken place. I would rather have an NHS that looks to the future than one that might be caught out by change.
Lord Elton: My Lords, without "getting myself unduly exercised", may I ask the noble Lord—who has twice told us that not a penny has been diverted from patient care—where the resources have been diverted from and how many pennies they amounted to?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the great bulk of the pre-planning work has been done by serving administrative and financial officers within NHS organisations as part of their normal duties.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, may I put it to the noble Lord that he should cease to worry about the health of the Opposition—which is in a very fine state indeed? Will he please answer my question? I have in my hand a letter giving the instruction that MPs are not to be informed of these matters. If individual MPs cannot be informed, can we be told the total sum involved?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as regards the health of the Opposition, I should have thought that the three by-elections last week told their own story. So far as concerns the advice given to the health service and the letter from Dr Liam Fox, Opposition spokesman on health in another place—and in response to the concerns of noble Lords opposite about bureaucracy in the NHS—we wanted to ensure that 500 different organisations were not unduly burdened by responding separately and individually to the honourable gentleman. As I have said to the noble Baroness, the information that Dr Fox sought has either been answered or could be answered through parliamentary Questions. Surely it is better that that is done. I have already responded by saying that the pre-planning exercise has cost very limited extra resources. To take the case of the Buckinghamshire health authority, a few weeks ago the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, not letting facts get in the way of a good story, asserted that the authority was spending £1.5 million this year on pre-planning. As the statement issued by
1318
the Buckinghamshire health authority made clear, the amount of time and money taken up by this exercise so far has been a few days in each organisation and equates to a cost of several hundred pounds.

Community Law
2.47 p.m.
Lord Waddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, after the adoption of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Court of Justice will take account of its provisions in interpreting and considering the scope of Community law.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the charter will be adopted as a political declaration. It establishes no new powers for the EU or the European Court of Justice. The Union is already obliged by Article 6(2) of the Treaty on the European Union to respect fundamental rights as general principles of Community law. The ECJ is responsible for ensuring this. In interpreting Article 6(2), the Court can have regard to any material it considers relevant. This may include the charter. But that does not make this declaratory charter legally binding.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The Minister for Europe likened the charter to the Beano comic, and both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said— as the Minister herself has told the House—that it is a mere political declaration and will not impact on national law. However, does he agree that the Commission, in an official communication, and the vice-president of the European Court of Human Rights have stated that the charter will become mandatory through the European Court's interpretation of it and that our judges will have to apply it? Who is right? Surely it is plainly wrong to assert, as the Government have, that the charter is a mere showcase of existing rights and will not affect member states. One has only to look at Article 19, which purports to restrict the right of member states to extradite criminals.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I know that on this topic, too, noble Lords opposite have been exercised in a way similar to that just referred to by my noble friend. Perhaps I may speak plainly and assist the noble Lord in relation to the Commission's attitude to the charter. The Commission's press release of 12th September, regarding what the charter will not be, stated:
"It will not be a vehicle to extend or reduce the powers of the Union and the Community. Changes in any powers are a matter for the Intergovernmental Conference only, not for the Convention. As the discussions within the Convention have shown, it will not require any amendments to the Member States' constitutions. It will basically group together rights already existing in different documents and in the Treaties. It will have no

1319
impact on forms of court action or the court structure put in place by the Treaties, as it does not provide for new channels of access to Community courts. It neither requires nor precludes the European Union's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. This matter does not fall within the remit of the Convention".
People have been very careful which quotations from the Commission they choose to adopt. The Commission has made it absolutely clear that the charter is not a binding document; it is declaratory. The courts can take it into account, but it is not legally binding. I invite the noble Lord's attention to the end of the charter, especially Articles 52 and 53. The House will find that that puts the matter very much in its proper context.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords—
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, in any event, does my noble friend agree that it is not desirable for this House to give instructions to the European Court of Justice, any more than it would through any avenue of law enforcement in this country? Indeed, the noble Lord is a Queen's Counsel and should know much better than that.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is an opportunity for us to exercise not only judgment but also moderation. As has been rightly said, the matter will be capable of being taken into account by the European Court of Justice. The Court has indicated that it understands that this is a political document, which is declaratory in nature, and, therefore, will have to be approached appropriately.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords—
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Lester!
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I believe that there is probably enough time for both noble Lords to put their questions, provided that they are reasonably brief.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister told us most eloquently everything that the new charter is not. We already have the European Convention on Human Rights, which our courts are seeking to assimilate, and our national rules governing people's rights. In addition, we are being threatened with a Commission document encapsulating the rights and aims of the European Union. If, on top of that, this new charter really does not add anything at all, what on earth is the point of the whole endeavour?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I believe that I have answered that point on a number of occasions. However, I am quite happy to repeat my answer. Clarity is always of use—making visible those
1320
rights that we already have is a matter of real importance to the peoples of our countries. The charter will be a measure that can be used to good effect by ordinary men and women. Indeed, to highlight the issue raised in this House previously, perhaps the lawyers will not have it all their own way.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords does the Minister agree that it is desirable for the European Court of Justice to have regard in areas of EU competence to the charter and the European convention to protect the individual citizen against the misuse of power by EU institutions and officials? Taking the specific example given by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, does the Minister also agree that Article 19 of the charter, to which he takes objection, is already in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which forbids inhuman or degrading treatment, punishment or torture?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The ECJ will be able to take these measures into account, as is proper. However, as the noble Lord pointed out, a good basis for the upholding of those rights is already inherent in the current structure that we have. It is a persuasive document, but nothing more.

Asylum Seekers
2.54 p.m.
Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the latest monthly figures for asylum applications shed any light on the progress of their attempt to deter applicants from applying for asylum in the United Kingdom by changing the way they are treated when they arrive.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the Government's strategy is to create a fairer, faster and firmer system under which genuine refugees are identified quickly; and we deal firmly with unfounded claims. The number of applications from central European countries, where the vast majority of applications prove to be unfounded, has dropped since April of this year.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a policy of reducing the number of applications by deterrents can only be viable, first, if the undesirable features of the present treatment of asylum seekers are promulgated in the refugee-producing countries—for example on the streets of Baghdad—and, secondly, if the Minister can convince applicants that refugees are now worse treated than they were when Mr Michael Howard was in office? Can the noble Lord attempt to show the House that either of those factors is the case?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that I have made it plain on a number of occasions that our policy is to adopt a fair but firm approach to dealing with the matter of asylum applicants. That is the course that we have set for ourselves. We believe that we offer fair treatment. Indeed, when people, quite understandably, come to this country in fear of persecution in their home country, they will be given a fair hearing. That is the Government's policy and one that we have had for a long time. Moreover, it is a policy that has been shared by successive governments. We are fully committed to carrying out our obligations under the 1951 convention; and we shall continue to do so both fairly and firmly.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, at the risk of being a bore, can the Minister tell me what happens if an asylum seeker gives birth to a baby in this country? Will that baby automatically become British? If it is British, does that change the status of the asylum seeker?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, if a child is born in the United Kingdom, that does not necessarily mean that he or she will attract British nationality. Therefore, the child of an asylum seeker born in this country will not be deemed to be British. I should add that a multiplicity of factors, such as the nationality of ancestors, are required to qualify for British nationality, but being born in the UK is not the only relevant factor as far as concerns British nationality.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I believe that we all respect the Government's wish to be fair. However, does the Minister agree that the factors controlling the volume of asylum applications are largely the number of dictatorial regimes, the number of countries with no effective government and the number of internal conflicts, all of which generate genuine fears of persecution?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the circumstances described by the noble Lord have a bearing on the number of applications received for asylum status. However, we should also recognise the fact that there are many who seek to come to this country and claim asylum but who do so in a way that is entirely unfounded. We must have fair and firm procedures in place to deal with that situation. Since we were elected in May 1997, the Government have very successfully adopted that course.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister observed that the number of applications still outstanding is roughly 11-times the increased number of applications made in the month of October alone? In view of that fact, will the noble Lord acknowledge that it is impossible for the Government to meet their target of making first decisions on all applications within two months by April 2001?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not acknowledge the noble Lord's final point. The number of applications lodged in October was 6,970, which was a 7 per cent increase on the September figure. However, applications over the past three months—August to October 2000 averaged 6,610 per month, which is 5 per cent lower than the monthly average for the same period in 1999. We are on course: we shall reach our April 2001 target. As I understand it, we have substantially reduced the backlog of asylum applications down to some 89,000 at present. Our intention is to reduce those to fractional levels by April 2001.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, how can there be a deterrent to improper asylum applications when the Government's dispersal and support policies are collapsing and a high level of granting leave to remain is being given?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is not a question of deterrence; it is a question of having a firm, reasonable and fair policy. That is the policy of the Government. I contrast that with the absolute shambles of a policy we inherited and the absolute shambles that noble Lords opposite have got into with their current policy. On 18th April, William Hague said that the next Conservative government would detain all new applicants for asylum. This was echoed by Ann Widdecombe on 4th October when she said that the Conservatives would automatically house all new asylum applicants in secure reception centres. As of 27th November 2000, she changed her mind yet again—they would only lock up all new applicants from the so-called "white list" of third safe countries. Which policy are we to believe, William Hague's or Ann Widdecombe's, or which Ann Widdecombe policy do we now believe on Tory asylum policy?

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, after consideration of Commons amendments to the Insolvency Bill my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on inherited SERPs.

Transport Bill
3.1 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 amendments in lieu of Lords amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments in lieu of Lords amendments be considered forthwith.—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 28D and 29D. Once again we return to the matter of the part privatisation of NATS—a policy that was not only not included in the Labour Party manifesto but which it very publicly pledged it would not implement.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston. I acknowledge that not everything can be in a manifesto. God forbid that manifestos should be like the prospectuses for the sale of shares that are no doubt being worked on for NATS at this moment. However, the public are entitled to expect that when a party pledges in such clear and stark terms as Labour did in 1997 that, "our air is not for sale", it will not totally reverse policy without far better cause and far clearer explanation than we have heard so far from the Government.
The Government promised one thing but then did precisely the opposite, just as they have tried to do on restricting jury trial. In those cases this House is quite within its rights in asking the Government to get explicit public backing for their policy. That is something, incidentally, which the press in the past few days has overwhelmingly supported. That is the constitutional point. It is not a question of foolish threats to use the Parliament Act, something for which this Government are beginning to show an unwelcome and authoritarian attraction. I am glad that that nonsense has been dropped from the rhetoric. I welcome the fact that the Minister avoided such threats today.
Nor is it a question of the legitimacy of any Members of this House, whether hereditary Peers such as myself, or the many long-serving life Peers on all Benches who have grave doubts about this policy, or even, dare I say it, of the close friends of the Prime Minister? That is not the question at issue and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, who is much respected in this House, did himself no service in trying that one on at an earlier stage of these disagreements. The issue is not the legitimacy of the House of Lords but the legitimacy and wisdom of the Government's policy. This House was created by overwhelming majorities in both Houses only last year. It is the Government's creation. It is a House that our leader herself has told us is more legitimate, a House with a duty to revise and also sometimes to advise. It is a House with a right and authority on occasions, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has said, to force the Government to negotiate. This is such an occasion.
Let me make it clear that I welcome the Government's willingness, demonstrated last night, to begin to move. But the size of the majority in another place last night—just 88—was the smallest majority in this whole process. What a tribute to the first appearance at the Dispatch Box on this issue of the Deputy Prime Minister. It is clear from that small majority that many of the government supporters in another place do not think that the Government have moved enough. But they have begun to move. They have begun to recognise the legitimacy of this House in saying that this policy has not been properly explained
1326
or accepted by the British people. They have begun to negotiate. Even the Deputy Prime Minister, blustering on as he was a week ago about constitutional outrage, has now woken up to the fact that the public and much of his party have no confidence in this policy. He offered some movement to meet the concerns of this House. Perhaps he is not quite so macho a negotiator as our French friends have claimed; or perhaps he has begun to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, a little more and to his circle of special advisers a little less. I hope so, for this House still expects something more from the Government.
Last night the Government at last began to address the legitimate constitutional and policy issues which have been raised by your Lordships. Given what we know of their intentions for the date of the next general election, to all intents and purposes by delaying action until March they have accepted the case that they have had no mandate to implement this policy in this Parliament. That is considerable vindication of the stand noble Lords have taken.
However, this is not only a question of delay; there is the need to explain the policy to the public and to NATS staff—they thought that they were voting for the opposite—and to reassure those who, rightly or wrongly, have worries about safety. It is not enough, although it is something, to say, "All right, we'll wait until next spring if we have to".
There is the separate issue of how Ministers will use that time. I have read carefully the words of the Deputy Prime Minister in another place last night. He was asked this point specifically and repeatedly. His answers were deeply unconvincing. He spoke of using the time to conduct the process properly and to work on the detail. The public will be astounded to think that insufficient thought has yet been given to conducting the process and ironing out the details. On the other hand, given the involvement of the Deputy Prime Minister, they might not be surprised after all.
One would like to have thought that all those things had been done already before plunging ahead with the policy. But if, as it now seems, they have not, the public will say, "Thank goodness for the intervention of your Lordships". Asked to spell out issues, Mr Prescott said in effect that perhaps we could look at the employee share ownership scheme. The concerns of the public, the pilots, air traffic controllers and the press are not about the employee share ownership scheme, although that may be a small part of it. They are about the rationale of the whole policy: what exactly the Government are doing; what it will mean for airline passengers; and whether it has implications for safety. If a delay were to be used to explain and clarify these points along with an active campaign to the public, then that might be a different matter.
There is so much that is still in the dark about this policy: the choice of the strategic partner; whether there is a conflict of interest among the bidders; whether a cost cutting regime is planned after privatisation; the failure to expand safety resources in the CAA for monitoring the performance of NATS after privatisation; the nature of the final agreement;

1327
the outcome of consultations with staff; the nature of the staff shareholding; the nature of the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS new, separated roles; and the position with regard to the golden share, national security and our national control over the management of air traffic control.
Above all, the Government need to reassure the public, pilots and passengers on issues of safety. The Deputy Prime Minister's response last night on these matters was hopelessly lacking. This House needs to be assured that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, will use this delay to deal with the details and to conduct a further review of these questions including the vitally important issue of safety. He must then come back to Parliament at the end of that time with a report and statement on the matters I have set out in a way which enables both Houses to discuss the issues again. If he can do that, then that may be a different matter. We all know that in life half a loaf is better than none. But it is bread we want from the Government not a fig leaf. The use proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister of the next three months did not begin to meet the concerns of this House or of many Members in another place or in the country.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, can again give us much better and concrete assurances on these matters; otherwise I may have to invite noble Lords to insist on delay until after the election when the next government, whoever they are, will have a new mandate and will have given a full explanation of their policy to the public. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27C in lieu thereof, leave out the words after "House" and insert "do insist on their Amendment No. 27".—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I have said nothing on this issue in any of the debates that have taken place in this House. I would have said nothing today, too, and would have relaxed again into the comfortable stupor which one occasionally experiences when listening to the Opposition. However, I feel somewhat provoked. Noble Lords will know that I do not provoke easily; or I conceal the effect of the provocation. Only occasionally have I been known to erupt. But I found the speech to which we have just listened provoking and quite extraordinary in the circumstances. If I may say so to the noble Lord who made it, I found the speech well below what this occasion appears to demand.
What is the issue here? The issue is no longer NATS. It is the relationship of this House with another place. Perhaps I may say one thing on NATS. I have said nothing on the merits or otherwise of what the Government propose. I merely make this observation. It is very difficult indeed to find anyone on these Benches who is enthusiastic about the proposal, but
1328
that is not the issue. The most enthusiastic person who has spoken in your Lordships' House was the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, from the Opposition Benches. There is a certain amount of cross-dressing on this issue which to a simple soul like myself—
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, I merely wish to say that if I have to cross-dress with the noble Lord I shall leave this House.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I can promise the noble Baroness that the skirt will be big enough for her.
The issue has been batted backwards and forwards between the two sides of the House with the Liberals panting behind the Conservatives, for some reason that I fail totally to appreciate. But that is not the issue. The issue now is the relationship of this House with the House of Commons.
We had a partial reform of this House last year. It was very partial and in the view of some of us who participated in those debates it did not go as far as we wished. It is no secret that I want a House which is predominantly, but not exclusively, elected. But that is not the issue. We have what we now have. I cannot forbear from observing, in view of what was said by the noble Lord who made the previous speech, that we still have 100 hereditary Peers. I do not suggest that they are any less legitimate than life Peers or that I am more credible than the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. But we now have a strange House; it is neither fish nor fowl. It is not democratic; it is not wholly appointed; it is certainly no longer wholly hereditary. It is a good old-fashioned British mish-mash. As part of that good old-fashioned British mish-mash I am concerned as to how this House now behaves.
Perhaps I may put some propositions to the House. First, it is right for this House to suggest but it is not right for this House to insist. The danger now is that we are insisting. We are not suggesting. We are saying to another place—the noble Lord said it today—"We will not give you this legislation unless you do certain things which we the Opposition say the Government should do". If that is not insisting, I do not know what is.
The relationship between this House and the other place depends on a series of understandings, some of which are choate, some of which are written down and some of which are almost miasmic understandings that nobody analyses but everybody knows how they work. One important understanding is that at the end of the day, the Government are entitled to get their business through. In these new circumstances after the reform of the House, we are in great danger of ignoring the previous set of understandings under which we all operated without thinking more clearly about what understandings we want in their place.
The fundamental point is that the Government are entitled to get their legislation if the House of Commons has been asked to look at something twice, as has happened in this case. In those circumstances, it would be frivolous of this House to insist that the issue be sent back down the corridor for a third time.

1329
That might be justified, but only if a major constitutional issue were at stake. Whatever else NATS is, it is not a major constitutional issue. I have nearly finished. I am about to subside, having erupted in my modest and moderate way. NATS may be quite an important issue, but it does not justify a major constitutional clash between the two Houses of Parliament. That is what we are in danger of getting into.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that we are attempting to exercise the powers that another place gave us in the two Parliament Acts? If another place got it wrong, that is not our fault.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Earl does not do himself justice. Of course we are entitled to do what we are doing. I am questioning the judgment, not the entitlement. The relationship between the two Houses cannot be viewed or made to work solely on the basis of the legal entitlement to do one thing in one House and something else in another House. Some flexibility and understanding between the two Houses is needed. We are in grave danger of tearing that up.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, now that I have been reassured about our entitlement to continue in the course that we have set ourselves, I shall do just that. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. I welcome his clear expose of some of the constitutional issues.
We clearly explained our position on Monday. We want the Government either to reconsider their commitment to the part-privatisation of NATS or to put the issue to the electorate at the next general election, since they certainly did not do so at the last one. I do not take very seriously the arguments suggesting that they did. I am willing to bet that the number of voters, or even Labour Party candidates, who thought that the party's references to improving public transport infrastructure via PPP deals should be interpreted as a determination to semi-privatise NATS was as near to zero as makes little difference. Dr Gavin Strang was certainly not among that number.
Given those clearly expressed views, it is not enough for the Government to offer to delay implementation of the NATS PPP for three months so that they can explain it more fully and even conduct the process properly. I share the astonishment of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that they have not conducted the process properly before. The offer is a mere time delay, not a policy compromise.
We have explained often our support for a not-for-profit trust in place of a PPP. Until hearing the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I had thought it no longer necessary to explain our arguments further. However, as the noble Lord seems unaware—perhaps because he has not been in the Chamber during our discussions—that we have been leading a serious policy opposition to the Government's position, I shall briefly run through those policy points again.
1330
The option of a not-for-profit trust would relieve the burden otherwise accruing to the PSBR from the heavy investment required to keep NATS technology up to date. The option would involve a partnership between the Government, stakeholders and customers to ensure a safe, efficient operation. The airlines would be part of the directorship of the trust. The trust would be able to raise the required investment, but not subject to the demands of shareholders. Finally, it would be constructed in such a way as to exclude suppliers or foreign providers of air traffic control services from ownership, which seems at least doubtful in the case of a PPP. A trust might even be the most effective body to take part in a joint European air traffic control system.
Interestingly, I found that argument almost word for word in the top leader in today's Financial Times. It is not just we in our madness who are putting forward these arguments. They are shared by serious people across the press from the Financial Times to the Evening Standard—there could not be a much wider range than that—who are genuinely worried by or opposed to the Government's policy.
Last night, the Deputy Prime Minister claimed that on this issue the House of Commons was speaking for the people. Understandably, he refused the suggestion of a free vote. I would have done the same in his position. A majority of 87 in the main vote last night was hardly a ringing endorsement of his policy. I hope that that may encourage Labour Members in this House to join us in the Lobby once more today.
We are not convinced by the Government's argument, nor are we cowed by their threats. Our defiance may be what sometimes used to be called a forlorn hope, but defiance it remains.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before any other noble Lord speaks, I remind the House that rehearsing arguments about options that are not included in the amendment before the House is not appropriate.
Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge: My Lords, it will come as no surprise that I have an interest to declare, as the chairman of British Airways. Further, despite the protocols of the process, it is no secret that British Airways is one of the eight United Kingdom airlines that make up the consortium bidding to become the private sector partner in NATS by operating the service on a not-for-commercial-return basis. Noble Lords will therefore understand my close interest in the issue. I have some salient points to make.
The debate on the future of NATS has been going on for more than five years. During that time, much-needed new capacity has failed to come on line as planned. The existing air traffic control systems are close to breaking point. The events of June this year served as a warning. The consequences of further, maybe more serious, collapses in the system may be too horrific to contemplate.
My first point is simply that enough is enough. The time has come to get firmly to grips with the situation before disruptive delays turn into disasters. The debate

1331
on NATS prompted by the Government's policy proposals has, for the most part, been reasoned, informed and constructive. Clearly, any fundamental change to a vital, safety-critical element in the national transport infrastructure warrants such consideration. There are obviously lessons to be learned from previous experience.
Important as the arguments are, your Lordships attention should not be diverted by arcane debate over corporate governance or financial structures. The main issue on today's agenda is whether we begin the process of repair and regeneration, or whether we allow the system to crack and crumble. Therefore, the second point that I want to make is: do not lose sight of the objective.
Some of the debate on the future of NATS has sought to illustrate the issue in the simplest of terms: profit versus safety. Those of us who have spent time running private sector airlines, for whom safety is unquestionably the paramount consideration, find these arguments difficult to understand, if not downright distasteful. I take issue particularly with the ill-judged comments made in your Lordships' House the other evening. It should be obvious that the airlines want more investment in more safety, not more profit from lack of it. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous and regrettable.
Nevertheless, we must recognise that where concerns exist, they have a right to be aired. This debate has provided that opportunity. The future of NATS does not have to be measured at a zero-sum calculation where profit is always the enemy of safety. Other models are available, and the Government's process, if allowed to proceed, will enable them to be explored.
In an attempt to place matters in perspective, I ask noble Lords to cast their minds back to the early 1980s when the privatisation of British Airways was proposed. The state-owned corporation of that day had become moribund and near bankrupt. Public-sector borrowing requirements constrained its ability to invest in sorely needed new equipment. A move to the private sector was the only sensible way forward; yet the policy faced opposition, some of it extremely fierce, from many groups in this House and in another place, from unions and from employees.
Objective argument and practical example overcame the aversion to change and fear of the unknown. By the time that British Airways was floated in February 1987, the airline's privatisation was universally judged to be a thoroughly good thing, especially for its customers, for its employees and for United Kingdom taxpayers. I venture to suggest that we have continued to fulfil our responsibilities in the airline to the highest possible standards, most notably in the area of safety and operational integrity.
When it comes to NATS, let us not forget that the force which drives the urgent need for substantial investment in the expansion of capacity is not only the airline industry; it is also the legitimate, increasing demand for airline service from the general public and
1332
from business and industry. Consumer demand is projected to grow at a rate of 4 per cent per annum compounded. That means that by the year 2015, which is not that far away in planning terms, the number of passengers who travel through United Kingdom airports will reach some 310 million per annum, if we have the professional wherewithal to serve them.
Finally, perhaps I may say that I have the highest regard for the outstanding performance of air traffic controllers, for pilots and for those who represent them, not all of whom oppose this piece of legislation because they want to see industry improvement based on world-class systems for this country. Therefore, I ask noble Lords to consider my points very carefully before condemning the United Kingdom to an increasingly obsolescent, unreliable air traffic control system for any longer than is absolutely necessary.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, given his vast experience in this area, will he tell the House whether he sees a serious flaw or drawback in the Canadian model?
Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge: My Lords, I believe that the Canadian trust system is obviously one alternative which could be available. However, I believe that we have advanced so far under the present proposals that it would be foolish to lose more time by going back to start all over again.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I am surprised to say that I agree with much of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge. I did not speak in the debate on Monday because I had made your Lordships well aware of my belief in the defects of Part I of the Bill and to have bored your Lordships again would not have been helpful. Also, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, in setting out his reasons for voting with the Government, had encapsulated the views of myself and several other colleagues.
I do not want to become involved in the argument about the constitution because that has been more than adequately acknowledged from these Benches. However, I want to explore precisely what the Government have said is to happen during the next three months. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge, that the proposal for a three-month delay provides the opportunity to explore other alternatives. It is well known that I have much sympathy with the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, in relation to the not-for-profit trust.
I was captured by the Minister's phrase "willingness to listen". However, it begs the question, "Listen to whom and about what?". I hope that it is a willingness to listen not only to the interests of the staff, who have an important point to make, but also to the airline group.
In Monday's debate, assertions were made—a letter to The Times was referred to—that the airlines had a vested interest. That was not the important point that

1333
could have been made on that occasion. The important point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall. A not-for-profit company is being proposed; that is, one which is not for commercial return. Therefore, a way exists to separate the emotive, although perhaps in some people's minds not necessarily accurate, collision course (pardon the pun!) between profit and safety.
Many Members on the Benches opposite have said that a not-for-profit trust would be a better way forward. The air traffic controllers and pilots have said that they would have greater faith in an airline group consortium because that would not put profit into the equation. We have the ingredients of staff willingness to talk about a new organisation which can incorporate the type of principles and practices suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, and their desire not to face a financial regime of RPI-minus five. I hope that when the Minister comes to make a decision, he will not go down that route. It is a recommendation of the CAA board which should be examined carefully before it is discarded because inevitably that regime would exacerbate the problem of a collision course in the long-term between investment in safety and in other areas.
Given that we have three months, even at this late stage we do not have to go back to square one. We do not have to consider a trust because we are told that that is not on the agenda. However, because the strategic partner agreement is not part of the act, we could consider the views of the airline group, the staff interests—which could include the pilots, who are not directly involved in any way—and the consumer interests. We could consider whether it is possible to put together a PPP which would encapsulate many of the proposals put forward in other fora and regain the confidence not only of the public, which is singularly lacking, but also of the staff.
I remind the House that a month ago my noble friend Lord Whitty made the point that the confidence of the staff and pilots is essential to the success of a PPP. I urge the Minister not to waste the opportunity of the next few months, but to listen to and talk to all those who have an interest in the matter. He should not be afraid to consider changes that perhaps a few months ago would have been viewed as driving us away from the model. I believe that the ingredients are there. It is for the Minister to cook up something which is acceptable to everyone.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I want to follow on from what my noble friend Lord Brett said but I want to be more specific about what will happen over the next three months.
It is most important that the people who work in NATS should have confidence in what the Government do. So far, the noble Lord who opened the debate has not spoken about what he and his colleagues intend to do with regard to those people.
It is extremely important that he should pay a visit as soon as possible to the people who work in air traffic control. He should explain that the Government are going to listen very carefully to what they have to say.
1334
The Minister should not discard easily what has happened in Canada. Personally, I do not believe that the Canadian experience is necessarily right for us. I may be wrong about that, but it seems to me very important that we should put aside what has been said in this House once and for all. I am so sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has chosen different words to say what he has already said. There is an onus on the Opposition which he has failed to discharge, to say something new. He has refused to do that. He has refused to say whether the air traffic control service needs, as the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, said, to be revamped. How should that be done? I am not sure that that has been spelt out. The people most fitted to say what is required are the air traffic controllers.
A long time ago, I was a Minister for Aviation. It seems to me extremely important that the paramountcy of safety, which was underlined, should be repeated over and over again. When my noble friend approaches the air traffic control people, he will say that very clearly and he will hear what they have to say about it.
It seems to me that the Liberal Democrats are in great difficulty about this matter. They should not be. I have changed my vote. I have supported the Government. But, above all, I welcome the opportunity which the three months will give; and the Liberal Democrats should welcome that too. In those three months, my right honourable friend and his colleagues will visit the air traffic controllers and explain to them why this House has reservations, and, above all, why this House changed its mind, as I hope it will.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, who has the interests of aviation at heart will change his mind too. I do not altogether believe that the issues are such that they should divide the two sides of the House. The Conservative Party must make up its mind as to whether it feels ideologically that it is obliged to wait until the general election and beyond. But it is very important that this issue does not become the plaything of politics. It should not become an issue to be put before the people in the next election because it is not sufficiently important overall. It is important for the air traffic controllers, for members of the union of which I happen to be the president—BALPA—and for members of the IPMS and so on. But it is not vital for the people of this country.
I go along with my noble friend Lord Richard. I plead with the House to put aside on this issue petty party points which are of no use at all.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I must declare my position as a member of the Strategic Rail Authority and the Commission for Integrated Transport. In doing so, I make it clear that I have received no briefing from either organisation.
However, I have spent the whole of my career in transport—as director of operations for British Rail and as chairman of a bus company in Northern Ireland. I am very well acquainted with safety, which has always been at the forefront of my concern.

1335
Many of the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, were heard at the time of railway privatisation when many confident assessments were given of the state of the railways once private capital was brought in.
I want to speak about the inevitable conflicts between safety and profit now being displayed in Railtrack and the impotence of government once an activity has been fully privatised. In my opinion, we see in Railtrack a company which has failed to deliver a safe, efficient railway.
Perhaps I may divert to the accident which occurred in Scotland two nights ago. That was due to track spread. The track fell outwards and allowed the train to be derailed. In my days on British Rail, it would have led to a divisional engineer losing his job that night.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, we are considering the message from the House of Commons. This is not a Second Reading. We have been over all these issues. I think it would be very much in the interests of the House and the decision which we must reach this afternoon that our debate should focus on the issues before us; that is, the message from the House of Commons and how we should react to it.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, if the House will permit me, I shall return quickly to the issue and speak very briefly.
Railtrack has for years been completely focused on its shareholders in negotiations with the regulator over the price review, over the exploitation of its property assets, in negotiations with contractors—
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the words in the Companion which say that debate must be relevant to the Question before the House? At the moment, that is the Commons amendment in relation to a three-month deferment. It is certainly not about Railtrack.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, we should be straightforward about this. The noble Lord, Lord Marshall, made a substantial and extremely interesting speech, as he was entitled to do. But it was no more directed against the amendment in a precise way than other speeches made in the House. I suggest to the Government Chief Whip that these are important issues about which the House feels deeply. We should have one rule for all Members and there should be a degree of latitude. Let common sense prevail and let us hear what others have to say.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, the Government showed, in answers given by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday in another place, that they cannot intervene in railway matters. I want to make very clear that we are presenting the Government with an opportunity to ensure that any new arrangements embracing NATS will not be structured so that service is in any way subordinated to profit.
1336
Finally, it is essential that other parts of the Bill are enacted because we need an effective and powerful Strategic Rail Authority and the many other matters of which the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, spoke in his introduction.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I have listened with great care to what has been said, as I have as regards all previous debates on this Bill. Most contributions were constructive and I listened with particular respect to the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge, given his unrivalled experience of aviation and business generally through his work with the CBI.
We accept that there is concern about the timing of the PPP. The amendments introduced in another place last night provide an undertaking that we shall not rush that process. I am grateful for the practical approach taken by noble Lords opposite, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara.
Let me expand some of the issues about which I spoke earlier. We shall put in place new air aviation directions and ensure that the CAA is empowered to control airspace policy. That is a subject which should be discussed further. In response to my noble friends Lord Brett and Lord Clinton-Davis, yes, we shall continue to talk to staff representatives and to address their concerns. We shall facilitate meetings between the trade unions and the bidders so that they can talk about plans for the future organisation of NATS and the implications for staff. We shall talk further to the unions about the 5 per cent employee share scheme in order to inform our final decision on how tens of millions of pounds will in fact be dispersed to staff. We shall also discuss further with pension trustees any additional clarification that they may seek.
My noble friend Lord Brett asked about the scope that there may be for discussions around regulation or operational parameters in the next three-month period. As I have said, we remain open to constructive discussions about the operation of the PPP. The legislation lays down specific processes and the main criteria under which the PPP will be created and maintained. Since the beginning of this process we have made clear much of our thinking on the non-legislative framework for the PPP, both as part of the consultation process and during the passage of the Bill. That said, we are always willing to listen to constructive suggestions on the working of the PPP.
As to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Brett, about further reconsideration of the trust option, there have been lengthy debates here and in another place about the merits and otherwise of trust models. Consistently the Government have made it clear that we believe that the PPP offers a number of advantages over a trust model and for that reason remains our preferred option. However, we have made it clear all along that the PPP model in no way precludes it being run as a not-for-profit company, provided all the Government's criteria are met.
We shall ensure that both the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS are well organised for their new roles and that those roles are fully understood before

1337
they are separated. We shall take steps to ensure that the protections in relation to safety, which your Lordships have introduced, are understood. We shall also hold further discussions on any aspects of concern with users, including the general aviation community and other stakeholders, and on matters of airspace policy. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, touched on the dimensions of national security and the golden share, which will be brought within the process over the next three months.
I have listened carefully to the debate this afternoon. Therefore, to show how seriously we propose to make use of the three-month deferment, I am happy to undertake, as was requested, to come to your Lordships' House at the end of that period—around the end of February or the beginning of March—and to make a further Statement to the House. That will give an opportunity for noble Lords to hear about those further discussions and to hear our response to any concerns that may have been expressed.
I take to heart the injunction made by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, to ensure that the issues are better understood by the public. In the best interests of all involved, particularly the public interest, we shall work to build a well-informed consensus across air traffic services, across the aviation industry, and we shall do that over the next three months. That is our promise to the House. I believe that it is a reasonable way to move forward and that it reflects the spirit of this and recent debates here and in another place. Therefore, I commend the Commons amendments to the House.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this afternoon we have had a good debate on this subject. We have had the benefit of two new speakers on the Transport Bill in the form of the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge. I do not intend to comment on the constitutional arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I felt that I had addressed those fairly well today and at previous stages of the Bill. We welcome to the debate the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge, with his great hands-on experience in relation to this issue.
The Minister told the House something different from what was said in another place by the Deputy Prime Minister. Last night the Deputy Prime Minister added to my worries by saying that we needed to work on the detail. No wonder, therefore, that rebellion in another place rose to new levels. The public know all too well what it means when the Deputy Prime Minister has to work out the detail.
The Minister today has met this House in a different way. Where the Deputy Prime Minister revealed the holes in the policy, the Minister promised to fill in some of the gaps. As I understand it—and he will correct me if I am wrong—he promised that during the three-month period the Government will decide on the strategic partner and the nature of the final agreement. The Minister talked about the outcome of consultation with staff, with the unions, with the controllers and with the airline pilots. He talked about the nature of the employee shareholding; the nature of
1338
the new relationship between the Civil Aviation Authority and National Air Traffic Services; the way in which national control over air traffic control can be maintained, as I asked him to do; and the situation of the golden share, especially bearing in mind their position with regard to the BAA judgment. He has undertaken to return to Parliament in three months' time and to report on those matters in a Statement on which I hope that there can be a proper and full debate.
I also raised the issue of safety—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord has obviously had quite extensive discussions with the Minister about this matter. Did he also have a discussion with the Minister as to how the matter will return to this House? Will it be by means of a Motion, will the House simply take note, or will there be a debate?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope that we shall have a report and a Statement to the House on which we can have a full debate. I hope I am right in saying that that is what the Minister said we shall have. The Minister indicates that that is right. We will need a full report and a Statement covering those particular issues, which we have been promised in three months' time.
I turn to the matter of safety. Never during debates on this issue have I questioned the matter of safety. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge. I hope that what I said about safety and what the Minister has undertaken to do will satisfy the general public, the press, the media, the pilots and the controllers that safety is not an issue. Even if we may not regard it as an issue, certainly there are those outside, in the big wide world, who do. It is essential that those fears are allayed.
If I am right in what I have said and in what the Minister has undertaken to do, I believe that there has been a considerable shift in the position that was taken last night in another place. That will ensure full public and parliamentary debate to a greater extent than we have secured so far. In effect, the position is still maintained that nothing will be implemented much before the expected date of an election in the spring.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, whether anything is implemented much before the election is not the point. It is a matter of whether it is implemented before or after the election. If the noble Lord is proposing not to press the amendment, can he make it clear whether the House will have an opportunity to vote on whatever is said in three months' time? Surely we need to know that key point before we vote tonight.
4 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was about to deal with the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. The amendment that we are considering today defers this for three months, which takes it to March. My original amendment deferred it until after

1339
the election. I can see some advantages to the Government's amendment, which means that this will be a live, hot issue until the time of the general election. Whether or not they want to, the Government will have to make decisions about it at the time of the general election.
As regards a debate, the House can vote on any kind of debate that we have. If the Minister tables a Motion for debate, any noble Lord can propose an amendment to that debate and a vote can take place at the end. That is the procedure of the House.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the amendment tabled today by the Government is a total vindication of the stand that this House has so far made on the issue. The Liberal Party may criticise this, but I believe that we have heard some very useful and wise concessions from the Government, to the extent that they will offer hope of reassuring the public and the staff about this policy. I am quite happy to give way as often as I am asked.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord. I should like to seek some clarification. We have talked about a Statement. The noble Lord then said that we could debate a Motion. As I understand it, if the Minister returns to this House with a Statement, we cannot table a Motion to amend that Statement. The object of my original question is to find out whether we should have a Statement, a Motion, a "take-note" Motion or whatever, so that the House may have another bite at this particularly bitter cherry.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it would perhaps be preferable for the Government to answer this question. However, my understanding is that if a Motion for debate is tabled in this House, as we have been promised, any noble Lord may table an amendment to the Motion, whatever it happens to be. I do not know whether anybody from the Government Front Bench wishes to intervene at this stage. I shall certainly allow him the opportunity.
Lord Carter: My Lords, everything that has been said is entirely procedurally correct. There can be a Government Statement and there can be a debate. The Liberal Democrats are very impatient today but perhaps they will allow me to finish. There are opportunities for Wednesday debates and other debates. It is procedurally correct to table a "take-note" Motion, to which an amendment may be tabled. Nothing that has so far been said is procedurally incorrect.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope that the Government have agreed—I am convinced that they have—that there will be such a formal debate, to which any amendment can be tabled and voted on. We can therefore inform the Government at that time whether or not we approve of their policies.
We have asked the Government to think again about this matter and ensure that the details of the legislation are properly considered. I believe that that
1340
is the role of this House. When last night I read the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, I was not remotely satisfied on that point. Having listened to the Minister today, I am much more reassured. The Minister has again stepped in to save the Deputy Prime Minister's bacon and clear up at least some of the mess that he has left behind.
In the circumstances, I believe that we should give the noble Lord the opportunity to do that job, and not pursue something which, if we rejected these offers, might prove, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, would say, to be a sterile confrontation between these two Houses. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No!
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Question was that this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 27 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27C, since when an amendment has been moved to leave out the words after "House" and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 27". The Question is that this amendment be agreed to?
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 27D) shall be agreed to?
4.7 p.m.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 157.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Avebury, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Barker, B.

Razzall, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Redesdale, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Rennard, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Ezra, L.

Roper, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Goodhart, L.

Sandberg, L.

Greaves, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hamwee, B. [Teller]

Sharman, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hooson, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Jacobs, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taverne, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B. [Teller]

Ludford, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

McNally, L.

Tope, L.

Maddock, B.

Tordoff, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Walmsley, B.

Newby, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Wigoder, L.

Northover, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

1341

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Ahmed, L.

Alli, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Amos, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Andrews, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Ashlev of Stoke, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bitch, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Barnett, L.

Laird, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Laming, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Layard, L.

Birt, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lichfield, Bp.

Blease, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Lockwood, B.

Borrie, L.

Longford, E.

Bragg, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brightman, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brookman, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Burlison, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Burns, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Marsh, L.

Chandos, V.

Marshall of Knightsbridge, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mitchell, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Monson, L.

Crawley, B.

Morgan, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Parekh, L.

Dearing, L

Patel, L.

Desai, L.

Peston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dubs, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elder, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Puttnam, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Richard, L.

Filkin, L.

Rogan, L

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Gale, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sandwich, E.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Sawyer, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Serota, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Shepherd, L.

Grabiner, L.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Slim, V.

Greengross, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gregson, L.

Stallard, L.

Grenfell, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harrison, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Haskel, L.

Tenby, V.

Hayman, B.

Thornton, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Uddin, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Varley, L.

Hoyle, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Walpole, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Warner, L.

Hylton, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

1342

Weatherill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Whitaker, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Whitty, L.

Winston, L.

Wilkins, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 27D disagreed to accordingly.
4.16 p.m.
On Question, Amendment No. 27C agreed to.

Transport Bill
  MANUSCRIPT MOTIONS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS TO WHICH THE COMMONS HAVE DISAGREED ON WHICH THE LORDS HAVE INSISTED
  [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 with the Lords in their amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
  27C page 27, line 5, at end insert—
  ("() No direction may be given under this section before the end of the period of three months starting with the day on which this Act is passed.")
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment. No 27C in lieu thereof.
  When this Bill was last before this House I gave a full explanation of the Government's reasons for not wishing to agree to Amendments Nos. 27 to 29. I shall not repeat those reasons at length, but perhaps I can give your Lordships a brief reminder.
  First, we do not agree that the public-private partnership needs to be deferred until after the next general election. We made our policy clear, before, during and after the previous election campaign. During that campaign the Prime Minister said that we needed public and private sectors in partnership in developing transport infrastructure and the Chancellor indicated that NATS was a candidate for a public-private partnership. Since the election we have consulted on the PPP proposal and listened carefully to the responses. All the issues have been debated at length. We remain convinced that the PPP is the right solution for NATS.
  Secondly, delay would be damaging to NATS and its users. There is an urgent need for new investment in NATS, especially to deliver the two centres at Swanwick and Prestwick on time. We also need the injection of new project management skills. We need to separate service provision from regulation. And perhaps most importantly there is an urgent need for certainty for the staff who have lived with uncertainty for so long.
  Thirdly, as I explained to your Lordships earlier this week, I do not believe that it is the role of this House to decide the timing of the legislation. This House is a revising Chamber and is very effective in that role. I do not wish to overstate the case on this issue, but I firmly believe that we should concentrate on that role.
  Perhaps I can return to the subject of safety which has been raised on many occasions during the debates on this part of the Bill. Of course safety is the first priority and your Lordships will recall the amendments introduced in this House to reaffirm our commitment to safety. I cannot accept that the private sector is unsafe—look at the British airline industry.
  1324
  The airlines are strongly in favour of the PPP, not just as bidders, but also as users whoever wins the bid. I am certain that they would not support the PPP if they thought that it would be unsafe. In the most recent debates on this Bill Members of both Houses have paid tribute to the safety of air traffic control and said that it need not be threatened by a PPP.
  I was pleased to hear two noble Baronesses on the Benches opposite declare on Monday night that they saw the merit in what we propose. The noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, spoke of the involvement of private enterprise in state activities. That is exactly what we are proposing—the involvement of private enterprise. We are not proposing a once-for-all sale. We do not want a continuation of total state ownership. We want private involvement through the PPP.
  But we recognise that there is a message underlying Amendments Nos. 27 to 29. We have listened to that message. We have listened throughout the passage of the Bill to what has been said in both Houses. We have held to the PPP policy because we believe it to be the right solution for NATS. But we have amended the detail in response to concerns. Most recently we have made changes to address concerns about safety and about the pensions of NATS' employees. Elsewhere in the Bill we have addressed concessionary fares for disabled people; lane rental for street works; the impounding of illegal lorries. Throughout the passage of the Bill the Government have listened to views, have met concerns, and have accepted changes proposed by all sides of both Houses.
  The amendments agreed in another place are further evidence of our willingness to listen. These amendments are an expression of good intent. We want to make it clear that if the Bill passes this week we shall not enter precipitately in to the PPP. These amendments are an undertaking that we shall take time to conduct the process properly. We shall work on the detail and make sure that we get it right. In short, we shall ensure that all concerned fully understand the proposals and that action is being taken to deal with real concerns expressed.
  I can assure noble Lords that this will be a carefully considered process, as, of course, we always intended that it would be. These amendments are our promise to this House. I believe that it is right to proceed with care. I firmly believe that this House should accept the Commons amendment.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27C in lieu thereof.—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 27C
  Lord Brabazon of Tara 27D Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27C in lieu thereof, leave out the words after "House" and insert "do insist on their Amendment No. 27".

  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 with the Lords in their amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
  28C Page 27, line 25, at end insert—
  ("() No approval may be given under this section before the end of the period of three months starting with the day on which this Act is passed.")
  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 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28C in lieu thereof.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 28 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28C in lieu thereof.—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
  [Amendment No. 28D not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  29 Clause 42, page 27, line 38, at end insert—
  ("() 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 with the Lords in their amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
  29C Page 27, line 38, at end insert—
  ("() No scheme may be made under this section before the end of the period of three months starting with the day on which this Act is passed.")
  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 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29C in lieu thereof.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 29 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29C in lieu thereof.—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
  [Amendment No. 29D not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Insolvency Bill
4.18 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Insolvency Bill
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The page and line refer to Bill 173 as first printed for the Commons.]
  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  1 Before Clause 9, insert the following new clause—

  ADMINISTRATION ORDERS
  (" .—(1) Part II of the Insolvency Act 1986 (administration orders) is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 10 (effect of application), after paragraph (a) of subsection (1) there is inserted—
  "(aa) no landlord or other person to whom rent is payable may exercise any right of forfeiture by peaceable re-entry in relation to premises let to the company in respect of a failure by the company to comply with any term or condition of its tenancy of such premises, except with the leave of the court and subject to such terms as the court may impose".
  (3) In section 11 (effect of order), after paragraph (b) of subsection (3) there is inserted—
  "(ba) no landlord or other person to whom rent is payable may exercise any right of forfeiture by peaceable re-entry in relation to premises let to the company in respect of a failure by the company to comply with any term or condition of its tenancy of such premises, except with the consent of the administrator or the leave of the court and subject (where the court gives leave) to such terms as the court may impose."").
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. In speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 22, 23 and 24.
  These amendments deal mainly with a landlord's ability to forfeit a lease by way of peaceable re-entry, a matter which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, in Committee. At that time I was able to inform them only that we were in the process of consulting on the matter.
  The purpose of these amendments is to provide that a landlord's right to effect peaceable re-entry and so terminate the tenancy in respect of premises rented by an insolvent is generally stayed while a company or an individual is the subject of a moratorium in the company and individual voluntary arrangement and administration procedures. Our recent consultation, started while the Bill was passing through this House, showed that there was a general agreement that that right should not be available to a landlord during statutory moratoria. Additionally, Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 make the individual voluntary arrangement moratorium effective against all forms of
  1344
  distress and provide that the court may stay the levying of distress while an application for a moratorium in that procedure is pending.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 1 which, with Amendments Nos. 13, 22 and 23, have become part of the Bill as a result of what I said at Second Reading. I said then that consideration had to be given to whether it was appropriate that a landlord should be able to forfeit a lease under which the company was a tenant during a moratorium. I pointed out that we could see no policy reason why a landlord should be in the privileged position of being able to re-enter premises let to a tenant during a moratorium, but all other creditors were restricted from exercising their rights. Even a landlord would be restricted from taking proceedings for possession but, curiously, would not be prevented from peaceably re-entering the premises. I also pointed out that if landlords were not restricted from exercising their right to re-enter premises the whole point of the moratorium and a proposal for a voluntary arrangement would be defeated.
  At Second Reading the Minister said that it was too complex a point for the Government to deal with in the context of the Bill. In Grand Committee the noble Lord changed his mind and said that it was an important matter. The Minister informed your Lordships' House that the Government had put in hand a consultation process, and we expected government amendments to be tabled in due course. We on this side of the House waited with bated breath for the amendments so that we could consider them properly and consult those whom the amendments would affect most. We waited and waited. I passed a couple of happy afternoons with the Minister in this Chamber on Report and at Third Reading. The surroundings were pleasant, as was the company of the Minister and others, but there was no sign of the amendments. The Bill went to another place. Towards the end of October the amendments finally appeared. In essence, it took six months for the Government to produce relatively straightforward amendments, and it is they who complain about delays in this House.
  The lateness of the amendments means that we cannot give them the consideration that they obviously merit. The amendments could be improved in one particular respect because, as presently drafted, they would prevent a landlord from peaceably re-entering the premises even if they were unoccupied. We believe that that is an unreasonable restriction. However, we on this side of the House are anxious that the Bill should be enacted as soon as possible, and in a spirit of compromise we have not tabled any amendments to these particular Commons amendments.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not begrudge the noble Baroness her gloat. I said in introducing the amendments that they had been tabled because the noble Baroness and the noble Lord,

  1345
  Lord Razzall, had raised the issue in the first place. I said, wrongly, that the matter had first been raised in Committee. The noble Baroness is quite right to remind noble Lords that she raised the matter at Second Reading. The noble Baroness is also right to say that the consultation took a certain amount of time. However, the amendments have been considered both in Committee and at Report stage in another place and have received parliamentary scrutiny.
  I am glad that the noble Baroness has only one remaining concern about the amendments. That concern is related to the case where a property which is leased is no longer needed for a rescue. If it is not needed for a rescue or occupied—they are related cases—surely it is in the interests of the tenant to see that the lease is surrendered because that will improve his financial position. Therefore, the boot is somewhat on the other foot. He may seek to surrender the lease to the landlord, but if he does not he is unlikely to defend any application by a landlord to forfeit the lease of premises that he no longer requires. In any case, peaceable entry is not a right that is used very often and applies almost exclusively to business premises. Without going back over all the arguments, the period of a moratorium is only short. In any case, there is the fallback that an application can be made to the court for leave to re-enter any premises whether or not they are necessary for the rescue; for example, if rent is unpaid.
  I accept the thrust of what the noble Baroness says about the way in which the issue has been dealt with, but we have come out right in the end.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  2 Clause 11, page 7, line 12, at beginning insert ("After")
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 3. These amendments effectively introduce a completely new Clause 11. This arises because, if the clause had remained unamended, what would have been new subsection (5) of Section 421 of the Insolvency Act 1986 could have had an unfortunate and unintended effect. There was a risk that it could have prejudiced the marketability of property where on, and as a result of, his death the deceased person's interest in jointly-owned property had passed to the survivor, irrespective of whether he was solvent or insolvent. It was that particular point which was raised by noble Lords opposite, notably by the noble Lords, Lord Sharman and Lord Razzall. I note, however, that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was also concerned about this matter.
  In Grand Committee the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, said:
  "It is necessary that there should be no retrospective effect on any third party who might have acquired property in good faith".—[Official Report, 15/6/00, col. CWH 56.]
  1346
  I responded at col. CWH 57:
  "We understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, which he also raised at Second Reading. We agree that left as it is, this clause could prejudice the marketability of property where the deceased's interest in jointly-owned property has passed to the survivor on death, irrespective of whether the deceased is solvent or not. We would not wish an arm's length disposal of a property by a surviving partner to be made unnecessarily difficult because prospective purchasers were concerned that they might find they did not have good title if the deceased's estate became insolvent".
  These two amendments address just that point. In doing so, they will also ensure that the value of any interest in jointly-owned property, lost by the operation of the survivorship rules, is recoverable for the benefit of the insolvent estate and, therefore, for the creditors of the deceased insolvent.
  Clause 11, as amended by Amendment No. 3, which is the substantive amendment in this group, will enable the trustee of the insolvent estate to make application to the court for a monetary order against the survivor in such cases. The order would be for a sum to cover the debts and other liabilities of the deceased insolvent's estate. This sum could be smaller than the value of the former joint interest, but could not be greater. That approach would avoid the difficulties of the original clause which would have had the effect of treating the deceased insolvent as if he had been adjudged bankrupt on the day before he died and, by that route, making his interest in jointly-owned property part of his estate. Not only would that have overridden survivorship rules, but it would have taken effect without regard to the position of other joint-owners or any subsequent purchasers.
  Clause 11, as amended, will address the consequences of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re Palmer (deceased) in a balanced and measured way which will allow the courts to have regard to all the competing interests in such cases. Although we have adopted a different way to achieve that aim, it will mean, so far as is reasonably possible, that the creditors of an insolvent will not be in a significantly worse position in a case where he has died than if he were living. I urge noble Lords to accept the amendments. I shall say something about Amendment No. 3A when it has been moved.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, as our amendment is part of this group I should like to speak to it at this stage. The Minister explained that new Clause 11 will apply if an insolvent person dies in circumstances where, immediately before his death, he was a joint tenant. As your Lordships are aware, on the death of a joint tenant his interest automatically vests in the other joint tenant and does not become part of the deceased's estate. In particular, it is frequently the case that husband and wife are joint tenants of the matrimonial home; so, on the death of the husband, his interest passes automatically to his widow.
  The new provision does not prevent that happening but imposes a liability on the surviving spouse to pay to the deceased's creditors an amount up to the value

  1347
  of the deceased's previous interest in the property. In principle, that seems to be right. However, Clause 11 has been given retrospective effect. For example, it will apply to widows whose husbands have died insolvent before the new measure comes into force. That is bound to affect, adversely, many widows who have already organised their financial affairs in the knowledge that, at that time, they had at their disposal a certain sum of money.
  That problem has not only troubled your Lordships but Members of another place. Until Third Reading in another place, we thought it was agreed that the clause would not have a retrospective effect. We were reinforced in that view by paragraph 20 of the Government's response to the report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee, which stated that it would be made clear that provisions would not have a retrospective effect. Yet the new clause now states that, unless the circumstances are exceptional, the court must assume that the interests of the deceased's creditors outweigh all other considerations.
  But, for most widows the circumstances will not be exceptional. Indeed, their circumstances will normally be commonplace and what one would expect after a husband died insolvent. The automatic assumption in subsection (3) will apply. The widow will have to pay a substantial sum for the benefit of the creditors.
  There is a further objection to be found in the same section which provides that it only applies if the petition for the order was presented after the commencement of the section. That seems to us to be very odd—because the benefits of the section will be denied to the diligent creditor who obtains an insolvency administration order as soon as he can but before the commencement of the section, but will not apply to the idle creditor who does not apply for such an order until after the commencement of the section. Where is the sense in that? Why should the indolent be treated better than the vigilant?
  Therefore, we believe that the new section is fundamentally flawed. I make no apology whatever for pressing the amendment at this late stage. The noble Lords, Lord Sharman and Lord Razzall, both expressed their concerns as regards the retrospective effect of Clause 11 at Second Reading. Moreover, in another place, the amendment did not appear until the end of October, leaving little or no time for the serious defects in its drafting to be corrected.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Sharman: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 responds to a number of issues raised by my noble friend Lord Razzall and myself during the passage of the Bill. There is an element of retrospection included in the clause as it stands, which the amendment proposed by the noble Lord seeks to address. However, that element of retrospection is at the margin. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord.
  1348
  I thank the Minister for bringing forward these amendments in another place.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my right honourable and honourable friends, I am grateful. The House of Commons started to debate the matter at the end of October. It was debated both in Committee and on Report. It would be desirable if a Bill is perfect when it comes before Parliament. But that is not the case. Doubts and worries were expressed in this House. They were given effect to by amendments in another place. We are rather pleased with ourselves about those kinds of matters.
  I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, thinks that the provision should apply only when a person dies after the new section has come into force. But we listened to the responses of those who were consulted on the draft clauses and to the concerns expressed in this House.
  Both on Second Reading and in Grand Committee, the point put to me was that the clause could prejudice the marketability of property because it revested the deceased insolvent's interest in former jointly owned property in his estate. As was correctly pointed out, that could have left those who wanted or needed to deal with such a property in some difficulty. There might be problems about giving good title. That is why Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 were made in the other place. As a consequence, the revised clause does not act to revest the property and does not have that retrospective effect.
  The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that the clause imposes a liability on the survivor. The clause does not impose a liability. Where an insolvency administration order is made it allows the trustee to seek an order for a monetary sum. Only if such a monetary order is made will a liability be imposed. I would also point out that I did say quite clearly in Grand Committee that we intended the provision to apply to any case where the petition for the bankruptcy was presented after the new clause came into effect. The provision will not apply to what I shall call the "bankruptcy" of a deceased insolvent if the bankruptcy was started before the new provision comes into force. That is a very important condition.
  The clause, as amended, makes it clear that it will apply only to those bankruptcies which are started after the new clause has come into effect. The existing law will continue to apply in cases which are started before the new provision comes into effect. We said in response to the Commons Trade and Industry Select Committee that the provision did not have a retrospective effect. But the provision we were talking about was the original Clause 11 rather than the new Clause 11 which has replaced it.
  The new provision will allow the value lost to the estate as a result of the operation of the survivorship rules to be recovered by way of a monetary order. That is subject to an important limitation. Only as much as is needed to pay off the creditors and the costs of the proceedings can be recovered. A deceased insolvent's estate may contain other assets which can and should

  1349
  be applied to that purpose before interfering with the operation of survivorship rules. We believe that this amendment adopts the right approach. I repeat that the revised clause makes it clear whether the new provision will apply to a bankruptcy or not before that bankruptcy starts.
  We have to look at the issue in practical terms. Those who suggest that the clause should not apply unless the debtor dies after it has come into effect are not paying sufficient attention to the position of the creditors. The position of the survivor appears to have been considered, but it is assumed in every case that the interests of the survivor should be paramount. We believe that a balance needs to be struck.
  Let me give an example. Before his death a person may have had a substantial amount of building work on, say, the jointly owned matrimonial home. But he dies before paying the builder or at least leaving a hefty balance outstanding. Under survivorship rules, the deceased's interest in the property passes to his survivor. The builder has effectively contributed to the value of the property, but nothing may remain to pay him as the law stands. The likelihood is that the builder advanced the credit because he thought the debtor was creditworthy on account of his interest in the property. The consequence for the builder may be his own insolvency, with all that that means for him, his family, his employees and his creditors. His failure may even cause others to fail. That is one example of how a creditor might be affected. But I am sure the noble Lord. Lord Kingsland, with his fertile imagination, can think of many more. Surely we have the balance right: that the limited degree of retrospectivity provided for under these new provisions and Clause 11 as rewritten is the best way to approach the matter.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he referred to the question of balance. In looking at the proposed new Section 421A(3), if the subsection stopped at the semi-colon I would wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord's analysis of the balanced approach of the Bill. However, after the semi-colon there is the following expression:
  "but, unless the circumstances are exceptional, the court must assume that the interests of the deceased's creditors outweigh all other considerations".
  That vastly skews, in a way which is wholly unfair to the survivor, the balance to which the noble Lord referred.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it does skew the balance but in the end it is left to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. That is surely the right way for these matters to be dealt with. We have provided for a balance. We have provided for an assumption which makes it easier for the courts to consider the matter. But, in the end, we have provided through the exceptional cases provision that the courts can make a decision which is fair in the circumstances of an individual case.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  3 Clause 11, page 7, line 13, leave out from ("persons)") to end of line 28 and insert ("there is inserted—
  COMMONS AMENDMENT

    Insolvent estates: joint tenancies.
    421A.—(1) This section applies where—

    (a) an insolvency administration order has been made in respect of the insolvent estate of a deceased person,

    (b) the petition for the order was presented after the commencement of this section and within the period of five years beginning with the day on which he died, and

    (c) immediately before his death he was beneficially entitled to an interest in any property as joint tenant.

    (2) For the purpose of securing that debts and other liabilities to which the estate is subject are met, the court may, on an application by the trustee appointed pursuant to the insolvency administration order, make an order under this section requiring the survivor to pay to the trustee an amount not exceeding the value lost to the estate.
    (3) In determining whether to make an order under this section, and the terms of such an order, the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the interests of the deceased's creditors and of the survivor; but, unless the circumstances are exceptional, the court must assume that the interests of the deceased's creditors outweigh all other considerations.
    (4) The order may be made on such terms and conditions as the court thinks fit.
    (5) Any sums required to be paid to the trustee in accordance with an order under this section shall be comprised in the estate.
    (6) The modifications of this Act which may be made by an order under section 421 include any modifications which are necessary or expedient in consequence of this section.
    (7) In this section, "survivor" means the person who, immediately before the death, was beneficially entitled as joint tenant with the deceased or, if the person who was so entitled dies after the making of the insolvency administration order, his personal representatives.
    (8) If there is more than one survivor—

    (a) an order under this section may be made against all or any of them, but

    (b) no survivor shall be required to pay more than so much of the value lost to the estate as is properly attributable to him.

    (9) In this section—
    "insolvency administration order" has the same meaning as in any order under section 421 having effect for the time being,
    "value lost to the estate" means the amount which, if paid to the trustee, would in the court's opinion restore the position to what it would have been if the deceased had been adjudged bankrupt immediately before his death."
    (2) In subsection (1) of section 421, after "apply" there is inserted "in relation".")
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
    [Amendment No. 3A not moved.]
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  4 Clause 14, page 8, line 32, at end insert—
  ("(2) For the purposes of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the functions conferred on the Financial Services Authority by virtue of Schedules 1 and 2 are to be treated as conferred by that Act.
  (3) Section 356 of that Act (Authority's powers to participate in proceedings: company voluntary arrangements) is amended as follows—
  (a) for subsection (1), there is substituted—
  "(1) Where a voluntary arrangement has effect under Part I of the 1986 Act in respect of a company or insolvent partnership which is an authorised person, the Authority may apply to the court under section 6 or 7 of that Act.",
  (b) for subsection (2), there is substituted—
  "(2) Where a voluntary arrangement has been approved under Part II of the 1989 Order in respect of a company or insolvent partnership which is an authorised person, the Authority may apply to the court under Article 19 or 20 of that Order.",
  (c) in subsection (3), for "either" there is substituted "any".")
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 19 and 29. The amendments deal with an issue which I brought to the attention of the House at Report stage when I explained that following the successful passage of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 through Parliament, we would need to consider whether there were any implications for this Bill.
  Part XXIV of the Financial Services and Markets Act sets out the rights of the Financial Services Authority to participate in insolvency procedures involving regulated persons, including companies doing financial services business. I am sure the House will agree that it would be both incongruous and create a gap in the authority's regulatory powers if the authority was not to have similar rights in respect of the new company voluntary arrangement provisions to those it has in other types of insolvency procedures. To omit such powers from the Bill may be potentially damaging to the interests of the consumers.
  We have also taken the opportunity to deal with a matter which was omitted from the Financial Services and Markets Act when it was passing through Parliament. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 provide that the authority should be given the right to apply to the court on the ground that any of the company's creditors or any other person is dissatisfied by the actions of the supervisor, and for the authority to be heard if such an application is made by another. That applies whether or not the voluntary arrangement was preceded by a moratorium, or whether it is here or in Northern Ireland.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 16, page 9, line 1, after ("except") insert ("section 14(3),")
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
6 Schedule 1, page 10, line 17, after ("is") insert ("or has been")
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. This amendment makes it explicit on the face of the Bill that Schedule AI will apply where there is or has been a moratorium in force. Previously, new Section 1A(2)(d) provided that the procedure would apply only while a moratorium was in force. However, the scheme set out in Schedule AI envisages that certain acts will necessarily take place after the moratorium has come to an end. This is because it relates not only to approval but also implementation of a voluntary arrangement which, by definition, takes place once a moratorium has ended.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 Schedule 1, page 10, line 37, at end insert—
(""money market contract" and "money market charge" have the meanings given by the Financial Markets and Insolvency (Money Market) Regulations 1995 ("the 1995 regulations"),")
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 and 14 to 16. These amendments will ensure that the company voluntary arrangement moratorium does not prejudice the existing modifications of insolvency law relating to "money market contracts", "money market charges" and "related contracts" as defined in the Financial Markets and Insolvency (Money Market) Regulations 1995, and "system-charges" as defined in the Financial Markets and Insolvency Regulations 1996. The amendments are necessary to protect the status quo and to enable financial markets to continue to function in the event of the insolvency of one of the market participants.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
8 Schedule 1, page 10, line 40, at end insert—
(""related contract" has the meaning given by the 1995 regulations,")
9 Page 10, line 42, at end insert—
(""system-charge" has the meaning given by the Financial Markets and Insolvency Regulations 1996,")
10 Page 11, line 11, after ("contract") insert (", a money market contract or a related contract")
11 Page 11, line 12, after ("charge") insert (", a money market charge or a system-charge")
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 to 11.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 to 11.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
12 Schedule 1, page 13, line 14, after second ("the") insert ("day on which those meetings were to be held (or, if those meetings were summoned to be held on different days, the later of those days), unless it is extended under paragraph 32.
() If the nominee fails to summon either meeting within the period required by paragraph 29(1), the moratorium ends at the end of the")
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 17. The amendments deal with an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in Grand Committee on 15th June, on Report on 11th July and, I regret to say, also at Third Reading on 26th July. The noble Baroness was right to continue. The amendments will ensure that the wishes of the creditors' meeting to extend a moratorium will prevail in a situation where the company fails to hold a meeting. They also make it an express part of the nominee's duty to summon meetings of the company and its creditors to be held within the initial moratorium period. The moratorium will end at the end of that period if he does not. Currently, that period is 28 days but because it may be increased or reduced using the power in paragraph 8(7), the amendment does not specifically refer to the length of the moratorium period. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for drawing this point to our attention. I urge the House to accept the amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 12. I shall somewhat shorten my speech given that the Minister has been so gracious in saying that I was right to continue pressing the point. As he said, I began making the point in Grand Committee on 15th June. The amendment represents a complete U-turn by the Government. It has the desired
1354
effect that if the members of the company do not meet, the moratorium can still be extended by the creditors under paragraph 32. The government amendment meets all the criticisms which I made in Grand Committee and which were dismissed at that time. I am grateful for the amendment and I thank the Minister for it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall let the "U-turn" pass.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
13 Schedule 1, page 14, line 19, at end insert—
("() no landlord or other person to whom rent is payable may exercise any right of forfeiture by peaceable re-entry in relation to premises let to the company in respect of a failure by the company to comply with any term or condition of its tenancy of such premises, except with the leave of the court and subject to such terms as the court may impose")
14 Page 18, line 27, at end insert ("a money market contract or a related contract,")
15 Page 18, line 29, after ("charge") insert (", a money market charge or a system-charge")
16 Page 18, line 40, after first ("charge") insert (", a money market charge, a system-charge")
17 Page 21, line 7, after ("date") insert ("(within the period for the time being specified in paragraph 8(3))")
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 to 17.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 to 17.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
18 Schedule I, page 23, line 35, leave out from ("(3)") to end of line 36 and insert ("shall not be made after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with—

(a) the day on which the decision was taken by the creditors' meeting, or

(b) where the decision of the company meeting was taken on a later day, that day.")

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18. I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 20. It is the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. The amendments deal with an issue raised by the noble Lord in Committee. The amendments provide that there should be a time limit on the ability of a member of the company to go to court if particular decisions taken at the creditors' meeting, which take effect under paragraph 36 of Schedule Al or paragraph 5 of Schedule 2, differ from those made by the company meeting. While we believe that the timing of such an application will be largely self-regulating, we consider that there would be an advantage in there being a cut-off point of 28 days beyond which such applications cannot be made. With due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I commend the amendment to the House.

1355
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, it falls to me to have the final gloat. As the noble Lord said, we first proposed a time limit to any application made by a member of a company as long ago as 15th June. After several months of cerebration, the noble Lord has finally come round to our point of view. I am very grateful to him for doing so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall let that "gloat" go by as well.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
19 Schedule 1, page 28, line 30, at end insert—
("Functions of the Financial Services Authority
43A.—(1) This Schedule has effect in relation to a moratorium for a regulated company with the modifications in sub-paragraphs (2) to (16) below.
(2) Any notice or other document required by virtue of this Schedule to be sent to a creditor of a regulated company must also be sent to the Authority.
(3) The Authority is entitled to be heard on any application to the court for leave under paragraph 20(2) or 20(3) (disposal of charged property, etc.).
(4) Where paragraph 26(1) (challenge of nominee's actions, etc.) applies, the persons who may apply to the court include the Authority.
(5) If a person other than the Authority applies to the court under that paragraph, the Authority is entitled to be heard on the application.
(6) Where paragraph 27(1) (challenge of nominee's actions, etc.) applies, the persons who may apply to the court include the Authority.
(7) If a person other than the Authority applies to the court under that paragraph, the Authority is entitled to be heard on the application.
(8) The persons to be summoned to a creditors' meeting under paragraph 29 include the Authority.
(9) A person appointed for the purpose by the Authority is entitled to attend and participate in (but not to vote at)—

(a) any creditors' meeting summoned under that paragraph,

(b) any meeting of a committee established under paragraph 35 (moratorium committee).

(10) The Authority is entitled to be heard on any application under paragraph 36(3) (effectiveness of decisions).
(11) Where paragraph 38(1) (challenge of decisions) applies, the persons who may apply to the court include the Authority.
(12) If a person other than the Authority applies to the court under that paragraph, the Authority is entitled to be heard on the application.
(13) Where paragraph 39(3) (implementation of voluntary arrangment) applies, the persons who may apply to the court include the Authority.
(14) If a person other than the Authority applies to the court under that paragraph, the Authority is entitled to be heard on the application.
(15) Where paragraph 40(2) (challenge of directors' actions) applies, the persons who may apply to the court include the Authority.
(16) If a person other than the Authority applies to the court under that paragraph, the Authority is entitled to be heard on the application.
(17) This paragraph does not prejudice any right the Authority has (apart from this paragraph) as a creditor of a regulated company.
(18) In this paragraph—
"the Authority" means the Financial Services Authority, and
"regulated company" means a company which—

(a) is, or has been, an authorised person within the meaning given by section 31 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000,

(b) is, or has been, an appointed representative within the meaning given by section 39 of that Act, or

(c) is carrying on, or has carried on, a regulated activity, within the meaning given by section 22 of that Act, in contravention of the general prohibition within the meaning given by section 19 of that Act.")

20 Schedule 2, page 32, line 9, at end insert—
("() An application under subsection (3) shall not be made after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with—

(a) the day on which the decision was taken by the creditors' meeting, or

(b) where the decision of the company meeting was taken on a later day, that day.")

21 Page 32, line 9, at end insert—
("() Where a member of a regulated company, within the meaning given by paragraph 43A of Schedule Al, applies to the court under subsection (3), the Financial Services Authority is entitled to be heard on the application.")
22 Schedule 3, page 36, line 4, after ("court)") insert—
("(a) in subsection (2)(a), after "with," there is inserted—
"(aa) no landlord or other person to whom rent is payable may exercise any right of forfeiture by peaceable re-entry in relation to premises let to the debtor in respect of a failure by the debtor to comply with any term or condition of his tenancy of such premises, except with the leave of the court,"
(b)")
23 Page 36, line 13, at end insert—
(" . In section 254 (effect of application), in subsection (1) —

(a) after "pending" there is inserted—

"(a) no landlord or other person to whom rent is payable may exercise any right of forfeiture by peaceable re-entry in relation to premises let to the debtor in respect of a failure by the debtor to comply with any term or condition of his tenancy of such premises, except with the leave of the court, and

(b)"

(b) after "may" there is inserted—

"forbid the levying of any distress on the debtor's property or its subsequent sale, or both, and"").
24 Page 39, line 21, at end insert—
(" . In section 347 (distress, etc.) —

(a) in subsection (1), after "(subject to" there is inserted "sections 252(2)(b) and 254(1) above and",

(b) in subsection (8), at the beginning there is inserted "Subject to sections 252(2)(b) and 254(1) above."")

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 19 to 24.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 19 to 24—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Inherited SERPS
4.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I would like to repeat a Statement on inherited SERPS. The Statement is as follows:
"In my Statement to the House of 15th March this year I explained how millions of people were given wrong, misleading or incomplete information about rule changes introduced by the last government in 1986 which were due to come into effect earlier this year. As I told the House then, as a matter of principle when someone loses out because they were given the wrong information by a government department, they are entitled to expect the Government to put it right.
"In March, I announced that we would defer any changes in the inheritance rules by two-and-a-half years until 6th October 2002. That remains the position. I also said that I would consult the ombudsman, the National Audit Office and others on a protected rights scheme which was designed to provide redress to people who were given wrong or incomplete information. I have received a range of helpful and constructive representations from Members of this House, Select Committees and others. I have also received the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee, whose report I am publishing today. Copies will be available in the Library and the Vote Office.
"As I have said before, the solution to this problem has to be both fair and workable and, as the ombudsman has said, it must provide a global remedy. I am determined to make sure that we do that. Over the past few months, I have become increasingly convinced that a protected rights scheme would not work in the way intended and therefore would not provide a fair and just solution to this problem. It would not be fair because we cannot be sure that it would reach all those affected, particularly the very elderly and vulnerable. It would be very difficult to safeguard the scheme against fraud and abuse. Its operation would inevitably cause injustice, and on that basis I do not intend to pursue it.
"There were two key problems with the decisions taken 14 years ago by the last Conservative government. First, they decided to implement the changes without any transitional arrangements. What is worse, they continued for years to give out wrong, misleading and incomplete information
1358
about what they planned to do. We have already deferred the change in the inheritance rules until 6th October 2002. No one at all will be affected by the policy change before that date.
"The proposals I am making today are designed to give full protection to every pensioner; to give younger people adequate notice of the change to SERPS rules; and to provide transitional arrangements for those approaching retirement age. First, men and women who are already over the state pension age cannot do anything to restore their position. I have therefore decided that all men and women who are over state pension age on 5th October 2002 will be exempt from the changes. That means every pensioner will keep their existing entitlement.
"Secondly, proper notice has to be given to those who are planning for their retirement. So I am proposing that the new rules will only apply to men and women who are now 10 years or more: away from their state pension age.
"Thirdly, those people who are approaching state pension age will have less time to plan for their retirement. So for those who are within 10 years of their state pension age, we will phase in the changes. For example, people who reach state pension age between 2002 and 2004 will be able to pass on 90 per cent of their SERPS; those reaching pension age between 2004 and 2006 will pass on up to 30 per cent, and so on.
"We intend to bring forward regulations in the new year to implement these changes and we will consult on the draft regulations in the usual way. We will also write this week to all those people who have contacted us already to set out the position.
"There is of course a very small number of people who have evidence that they were clearly misinformed by the department. For example, they have a letter from the Benefits Agency containing the wrong information. This small group will have access to the usual departmental procedures that deal with cases of maladministration to the extent that the proposals I am announcing today do not fully compensate them already.
"I have already taken steps to prevent this happening again. As I told the House in March, I am reorganising the DSS so that it can better serve its key customer groups. I am bringing together policy and operational responsibility into a single organisation dedicated to pensioners.
"As part of that process, we have already tightened up the procedures for checking leaflets and guidance. I want to ensure that in future people are told about changes in pension policy so they can plan for their retirement in full knowledge of their position. That is why, next year, we will begin to send out combined pension statements giving people more comprehensive information on their entitlements.
"The proposals I am making today will clear up the mess we inherited. Everybody who has reached state pension age in October 2002 will be unaffected

1359
by the new rules. My announcement today will remove any worry for pensioners about providing for their spouse. For men and women who are more than 10 years away from state pension age we are giving them the proper notice to which they are entitled. For those within 10 years of their state pension age we will phase in the changes.
"Due to the timing of these changes the costs will be comparable over the next three years. The reforms I have announced today will cost around an extra £1.5 billion over 10 years and an extra £4 billion over 50 years.
"This problem should have been sorted out 14 years ago. What happened in the years after 1986 was a series of colossal blunders which were inexcusable and caused untold distress to millions of people. The then Conservative government have to take full responsibility for what happened. We are now taking the responsibility for sorting it out. I commend this statement to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement which was made in another place by the Secretary of State. This whole problem has been described as the most expensive act of maladministration since the war. I believe that it is probably true to say that it is the most expensive act of maladministration ever. It has been an extremely long-running saga. That saga is given in very great detail by the report of the Commons Select Committee on Public Administration entitled Administrative Failure: Inherited Serps published only a few days ago. When I first saw on the Annunciator that there was to be a Statement, I assumed that it would be a response by the Minister to that report. In fact, I now understand why it is not mentioned.
I very much regret the tone of the Minister's Statement in the other place; I do not refer to the Minister in this place. Discussions on this matter have shown that we on this side fully recognised responsibility for what happened in our period in office. But we have also recognised, as I believed the Minister had done, that there was a responsibility on the other side as well. That is set out very clearly indeed in the report to which I have just referred. It states:
"We believe that the failure of the department between 1996 and 1999 to take adequate action to inform their staff and the public perpetuated an already unsatisfactory situation".
So we do not accept what the Minister said in her final words, that then then Conservative government have to take full responsibility for what has happened.
Indeed, it is also the case that as regards responsibility, throughout there has been an appalling breakdown in communications, but that has not been deliberate. However, paragraph 17 of the report states:
"A Pensions Bulletin was issued in January 1999, which summarised the changes to inherited SERPS in four paragraphs. However, subsequent Bulletins only provided holding answers for
1360
staff to give to the public. Rachel Lomax [the Permanent secretary] told us that the failure to fully inform the public at this stage was a conscious ministerial decision".
There is a significant difference between a situation where there is an inadvertent breakdown in communications and one where there is a deliberate decision not to give the public full information.
I shall not detain the House by going into some of the other matters referred to by the Select Committee. This whole problem raises important issues as regards the relationship between officials and civil servants. I am glad that the report will do something to improve that because it is still impossible to find out who was responsible for what has happened. When I was the chairman of the Liaison Committee in another place, we dealt with this matter at great length. The report raises important questions—which I hope the Government will study carefully—as to the relationship in the House and in Parliament between officials and Ministers.
We spent many hours on previous Bills debating this issue. In particular, we commented on the ombudsman's report, which the Government said they accepted. The ombudsman recommended a global solution, which the Government's proposal for a protected rights scheme clearly was not. We now have a new situation which will, I hope, deal with the problems envisaged by the Select Committee.
The Select Committee was very concerned. It stated:
"Our fear is that the original maladministration in this case may well now be compounded by a redress scheme that has all the makings of an administrative disaster".
Given that the Select Committee expressed that fear, and given the matters that we raised during previous debates on this subject, I welcome what the Minister has now said.
This is certainly an improvement on the previous scheme, which clearly would not prove to be practical. It is extraordinary that it has taken the Government so long to realise that that is the case. None the less, what is now proposed is better than the procedures previously envisaged—on which the House spent so much time and which are now, willy-nilly, dropped at a moment's notice.
It is a complex proposal and it will take time to understand it. Therefore, other than saying it is better than the previous proposal, I should not like to comment in great detail until we have had an opportunity to study it.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister one or two specific questions. First, as to the question of cost, I am rather surprised that, given the Government's proposal, the cost is smaller—amounting only to billions and billions—than one might have expected. As a point of comparison, can the Minister tell the House how the costs now to be incurred compare with the costs of not going ahead with the proposal to reduce SERPS at all?
Secondly, the Minister referred to a very small group of people who have documentary evidence. So far as those matters are concerned, will it still be the case—as previously recommended by the

1361
ombudsman—that the onus of proof will rest with the Government and not, as now proposed, with the normal administrative procedures?
Finally, we welcome the statements made in regard to better information for pensioners. It has emerged clearly from this saga that private pension providers have onerous obligations to provide correct information. It appears still to be the case that the Government have only a duty of care to provide proper information. The two are very different. Are we to understand that the Government propose to strengthen that position and that there will be a more onerous obligation on them to provide correct information than has hitherto been the case?
5.4 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we welcome the Statement. The inherited SERPS disaster has been debated on several occasions in your Lordships' House, both in the present Session and in the previous one. This is clearly the most serious administrative failure for decades—although, in relation to its effect on pensioners, it is not as serious in the end as the disastrous pensions mis-selling scandal, which was introduced as a result of the unfortunate decision of the previous Conservative government to allow people in occupational schemes to opt out of them.
Any fair remedy for this disaster will be very expensive. The ultimate cost appears to be something of the order of £6.5 billion that is some £2.5 billion for the deferral to October 2002 and an additional £4 billion. The Government's preferred remedy before the Statement was made was deeply unsatisfactory. It proposed that compensation should be given only to those who had acted—or, more likely, failed to take action—in reliance on incorrect information.
The burden of disproving a claim, once made by a pensioner, was placed on the Government. This meant, first, that the burden of initiating the claim rested on the pensioner. Many pensioners were unlikely to make a claim; many would have failed to appreciate the need to take action at all; and many others would have been deterred by the consequent involvement in the bureaucracy of having to deal with the DSS. But, because the claim, once made, was difficult to disprove, the scheme could have been a charter for fraud, as the Select Committee on Public Administration pointed out.
The Government's new proposals are therefore a great improvement. We welcome the age-related exemption from the reduction in SERPS as a better solution than the further deferral of the change in the system. We also welcome the tapered exemption for those who will be within 10 years of the state pension age on 6th October 2002. We shall obviously want to look at the detail of the proposals, but we believe that, in principle, they are acceptable.
The only part of the Statement with which we disagree is the attempt to place full responsibility on the Conservative government. It took the present Government two years after they discovered the
1362
existence of this mess to sort it out, during which time serious distress was caused to many people because of uncertainty and the possible loss of an expected benefit.
The Statement is not the end of the matter. Two things need to be done. First, there is a need to ensure fair treatment for present and future pensioners; and, secondly, there is a need to prevent any similar disaster happening again. The Statement deals in a broadly satisfactory manner with the first of these issues; it does not deal at all with the second. That is not a criticism of the Statement. This is a wider issue. It is not a matter for the Department of Social Security alone; it concerns every government department.
This disaster may well have been due, as Sir Christopher France suggested in his answer to question 188, to something as elementary as a proofreading error. That should not have been possible. Plainly, the antiquated IT system in the DSS may well have played a part. Here I shall refer to the evidence of Mr Peter Mathison, who was the chief executive of the Benefits Agency from 1995 to 2000. At question 248 he stated:
"Most local offices, very few people in the local office network have access to the intranet or PC-based thing, it is all very old systems. When I came in, in August 1995, I had not seen a black and green screen for nearly eight or nine years. I could not believe the state of the IT support. In pensions, there are, I think it is, something like 14 guides of 50 volumes and they are all paper-based, and that is just on pensions. Across the whole range of benefit, there are 500 manuals and guides people need to refer to, to answer one of any million of questions, and all of them are paper-based".
Then he was asked:
"It must have depressed you enormously?".
He replied:
"And it depressed me that we could not get the investment to do something about it; and since I have been outside I would give my eye-teeth to have some of the stuff I have been using recently. I have got better IT support in the spare bedroom at home".
That is a devastating criticism of the failure of both the present and previous governments to invest properly in IT systems for the DSS.
Perhaps the most shocking passage in the Select Committee's report is the statement in paragraph 5 that,
"Government departments do not have a duty to provide information on changes in law".
We want an assurance from the Government that the whole system will be overhauled. We want an assurance that this and future governments will accept that they have a duty to provide full and accurate information on changes in law to anyone who may be affected by those changes. We also want an assurance that, so far as is humanly possible, this scandal will never be repeated.
5.11 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am glad to receive the words of welcome for the Statement from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I was a little disappointed at the tone of the response from he noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I thought it unusually grudging

1363
and half-hearted, and I was sorry about that. I am sure that he, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and other noble Lords will accept that there is a very real difference between the position of the previous government and the present one. In 1986 the previous government took responsibility for making a variety of significant changes to SERPS. They included the 20 best years, the calculation in terms of annual, as opposed to incremental, changes in valuation, as well as the change in terms of inherited SERPS.
Any government who develop new policies have the responsibility at least to ensure that their literature is consistent with those policies. It was the then government's responsibility to ensure that the information that they gave out was accurate. They did not do so. That was a major failure on the part of the previous administration. I suggest in all modesty that that was rather different from the approach taken by the current Government who inherited the situation. As soon as they were aware of the problem, they took measures in the Bill that came before the House in the summer of 1999; they followed that with consultation; they came up with proposals in March this year, on which they subsequently consulted; and they are now responding. It has taken a fair amount of time, not only to consult properly, but to come up with proposals that the Government believe to be workable.
I remind noble Lords of our statement in July 1999 that,
"no one has suffered any financial loss as a result of these changes, because they do not take effect until 2000".
We also said that we were,
"considering which of those two routes is the better to follow or whether there is a third route which we have not yet explored. Several different responses have been given this evening and a variety of other suggestions have been made".—[Official Report, 6/7/99; col. 847.]
and that we were reviewing those suggestions. That was a proper, decent and honourable response. It suggests that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, would be well advised to think again about such a churlish response. As soon as we were aware of the issue we took action; we came up with proposals; we consulted; and we have now changed those proposals in the light of further consultation. If only the noble Lord's own government had taken on the same degree of responsibility, we should not now be in the mess that we are in.
The difficulty for this Government is that when we realised the nature of the problem we thought that we could redress the grievance that lay at the heart of it; namely, that people were suffering, either from misinformation or from a failure of information, and that that had either added to their financial detriment or failed to act to their financial advantage. That was the problem that we sought to address. That was the basis of the protected rights scheme that we brought before the House in March 2000.
Having listened to people and taken part in consultation, we have now been persuaded that the problem is deeper and that we cannot merely redress
1364
grievances: we have to return to the drawing-board and redesign the scheme. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, could have joined the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in welcoming the decency and propriety of our response, which I am proud to bring to this House.
Three specific questions have arisen, two of them shared by noble Lords. The first relates to costs. For the original scheme—the protected rights scheme—£2.7 billion was the cost of deferring any change until October 2002; there was to be a further £5.5 billion, making a total of £8.2 billion for the protected rights scheme. The scheme that we have now produced involves the same £2.7 billion through to October, and a further £9.5 billion, which brings the figure to £12 billion. I was asked what would be the cost of not going ahead at all. It would be £20 billion in total over 50 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised a point about remedy and maladministration. We shall now resort to the customary position of the DSS; namely, that if there is a case of maladministration the responsibility is on the DSS to ensure that the person is put back into the situation in which he or she would have been had the maladministration not occurred. That means that we are returning to a more conventional situation in which the person who is subject to the maladministration must show evidence to that effect.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that I must finish my response to the Front Bench in two minutes.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am sorry. I should merely like to ask why the Minister in the House of Commons referred to the cost as an extra £4 billion, rather than the £9 billion that has been mentioned.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is an extra £4 billion in total on the £8 billion of the protected rights scheme. That is the difference between the two schemes over 50 years.
Three points were raised about information. The first related to letters to individuals. As soon as the Secretary of State was aware of the problem early in 1999, he wrote further letters to people who had written to the department. The second question, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, related to information for staff and the cascade of knowledge. The noble Lord was absolutely right; this has been a weakness within the DSS. We are strengthening the system as regards information: we have developed the IT system and it is being rolled out. However, the noble Lord is right—unless staff in local offices have the requisite information they cannot advise people accordingly. The third question associated with information was what knowledge would go to pensioners and prospective pensioners.

1365
First, we are writing to all those who contacted us—some 20,000—and giving them information. We are developing a campaign to ensure more widely that those who are affected will know about it. We shall work with Age Concern and the relevant organisations to ensure that that knowledge is as widely dispersed as possible. Secondly, we shall be producing an integrated pension statement. From next year people will receive information about both their state retirement pension and their SERPS. We hope that from the following year we shall also be able to provide them with information about their private pension, so that they will be able to see what their future expectations may he and whether they want to take additional action in order to build up their pension rights.
I hope that with that response on cost, on the question of remedy and on information, noble Lords opposite will feel that I have answered their questions.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I rose to make a premature contribution because I, too, was taken aback by what I felt was a churlish response from the Opposition Front Bench. I have been concerned over the past months at our inability to arrive at a full solution in terms of removing the fear on the part of innocent people who have been subject to maladministration through no fault of their own. I am delighted to congratulate the Minister on the Statement and on finding a solution. My only advice to those on the Opposition Benches is to remember the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Healey, some years ago: "When in a hole, stop digging".
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for this welcome Statement. The Government have indeed listened to older people and to the organisations that work with them. This campaign has been hard-fought both for and by those people. I would mention in particular the All-Party Group on Ageing and Older People and the noble Lord. Lord Rix, who have done a great deal; as has my own organisation, Age Concern—both when I worked directly for it and since then.
I first wrote to the DSS in October 1998 and my letter set some alarm bells ringing. I am delighted that the new scheme is much more along the lines of what we suggested during debate on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill earlier this year. That is good news. I am very pleased that current pensions will be unaffected by the change to SERPS.
I hope that the Government will consider most carefully how the taper will work for new pensioners. Does the Minister agree that one of the most significant parts of the Statement relates to a point made by both noble Lords opposite who have spoken; namely, that future changes to state pensions will be better publicised. Changes to pensions are not the same as other changes to the law. I say that because they involve planning by people for their future. It is a long-term task. I believe that there is a moral, if not a legal, obligation to inform people about such changes.
1366
Of course, it might also be necessary for it to be a legal requirement. It is terribly important that this point should be taken on board for the future.
Can the Minister tell me what consultation will now take place? Can she say specifically whether this House will still consider the proposed regulations in detail and, if so, can she also say within what sort of timescale that might happen?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister replies, perhaps I may remind the House that, in order to maximise the time available to deal with Statements, noble Lords should confine their remarks to questions rather than making general comments.
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I very much welcome the thanks and support expressed by my noble friend Lord Brett and, indeed, the generous welcome given to the Statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I should like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her efforts in this respect. That applies also to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who, I am sorry to say, is not present in the Chamber. I pay tribute to him for his supportive and constructive but, none the less, terrier-like campaign on these issues. As I say, I believe that we have achieved an outcome that is decent, honourable, fair and, above all, workable.
As the noble Baroness identified in her remarks, the advantage in our scheme is that there are no cliff edges; it is a taper. I am delighted about that. I can tell the noble Baroness that the regulations will be produced in draft form. They will, therefore, go to the Social Security Advisory Committee and be made available to the Select Committees, and so on. As a result, there will be ample opportunity for further consultation about the detail of this implementation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend asked the Minister whether the Government still have only the duty of care or whether there will now be greater responsibility placed upon them. Can the Minister say whether the issue of combined pensions statements mentioned in the Statement, which she subsequently explained and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, referred, mean that the Government are now taking greater responsibility in this respect?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is not so much a matter of responsibility; it is a question of providing information. In the light of available information, we are—absolutely rightly, in my view— trying to help people plan for their retirement by giving them the best forecast that we can as to what their contributions so far in a possible variety of pension schemes may produce for their future. We hope to start issuing such statements on an annual basis from next year for retirement pensions and SERPS. We shall also include information in that statement about occupational pensions. However, these are forecasts: they are future projections, with all the relevant health

1367
warnings attached. We are trying to ensure that people have the fullest possible knowledge to enable them to plan for their future old age.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. As she knows, I have not always been fully supportive of the Government's policies on pensions. However, on this occasion, I welcome the Statement with great pleasure. As noble Lords know, I have been present in the Chamber on every occasion upon which there has been discussion about inherited SERPS and the problems that have arisen because of the failure of the previous government to see through the decision that they made in 1986. Indeed, reference has been made to the latter by noble Lords on this side of the House and by noble Lords opposite.
I am particularly glad that the position of present pensioners is to be fully safeguarded and that proper transitional arrangements are in place. An important consideration in pension matters is that people ought to know about their entitlements. They have to plan for their future and they must know about their pension provision. I was especially pleased to hear that it is intended to issue combined pension statements. That will serve to focus people's attention on pension provision. If this is to be done on an annual basis, with mention being made of occupational provision, as I believe my noble friend said, that will also be a very valuable aid to people when planning their pensions.
This is an excellent Statement. I am most grateful to my noble friend for the announcement. I am sure that she had a great deal to do with these measures behind the scenes. I thank my noble friend most sincerely for having secured such a satisfactory settlement.

Millennium Dome
5.25 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) rose to move, That this House takes note of the planning, management and operation of the Millennium Dome, and of its future.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I welcome this debate. Indeed, I have always wanted a detailed debate in relation to the Dome, and this is the first opportunity to do so since the recent Third Readings of various Bills in this House. It is right that this project has been the subject of sustained and detailed parliamentary scrutiny throughout its life. It has been the subject of more than 1,200 parliamentary Questions, eight debates, including today's, five Select Committee inquiries, a National Audit Office report and a PAC inquiry.
Today's debate will inevitably cover material similar to that considered by the NAO report. But it will go wider. This debate will cover the planning and the building of the Dome, not just its year of operation. It will also, rightly, look forward to the future. It is not appropriate for the Government to respond in detail to
1368
the recommendations of the NAO report; that must await publication by the PAC of its conclusions. However, the NAO report can provide a mine of factual information on the year of operation and the history of the Dome. In this debate, I shall seek to cover all the main issues on the Dome and answer specific points raised.
In many respects, the Dome is a remarkable achievement. It has become the UK's top pay-to-visit attraction. It has been at the centre of the drive to revitalise the once contaminated and abandoned North Greenwich peninsula, bringing jobs and opportunities to thousands. And yet, in truth, the Dome has not lived up to the expectations of those who supported and initiated it. At the heart of its unpopularity is the additional lottery funding of £179 million over that budgeted which it has required during 2000.
As the NAO concludes:
"The main cause of the financial difficulties is the failure to achieve the visitor numbers and the income required".
These visitor numbers were ambitious and inherently risky. It was the failure to meet those numbers which caused the need for the additional lottery funding. We need to learn lessons from the experience, in particular about what the public sector can and cannot do. But we also need to ensure that the problems that the Dome has faced do not obscure its very real achievements. Relative to its target of 12 million visitors, the Dome has not succeeded. Relative to every other pay-to-visit attraction in the UK, it has succeeded. It has received more than any other rival this year. It has made a significant contribution to the Thames Gateway and will bring a substantial legacy in jobs and regeneration to the area.
The story of the Dome starts in 1994, when the then Heritage Secretary, the right honourable Peter Brooke, said that he supported the idea of a millennium festival with a substantial exhibition at its heart. Right from the start the idea was driven by politicians, not the commercial or business sector. The previous government recognised this. The coordination of decisions in relation to arrangements for the millennium, including the Dome, were taken at Cabinet Committee level. The Cabinet Committee, Gen 36, was set up in February 1996, the same month as Greenwich was chosen for the site of the exhibition. The committee was chaired by the then Deputy Prime Minister. Among its members was the present Leader of the Opposition.
At the time of its selection, the North Greenwich site had negligible transport infrastructure and extensive contamination. It was selected, as the Select Committee in another place found,
"because it offered … an opportunity to provide economic and environmental regenerations'.
Although private-sector operators were sought, it became apparent during 1996 that no such operator could be found. The risks and demands associated with the project meant that it would never be attractive to a private operator: an immovable deadline; and a year to start, run, finish and make a profit out of an

1369
entirely new visitor attraction. Although it was not attractive to private-sector operators, it is, nevertheless, a venture that has had to trade as effectively as its well-experienced competition; namely, the museums, the waxworks, theme parks and attractions, which are competing for visitors throughout the year.
The previous government set up a structure which involved a private company running the exhibition. This company had, rightly, all the restrictions which apply to limited liability companies. It was also a non-departmental public body, so it had all the bureaucracy and transparency which, rightly, go with those bodies. All its funding which did not come from visitors or sponsorship came from the Millennium Commission. That body, rightly, was responsible for ensuring that the substantial sums it granted to the Dome were properly spent.
The sole shareholder in the private company (which was also a non-departmental public body) was a Minister, the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the noble Lord, Lord Freeman. The chairman of the Millennium Commission was also another Minister, the right honourable Member for South West Surrey, Virginia Bottomley. The arrangements for building and running the Dome involved two Ministers, a chairman, chief executive and board of directors, three accounting officers and nine millennium commissioners.
The final part of the jigsaw required in the planning stage was to determine how much of the funding was to come from the lottery. This depended, in large measure, on the number of visitors expected. The figure on which the final budget was based was 12 million. In 1995, when the idea of the exhibition was being developed, the figure of 12 to 30 million visitors had been proposed by the Millennium Commission. By the time the budget was being prepared before the previous election, the figure, having veered around, had been put at 12 million. The Millennium Commission, on which the primary duty for appraising the business plan fell, believed that the 12 million figure would be achieved.
The proposal for the project was ambitious and impressive in its vision. But, in 1996 and early 1997 when the planning was going ahead and significant sums were being spent in the preparatory stages, it would have had no chance of progressing in time unless the then Opposition indicated that they were willing to support it in principle. Without our support in principle there would not have been that degree of certainty which comes from a bipartisan project. We considered it very carefully. We recognised the risks. We also saw the regeneration gains and the benefits to be obtained from a successful exhibition.
In January 1997, we agreed the terms of an announcement with the then Heritage Secretary, the right honourable Virginia Bottomley, in which we indicated that, subject to a review if we were elected, we supported the idea of a national exhibition. The announcement which we agreed specifically drew attention to the fact that the decontamination and
1370
regeneration of the 300 acre site—the largest derelict site in southern England, just six miles from Westminster—would be one of the great legacies of the event. We completed our review within eight weeks of coming into office and the project proceeded. We accept full responsibility for that decision. We think that the prize was worth fighting for.
In the period between June 1997, when we decided to go ahead, and 31st December 1999, a major capital project had to be completed, a huge exhibition mounted and a large, complicated show written, rehearsed and opened. The project, as is well known, was delivered on time. Not only was the building completed, but also all the zones and the central show. There is a multitude of views about the contents of the Millennium Dome. Some, but not all, are had. Many of them are good. I quote what Jon Snow wrote in the Evening Standard on 9th June:
"Spectacular from all quarters, vast and dramatic on arrival, and last week, crammed with people of all shapes, ages and conditions actually enjoying themselves".
He continued,
"We in the media have gone to unparalleled lengths to rubbish the thing. And we have failed".
Charles Spencer, the theatrical correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, wrote in that paper on 3rd January of this year:
"I saw it through the eyes of my six-year old son, who was completely gobsmacked by the Dome and all its works … It's not often that one shares in a moment of communal, uncomplicated, good-natured joy but this was one of them".
We never expected everybody to like all of it. But equally we never expected the very high levels of visitor satisfaction which the Dome has enjoyed throughout the year.
In the course of 1999, the Dome company decided that 1 million free school places should be made available in the pricing structure. This was an idea that the Government advanced and supported. The Dome was keen to reach as many people as possible, particularly young people, who might not otherwise go. We did not want the schools which organised trips to be only those which would not be put off by a charge of £8 per head. It has cost us some revenue—the NAO estimates £7 million—but it has probably also generated some. The number of children who bring their parents because they liked it when they visited with their school is unquantifiable.
As the Select Committee in another place pointed out in its 5th report, the Dome company has been criticised for providing free school tickets, but would undoubtedly have been criticised if it had not. I believe that we were and are right to have made that decision on free school places. In a letter to the Prime Minister from Eastburn Junior and Infant School, Bradford, a teacher wrote:
"I took a party of 40 Year 5 and 6 children to the Dome. Without exception every child thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I have never known such an enthusiastic response from children".
I move to the year 2000. On four occasions throughout 2000 the Dome company was awarded further grant by the Millennium Commission. The total value of the additional grant was £179 million.

1371
The vast majority of this money was not allocated to deal with additional costs but to replace estimated income which did not materialise. As the NAO report states:
"The financial difficulties were largely the result of the shortfall in income".
This is the view of the National Audit Office, the Dome company, the Millennium Commission and those advising them. These problems have not pushed up the money spent by the Dome (though the budget has gone up for other reasons by 4.6 per cent), but they have meant that a greater proportion of the Dome's budget has had to be provided by the Millennium Commission rather than by revenue from visitors.
Once the Dome had been constructed and much of the project cost had been incurred, the room for manoeuvre in the face of low visitor numbers was, in the words of the NAO, "very restricted". Its view is that closing the Dome or liquidating the company during the year of operation
"would not have made financial sense".
This is a view shared by the Dome company, the Millennium Commission, David James, the accountants advising the Millennium Commission and PricewaterhouseCooper. The only people who do not share this view appear to be those in the Conservative Party.
On 6th September 2000, Mr Peter Ainsworth said,
"We believe the Dome should close".
This, despite the fact that by then David James had made public the figures for how much more expensive it would have been to close the Dome early.
The right honourable William Hague, the Leader of the Opposition, seeing the passing bandwagon and ignoring the figures, said the next day that the plug should be pulled. It is not realistic, I suppose, to expect financial sense from the Conservatives, but surely it is reasonable to expect some degree of honour and consistency. We supported the scheme when they asked for our support. I pay tribute to the right honourable Michael Heseltine who has supported the project through thick and thin. He said:
"Our task is to maximise the national gain and recognise that this is a non-party-controversial issue; it is an all-party endeavour".
Those on the Opposition Front Bench, on the other hand, have washed their hands of any responsibility. The electorate are angry about the extra lottery money involved. We accept our responsibility for it. But it was a bipartisan project from its inception. The idea was conceived under the Tories. They selected the site. They set up the company to build the Dome. They devised the complex management structure highlighted in the NAO report. They set the visitor numbers. They persuaded people to work on the project on the basis they supported it. They knew the risks. But at the first sign of trouble they abandoned the project. There can be no more depressing sight than the right honourable Leader of the Opposition standing outside the Dome with his spin doctor and a camera crew denouncing the project he and his
1372
government started. There was a no-car policy at the Dome, but that did not stop the right honourable Leader of the Opposition parking his bandwagon there. The gutless hypocrisy of the party opposite impresses no one.
Throughout the year, the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) and the Millennium Commission have worked closely together on solving the problems which have come from the shortfall in income. The NMEC has, rightly, been concerned to ensure that the quality of the experience and the stability of the company should be preserved. The Millennium Commission has rightly been concerned that costs should be kept to a minimum. It has provided staff and had its own accountants and consultants to help and inform them throughout this period. That is an appropriate and healthy tension.
The NMEC is a company which has been under considerable pressure during these 11 months. Any company which had just completed a massive capital project and had then opened a huge and novel visitor attraction would be.
As was agreed in February 2000 with the Millennium Commission, the NMEC's strategic priorities during the year have been to maximise revenue and keep cost to a minimum. Its financial systems have needed, and have had, improvement. As the NAO report pointed out, its record keeping of contracts, assets and invoices was at the beginning of the year unsatisfactory. But a thorough study of its contracts revealed no net increase in liabilities; that the failure in relation to invoices was delays in recording rather than missing debts, and that the asset register is well on the way to being prepared. Paragraph 3.4 of the NAO report sets out the detailed improvements which have gone on throughout the year in record keeping and financial management.
David James, the present executive chairman, confirmed during his evidence to the Public Accounts Committee on 15th November that,
"NMEC has not lost money as a result of inefficiency".
We go back, as ever, to the visitor number estimates which, as the NAO found, was the cause of the problem. The problems should not have occurred, but I think that it is fair to give a company going through the experience which the NMEC was going through some extra time to get its record keeping up to date.
Whatever may be going on among the politicians about the Dome, there is a complex and difficult business which needs running down in Greenwich. Throughout the months of operations, the Dome company has been doing that. That has required a high degree of determination and leadership from the people running the business. To ensure the effective management of the Dome, changes at board level have been required. In February, it was plain that the Dome needed experienced visitor-attraction leadership. The appointment of PY Gerbeau as chief executive provided that. At the same time, the Dome and the Millennium Commission agreed priorities for the board to pursue and some new structures. The issues of corporate governance were very thoroughly

1373
discussed at this time between myself, the Millennium Commission and the NMEC. We all shared the same goals.
In May 2000, Bob Ayling, who had overseen the delivery of the Dome on 31st December and who had been instrumental in bringing in the new chief executive in February, resigned and was replaced by David Quarmby. Shortly before that, Malcolm Hutchinson joined the board in an executive capacity to oversee cost-cutting strategies. At David Quarmby's suggestion, in early August 2000 David James was brought in, first in a consultancy capacity and then as executive chairman.
Throughout this year the company has remained focused and upright. It has changed its management in response to events and has survived a battering to which less strong companies would have succumbed. The company is running the most popular pay-to-visit attraction in the UK. It has a highly committed staff despite the exhibition ending in a month. It has competent and confident management. It is doing the right thing in operational and financial terms. It has responded to problems and crises appropriately and quickly. That it did not get everything right from the outset is hardly surprising. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
The failure to meet the visitor targets on which its budget was based has meant that the Dome's solvency has depended primarily on replacing the lost revenues with additional grant from the Millennium Commission. Throughout the year of operations the NMEC has been in detailed touch with the commission. The commission has always been required to be satisfied on every penny of extra grant— and rightly so. As the board and its advisers have always recognised, it can only continue to trade when it is solvent, or it can within a very short time make an application to the Millennium Commission for additional funds. With the exception of the period between the delivery of the PricewaterhouseCooper report on 22nd August and the application to the Millennium Commission on 5th September the board always believed that it was trading solvently. During that short period I have mentioned, it rightly continued to trade pending the application to the Millennium Commission.
In answering Questions in Parliament about the solvency issue, I have always scrupulously reflected the views of the board and its advisers. On 27th July, I answered that the company was solvent because that was the view of the board. The company was entitled to a substantial share of the proceeds of the Nomura deal and it was reasonable to suppose the Millennium Commission would advance money again against those proceeds, which it duly did on 4th August 2000. The board had, since May, received independent legal advice from a City firm on solvency issues. On the basis of that view, I considered the company to be solvent. It would have been wrong of me to have given any other answer than the one I gave on 27th July.
The PWC report delivered on 22nd August identified certain liabilities, in particular wind-down liabilities which had not been identified by the
1374
accounts department of the NMEC. This meant that the application made to the Millennium Commission was incomplete. It was necessary to make a further application to the Millennium Commission, which was done on 5th September. I informed the House of this error at the first opportunity; namely, on its first day back after the Summer Recess, on 27th September. I reject absolutely any criticism of my parliamentary conduct. While the error was sufficiently important to merit immediate correction at the first opportunity, it is important to recognise the reality. The Millennium Commission, after proper and detailed consideration, has recognised during the year 2000 the same point as the National Audit Office. It makes no financial sense to close early during the year of operation. It therefore decided that it would support the Dome during the year 2000. This meant that its creditors would be paid and possible insolvency avoided.
The exhibition continues for another month. So far 5.6 million visitors have attended. National programmes of worth and value have been running this year and were run last. Nineteen million pounds have been raised for the children's charities by the children's promise appeal. The "Our Town Story", in which every local education authority in the country took part, provided an opportunity for each community to tell its own story.
Legacy plc has been appointed preferred bidder in the competition to find a buyer for the Dome. There is work to be done before the contracts can be signed but there is an innovative and regenerating bid, backed by blue chip financial backers, which will produce a reasonable value-for-money return—comparable with any likely alternative use of the site, with or without the Dome.
The Dome is a building of distinction and worth. It has won architectural and design awards. It is world famous. It is a building we would be wrong to pull down. Six hundred and twenty-eight million pounds-worth of lottery money has or will be spent on the Dome. On the other side of the balance sheet, the Dome has contributed to the regeneration of the biggest derelict site in the south of England. In the next 10 years the investment by the public sector, including the "Dome Effect", is forecast to attract investment of around £1 billion: about £260 million by 2006 in relation to Legacy plc development; £250 million for the millennium village; £90 million for associated development such as Sainsbury's, cinema and hotel; and about £400 million on residential and mixed use between the village and Dome site.
We have stated that the Government should not run visitor attractions. We tried to deliver a visitor attraction within a budget—and to a degree of success which Disney could not manage. We should have realised that. But we have stayed in the arena fighting successfully to deliver a first-class visitor attraction which is well-managed and contributing to the legacy and future of the area for generations to come.
I hope that this debate will help us to learn lessons. I personally am very willing to accept them. But I also hope that the debate will recognise what has been

1375
achieved in this brave national project. The Tories can pretend that they never supported it. The Tories can abandon the people they persuaded to work for it. They can reduce public life by their short-term opportunism. They can run down a national project. But we will continue to work for and deliver the jobs and regeneration that North Greenwich so badly needs. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the planning, management and operation of the Millennium Dome, and of its future. —(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
5.49 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, that was an amazing speech. I, too, shall take a great deal from the NAO report, described as a mine of factual information, rather than the Alice in Wonderland information which seems to be the noble and learned Lord's principal source.
Before I get to the meat of the matter I must declare not an interest but feelings of prejudice and irritation which arise from two episodes. The first was when the Millennium Commission took its deplorable decision to reject the bid of the Cardiff Bay Opera House Trust for what in comparison with the Dome expenditure was an almost ridiculously insignificant amount of money; and Jennie Page justified the decision on the ground that the commission did not have confidence in our business plan. The dome project then went ahead under Jennie Page's direction on the basis of a business plan that was deeply and fundamentally flawed from the outset.
The second episode began in July, when it appeared to me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, had, at the very least, acted with an extreme lack of prudence when he repeatedly expressed confidence that the New Millennium Experience Company would deliver the project within its lifetime budget at precisely the moment when the company was warning in its annual report that there were significant risks that might prevent it from so doing and just after he had received a letter from the chairman advising him of a further deterioration in the company's finances. I had to wait two months for a reply to my letter on the subject, which, when it came, failed to answer my question.
We all know that the noble and learned Lord is a very nice man. I was going to say that, having put aside my irritation, it pained me to have to be critical of his role as a Minister and as the government shareholder of the New Millennium Experience Company. However, after hearing his speech, I feel much less embarrassed at my line of criticism.
I start with his defence that it was all just as much the fault of the previous Conservative Government because they began the project and gave it its initial structure. The noble and learned Lord is not only a very nice man, but, by all accounts, a very clever one. If he has a case, he ought to be able to do better than that.
1376
Let me remind the House of the timetable. As the National Audit Office report says, in January 1997 the Millennium Commission offered £200 million,
"to enable further development of the business case and preliminary work, including the letting of major contracts".
In May 1997—the month of the general election—the company submitted a revised business plan to the Millennium Commission and the incoming Blair government. At that time, final decisions had not been taken on the Dome's content, on ticket prices, on marketing strategies and on whether there would be access by car.
The new Government reviewed the project thoroughly, so we have been told. That review went far beyond the details of the business plan to ask the fundamental question of whether to continue with the project. The issue went to the Cabinet, where some members apparently thought that the answer should be "no". However, the collective decision was an emphatic "yes". The project was to be a symbol of new Labour. There is a ring of truth about the reported comment of one senior Cabinet Minister: "If Tony has made a decision, we will all have to support it". Tony had made a decision and they did support it.
Presumably the Cabinet had before it the Millennium Commission's written appreciation of the business plan which said that it lacked detail on commercial, operational and pricing strategies and that it contained no information on the key drivers for the company's business—the contents of the Dome.
Having taken the decision, the Government had two-and-a-half years to make sure that the business plan was sensibly developed and workable strategies were put in place. That is a long time. Ministers can hardly argue that they simply left in place the very preliminary arrangements that had been barely sketched in when the previous government left office. On the contrary, Ministers involved themselves to an extraordinary extent—probably unprecedented in the history of non-departmental public bodies. The coordinating group, chaired by the shareholder, met regularly from June 1997 until the opening of the Dome. Throughout 1999, the shareholder met weekly with officials from the Dome and the company. The noble and learned Lord became the shareholder in January 1999.
The NAO report reminds us that the shareholder is responsible, among other things,
"for setting the strategic direction of the company and for monitoring its programme in terms of cost, content, national impact, legacy and effective management".
The noble and learned Lord attended 16 of the company's 22 board meetings held between April 1999 and 12th September 2000 and was represented at two that he could not attend. Once he had been given the thankless task of acting as shareholder by his old friend the Prime Minister, he was in it up to his neck. He is a nice man and a clever lawyer, but he appears to have been totally out of his depth.
The extent of the noble and learned Lord's involvement was extraordinary and most unusual. The normal—and very wise—practice is for Ministers to

1377
stand back from non-departmental public bodies. That prevents them from becoming party to the decisions taken and puts them in a position from which they can form a dispassionate judgment and, if necessary, take effective remedial action. To act otherwise obscures where responsibility lies. That is particularly likely to be the case when the structure is highly complex, as the NAO report confirms is the case here.
The confusion created by those arrangements is startlingly revealed by the correspondence reproduced in the NAO report. The noble and learned Lord had got himself into a position in which he appeared to be acting as chairman of the company—or at least as joint chairman.
The letters exchanged in February and March are remarkable. Chris Smith, as chairman of the Millennium Commission, wrote a highly critical letter, insisting that corporate governance at NMEC would have to improve. The letter was addressed not to Robert Ayling, but to "Dear Charlie". It said:
"The NMEC board does not appear to have played the role we would have expected in confronting the problems and providing leadership. This is disquieting on issues relating to commercial and operational strategy and media handling, and extremely serious when it comes to solvency and financial management. Either the Board did not see or it chose to discount the warning signs of the cash flow difficulties. As a result it seems possible that it failed to take decisions until after a date when the company became technically insolvent".
Chris Smith went on:
"The Board must be encouraged to take responsibility for overall stewardship of the company and provide the clarity of direction any good management team needs".
The noble and learned Lord, not the chairman, replied, to be followed a week later by a reply from Robert Ayling rejecting the concerns that had been raised.
Neither response satisfied the Millennium Commission, which remained so concerned that Chris Smith arranged a meeting with the noble and learned Lord in May to discuss his anxieties. By all normal conventions, it is odd that Chris Smith's original letter about board conduct did not go to the chairman, even if, by his attendance at the majority of the board meetings, the noble and learned Lord had inevitably become associated with and party to the failure to provide leadership, to take decisive action until after a date when the company was technically insolvent and to provide the clarity of direction needed. Has a Minister ever written more devastatingly critical and damaging comments about a colleague?
There was a second, and equally remarkable, exchange of letters in September, between the Earl of Dalkeith, writing on behalf of the Millennium Commission, and the noble and learned Lord. Lord Dalkeith said that the PricewaterhouseCoopers report made salutary reading, with its conclusions that there were serious financial weaknesses in NMEC, that budgeting was inadequate, that an exit plan had not been properly thought about, costed or resourced and that any further funds given to NMEC would be at risk without,
"substantially enhancing the skill and resources of the company".
1378
The noble and learned Lord replied:
"Like you, I was shocked by what the PWC report implied about NMEC's financial management and corporate governance".
Why was he shocked? He had attended 16 of the 22 board meetings and been represented at two others. He had been repeatedly warned by the Millennium Commission. He had the full resources of the Cabinet Office behind him. How could he possibly have failed to observe those shortcomings? Did he never inquire about the adequacy of the budget, the cash and solvency position of the company, whether it had a proper assets register and what were the contractual liabilities and those likely to arise from closure?
As the months and years passed after the Government had concluded their initial thorough— we have had confirmation from the noble and learned Lord that it was thorough—review of the business plan, did he and his colleagues—Peter Mandelson, who was the initial shareholder, and Chris Smith— never question the reality of a plan which meant that the Dome had to attract more than four times the number of visitors as the next most popular UK pay-to-visit attraction achieved in 1999? Did they never inquire whether there was a clear plan in advance of how the company would respond if visitor income fell significantly below the required levels? Surely that would have been an obvious question, particularly after it became clear quite early on that sponsorship income was also much less than originally planned.
With a business plan so obviously highly risky, was it wise of the Government to insist that up to 1 million schoolchildren should be admitted free, at a cost of at least £7 million? The noble and learned Lord said that the idea had come from the company. The NAO report is quite specific that, having considered the request, the company accepted the Government's view.
One would have expected that the noble and learned Lord would have asked all those questions and taken appropriate action. As I pointed out, from January 1999 he was responsible for monitoring progress in terms of cost, content, national impact, legacy and effective management. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he failed to carry out his responsibilities effectively. The failure to achieve visitor numbers was not, as he appeared to suggest, an act of God. It was the result of a business plan that was from the outset fatally flawed. And it was the result of the grave deficiencies of management exposed by the NAO report—grave deficiencies with which the noble and learned Lord was so closely associated.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, could the noble Lord confirm that the date of the business plan was April 1997?
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I have already gone through the history and pointed out that the revised business plan was considered and approved by the Government when they came into power.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the date of the business plan was April 1997?
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the date of the original business plan, which, as the NAO report concludes, was updated as time went on, was April 1997. As the NAO report makes perfectly clear, it was reviewed by the Government and it continued to be reviewed by the Millennium Commission at regular intervals thereafter.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the grant of £449 million was approved by the Millennium Commission on the basis of the April 1997 business plan, which estimated the number of visitors at 12 million?
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am not arguing about that at all. I merely point out that the scheme did not go ahead until the Government had a chance to drop the whole project. They could have abandoned it. As the noble and learned Lord told us, they reviewed the business plan thoroughly and went ahead with it. The way in which the noble and learned Lord, who was in it up to his neck, tries to avoid taking any responsibility for his actions is quite extraordinary.
The noble and learned Lord then came to the House in late July and told us that he was confident that the NMEC would deliver the project within its lifetime budget of £758 million. He stuck to that assertion, even when I reminded him that the company's annual report clearly identified the substantial risk of failure and despite the fact that he had just received a letter from the chairman of the company pointing out that the financial situation was deteriorating. Indeed, the Millennium Commission then produced a review which stated that it might run out of money in the space of two or three weeks.
By September, the cost had become £793 million. On 15th November David James told the Public Accounts Committee that, if one took account of the cost of the two sponsored zones not included in the original plan, the true cost was now £834 million. Is that the final cost?
I shall leave others to raise questions about a possible sale. I use the word "possible" because there is no contract, and the last time that the noble and learned Lord announced a sale, it fell through. However, I want to ask what is the current estimate of the total cost of dismantling the contents of the Dome and whether that total cost is included in the overall total. On this occasion is there to be, as there was to be with Nomura, an early payment of £105 million, with £53 million of it going to NMEC, and, if so, when? I hope that I can have an answer to those questions before the debate ends.
I conclude by saying that I thought I had a good deal of sympathy for the noble and learned Lord—at least I did before the debate began. He was told by his friend the Prime Minister to do a job that he did not ask for, that I suspect he did not want and for which he was in no way qualified. However, Ministers must accept responsibility for the way in which they carry out the jobs that they have been given.
1380
The noble and learned Lord acknowledges that all has not gone well but says that he wishes to see the project through to the end. On the basis of what has happened so far, it is hard to see why that would be of benefit to anyone. Would it not be better if he added to his considerable reputation as a man of integrity by acknowledging failure and going, leaving it to others who may well be better qualified to clear up the mess?
6.7 p.m.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the situation at the Dome. I begin by declaring both an interest and a prejudice. My interest is that for many years I was the financial adviser to the London Docklands Development Corporation where this site was manifestly evident as a dereliction that needed to be addressed. My prejudice is that I was never a supporter of the Dome as a millennium commemoration vehicle. I believed that other things could have been done. Indeed, when I was chairman of a company before I retired, on two separate occasions we were asked to contribute financially to the Dome. We declined to do so on both occasions.
Having said that, I recognise that the Dome has many, many supporters, who must be somewhat disappointed at the nature of the media attention which it has attracted. I also recognise clearly the regenerative effect that the project has had on Greenwich and the surrounding area.
Before going further into an examination of the planning, management, operation and future of the Dome, which this Motion invites us to consider, I say at the outset that I do not intend to spend my time singling out any individual to whom to ascribe blame for the events that have taken place. I am content to wait for the conclusions of the PAC to do that. In any event, in my opinion the cast of culpable characters in this tragedy is so large that I would spend all my time trying to ascribe blame rather than, I hope, trying to establish one or two lessons that we might learn from what has occurred.
First, let us consider the planning. As the Minister said, we should always remember that this started as a private sector project. The intention was that it would be delivered by the private sector and bids were invited. I believe it is fair to say that at the end of the day it came down to a two-horse race—Birmingham against Greenwich. In the end, for sensible reasons Greenwich was selected. However, when the Government tried to sell the project to the private sector, there were no takers. The private sector considered that the risk outranked the reward. Here, I believe, is lesson number one for the Government. If the private sector does not want to run a commercial venture, what business do government have trying to run it? That is the prime lesson which comes from this and I believe that the Minister acknowledged that.
Once it was constituted as a non-departmental public body, however dressed up as a limited company, with a separate board of directors and so on, it is my view that that decision resulted in a

1381
commitment to open-ended funding. The only issue once that decision was made was who was going to pick up the tab: was it going to be the Exchequer or the millennium commissioners? The indemnities which were taken later by the directors only formalised the position; they did not do anything about changing it.
It seems to me that the only point in time at which a credible decision could have been made as to whether or not to proceed was at the time of the review by this Government. In the in-depth review to which the noble and learned Lord referred, were the costs evaluated of cancellation of the project at that point in time? Was an evaluation made of what it would have cost to call it off in April/May of 1997? If so, what were those costs?
Following the decision to create this as a non-departmental public body, we have what the NAO describes in its report as "complex organisational arrangements". In my experience, these are not complex; they are positively Byzantine—three bodies, three accounting officers and two Ministers, one of whom reports to himself. I have been lectured by members of legislatures about conflicts of interest in the profession to which I belong and I have to say that I am breathless as regards what went on here.
That leads me on to the execution because I believe that the execution of the project has inevitably been hampered by this complex arrangement. It may be large-scale and complex in terms of what goes in it, but this is a relatively simple, single-purpose project. And yet we end up with a scheme of arrangements which is breathtaking.
The construction phase was completed on time and, when I first looked at it, I thought on-budget too. I was quite encouraged by that. But then I looked again and read the report in more depth and it seems to me that there is what we might call in accounting terms a dangling debit of about £40 million. So that when you compare apples with apples or pears with pears, it looks to me—and I should be grateful if the Minister will confirm whether or not this is so—as though there is a construction overrun of about £40 million which is covered by contributions in kind and it is offset in that way.
Even so, to construct the project on time, reasonably close to budget is good. And it seems to me that a great deal of time and effort was spent on that, so much so that the people involved took their eye off the ball in terms of having to run what had been constructed.
The NAO report lists four principal causes of failure: the failure to attract visitor numbers, a lack of operational expertise, poor marketing and weak financial management.
I deal first with the lack of operational expertise. In that regard, again, I believe there is a very important lesson for us. This project was to plan, build and operate an asset, exactly the same as we have in many PFI and public-private partnership initiatives. I repeat, plan, build and operate. It is no good planning it and building it extremely well if you then forget to put in place the appropriate provisions for operation. When you look at the different skill-sets which are needed for each of those, it is incredibly important to
1382
understand that you start to build the operational capability as soon as you start to plan and build the asset. I suspect that that was lost sight of in this case.
The Minister said that hindsight is a wonderful thing. It is wonderful, particularly when you are looking at forecasts. But if you look back to what was available at the time the business plan was constructed and look in particular at the consultants' reports that gave indications of the likely visitor numbers, the number that was selected for planning purposes was at the upper end of the parameter. In my experience, that is unusual to say the least. It is much more usual to have a greater degree of prudence.
It seems to me that you should be looking for the same degree of prudence in these forecasts as you would look for in a prospectus of a company issuing shares. In view of what was then available, particularly the lack of information with regard to the content of the Dome, there was no chance at that time that a sensible financial adviser would have signed off on that forecast had this been a public prospectus. In the future, we need to look for that degree of prudence in relation to such projects.
In terms of poor marketing, I was astonished to read that the marketing plan was initially based on the notion that the Dome would sell itself. I acknowledge that that was quickly overturned. But again, I fail to understand how anyone could construct a plan on the basis of something selling itself when it was not possible to sell it to the private sector in the first instance. It seems to me that that was naive at best.
As regards the weak financial management, yes, there is always a case for saying that with new, one-off projects, there are sometimes what I would describe as problems which arise by moving up the learning curve. But not tracking your liabilities and commitments on a major capital project is simply inexcusable. That should not have happened.
Before moving to the future, perhaps I may make one or two comments about the solvency issue because that has attracted a lot of attention. The PricewaterhouseCooper report commences its executive summary with the words, "The company is insolvent". It does not say that it might be or may be but that "the company is insolvent". In continuing to trade, the directors had to take account of the likelihood of future funds being available.
To me, the most worrying aspect of the whole solvency issue is not so much the failure to attract the visitors. It was known that that was happening and something was being done to try to address that matter. But there is the additional £30 million which was identified only by Price Waterhouse at the time of its review. In my judgment, competent financial management should have had that on the agenda.
And so to the future. We understand that there is a preferred buyer and that the project involves the creation of what may loosely be described as an indoor science park. I have absolutely no doubt that in David James, we have a chairman of this entity who is well

1383
equipped to see it through to completion. I hope that he will be successful because regeneration of that area of London is very important to our capital city.
However, I say from my experience of urban regeneration that a leverage of £1 billion on government expenditure, if I can describe it as that, of £600 million is not a very good leverage. We should be looking for much greater leverage in terms of the money that has been spent already. I hope that that will be pursued.
6.19 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, we, too, on these Benches welcome this debate. The Dome lies in my diocese so I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I share a few thoughts about its past, its present and its future.
The Dome was, of course, to be the statement of the millennium. The Minister has reminded us that millions of pounds of public money were spent on it. Businesses were sought as official sponsors. Advertising ran at a high level. The Queen would greet the new millennium under its roof; the Archbishop of Canterbury would pray it in. That all happened but with hardly the aplomb that was planned.
That is partly because of the power of the media. On 31st December it was not a good idea to keep newspaper editors, with their guests, standing in the drizzle at an Underground station so that they missed the Dome's opening party. After the debacle of that opening night the press never gave the Dome a chance. I feel that the media treatment of the Dome has ill served the public by seeking to persuade people that it was not worth visiting. I believe that those who have not visited the Dome have missed something significant. I have visited the Dome several times, usually in the company of children, who have never failed to enjoy it.
I first visited the Dome when it had just been completed. It was light, airy, a wonderful open space, a miracle of architectural grace. Then we spoiled it; we put things in it. Perhaps it is a perfect symbol of our times: we can do anything, we can build anything, we have the skills, the computing power and the imagination, but we do not know what it is for because we do not know what we are for and we do not know what we truly value.
When the other great dome of London, St Paul's Cathedral, was built it was an equal miracle of architecture. The cathedral is a wonderful open space, but the builders knew what it was for: the honour and worship of God. They also knew what to put in it: the finest music and art to lift hearts and souls to the wonder of heaven. There is nowhere near the same coherence of purpose in the contents of the Dome.
Of course, there are some magnificent zones, but overall the quality is pretty mixed. I believe that even the spirit zone was at its best during its creation, when people of all faiths worked together in a way that had never been seen in Britain before. In my view, even the result of their labours was worthy rather than
1384
exhilarating. Nevertheless, there have been spin-offs from that co-operation. The inter-faith network has been greatly strengthened and has helped to launch and set up the great inter-faith celebration that launched the millennium in the Palace of Westminster.
Surely that is the point. Now is the time to turn the legacy around and get things right for the future. So far I have been a little disappointed that the focus of the debate has been almost totally on the past rather than on the future. The Dome could still be a major flagship building. In that part of London we need a flagship use for that flagship building on its flagship site. After all, there has already been much gain in the locality. Industrial land has been decontaminated; we have new transport systems, new highways, a new pier, a riverside walk and 50 acres of new parkland. There are arguments about whether the site would be more valuable with or without the Dome, but I believe that that is a little like saying that land in Sydney would be more valuable without the Opera House. True, not everybody likes the Dome, but in 1900 not everybody liked the Eiffel Tower. I still experience a thrill when I see the Dome from either side of the river.
What of the future use of the Dome? The borough has always believed that the Legacy plc bid is the one worth pursuing. The leader of the council has said so publicly. What do the local people think? As a diocesan bishop I have the advantage of being able to consult clergy in every area to find out what the local people are saying. In Greenwich I hear that the local people are mostly concerned about what the future proposals may mean in relation to jobs and housing. We are told that the Legacy plc proposal may create about 10,000 new jobs, which would be a great gain.
We are told that a major advantage of the bid is that it would create better quality jobs. If so, perhaps lessons can be learned from what has happened previously at the Dome, where whatever else they have done or not done, the New Millennium Experience Company has made every effort to employ local people. A policy was worked out and well implemented between the borough and the company so that a local skills base could be developed to match the skills levels required at the Dome.
If the bid of Legacy plc is the preferred bid, I believe that it should be a condition of the bid that every effort must be made to put in programmes of skills training in collaboration with local universities and colleges, so that Greenwich people can gain maximum benefits from the developments.
New jobs would bring new prosperity and a need for new housing, and it is vital that a good proportion of those are affordable, particularly for local young people and key workers. I know that the borough is trying to insist that at least a quarter of available accommodation must be affordable housing. It is hoped that what is being proposed will add to the energy of regeneration not only in the Dome peninsula but throughout the Thames gateway.
South London is changing rapidly. Recently, I held a brief staff meeting of my bishops and archdeacons in a pod of the London Eye, the wheel just across the

1385
river. Each of the pods has a guide assigned to it, and our guide was a young woman from Australia who knew her London, at least she knew her north London. As we faced south and kept asking questions, she eventually became irritated by us and said, "Why do you keep asking questions about south London? Nobody is interested in south London". We are and the people of south London are and people of London in general are increasingly interested in south London because they see the possibilities for developments south of the river.
However, that must not be at the expense of the local people or their environment. I am alarmed, for example, at Railtrack's plans for driving a new railway viaduct across the Borough market conservation zone, demolishing listed buildings as it goes and passing within yards of the most ancient cathedral church in London. South London needs regeneration but not at the expense of its communities and heritage.
That need not be the story of the Dome. Indeed, already badly polluted land has been cleaned up. Lasting improvements have been made to transport links. In the millennium year the Dome has provided much needed local employment and it has given millions of people something to remember. South London is proud of its Dome, but it will be prouder of it still if it can become a true sign of regeneration and hope for the future. There is no reason why it should not.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer for initiating this debate. I start by declaring a long-time interest, indeed a passionate enthusiasm for the Dome. I also remain unashamedly and unequivocally proud of my own contribution to a project which I believe, if treated constructively, could still come to be seen as a significant national asset.
Funded largely by lottery money, derided in the national media as "a disintegrating circus tent" and as "the joke of the century", it has an interior that is as unremarkable as the outside is remarkable; its costs have repeatedly spiralled out of control; its design has been praised and excoriated in roughly equal measure; there are constant rumours of insolvency; endless arguments about its future with some serious suggestions that it should be abandoned as a "romantic ruin" and, in short, it is a public laughing stock.
I refer of course, not to our Millennium Dome, but to the Sydney Opera House, or at least to the opera house as it was perceived in the mid-1960s. A generation later, it is widely acknowledged as one of the great architectural and artistic triumphs of the 20th century. Known locally as the "Eighth Wonder", it has become a potent symbol of Australian confidence and courage, the same confidence and courage that in recent years has brought about a brilliantly mounted Olympic Games, a thorough-going cultural renaissance and the ability to thrash us, and most other nations, at just about any sport you care to mention.
1386
In short, the once-derided Sydney Opera House is now a national icon of modernity, recognised across the world. Did ever an ugly duckling turn into such a swan?
It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine such a transformation taking place in this country, for the simple reason that in our national pastime we have developed a culture of blame, with quite devastating consequences to our collective self-confidence. Given the traditions of this House, it would be generous and accurate to acknowledge that everyone involved with this most challenging and complex modern day project threw every scrap of their energy into trying hard to make it a success. It is to their enormous credit that the Dome opened on time and almost on budget, albeit somewhat on its knees, the victim of a dozen mutually contradictory agendas.
The genuinely unique structure has been widely and rightly celebrated as one of the great architectural achievements of our time—one that can truly rival the grands projets so beloved of the French. Many of my generation spent years gazing across the Channel, bemoaning what we regarded as a national lack of vision. Now that we, thanks to revenues from the National Lottery, have finally realised some sense of national ambition, what do we do? We fall back on what we know best—our bizarre affection for self-flagellation.
Overseas cultural and business delegations visiting the Dome, especially from the "can do" culture of the United States, are truly amazed at the way in which we obsessively seek scapegoats for what they regard as a quite remarkable achievement. In my judgment, we may well come to be proud of the Dome in a number of ways. First, the project's contribution to London's future development will, unquestionably, come to be perceived as of immense and enduring significance. Here was a vast tract of land that had been left literally contaminated and dying, the victim of an age when industrial efficiency was measured by the sheer volume of polluting smoke that belched from our factory chimneys. Thanks to English Partnerships, 300 acres of land have been reclaimed, over a thousand homes will be built, a new primary school, a health centre and a hotel have been opened. It is forecast that, together with other developments, these projects will eventually create over 30,000 jobs. Much of the credit for this physical regeneration must go to my admirable acquaintance in another place, Michael Heseltine, who at an early stage had the energy, vision and imagination to understand the potential for this all but forgotten corner of south-east London.
Anyone in this Chamber who has visited it must admit that that once benighted peninsula has been utterly transformed. I sometimes wonder how many of the more critical voices on the Benches opposite and elsewhere have visited the Dome. I surmise that the answer is remarkably few. Your Lordships may have noticed that the most extraordinary polarisation exists between those who have visited the Dome, the vast majority of whom have enjoyed it immensely, and those who have yet to "find the time", defending their apathy or their ignorance by the sheer volume of their

1387
lacerating criticism. The unpleasant smell that used to seep from the gas works across the Greenwich peninsula has been replaced by the unmistakable stench of schadenfreude. It is a stench that has drifted across from the other side of the River Thames, from a not wholly unexpected source—the printing presses of Wapping, West Ferry and well beyond. While almost 6 million people will have enthusiastically strolled through the gates of the Dome by the year end, much of our national press still prefer to gloat and pick over the failures and the disappointments. I wonder how many million more visitors have been deterred by this obsessive negativity?
There have undoubtedly been failures and disappointments. Some aspects of the Dome were hopelessly over ambitious, others not ambitious enough. The decision to accept approximately £160 million from the private sector removed any possibility of the contents having an overall coherence. But even that decision was just an unfortunate consequence of earlier public squabbling, which in turn led to an ill-fated mismatch between private and public objectives. An uncomfortable hybrid was created and the overall quality of the experience undoubtedly suffered accordingly.
However, some of the contents have unquestionably been triumphs. Consider Our Town Story, which has generated wonderfully imaginative grassroots activity in 250 communities across the country, engaging an incredible array of schools, youth groups and pensioners. For all of them, the Dome is now a part of their collective memory. Earlier this month the Dome's national programme produced a quite extraordinary Remembrance Day ceremony, involving thousands of children, which successfully reinterpreted that occasion in a way that made it relevant to children who knew nothing of either of the two great world wars. The Tesco SchoolNet 2000 project, associated with the Learning Zone, now holds the world record for the largest school internet site, with over 134,000 pupils having actively taken part.
In one very crucial respect, the Dome continues to represent a defining moment for this country. Do we wish to present ourselves as a nation that has the courage to take risks and the intelligence calmly to assess what went wrong, and even to learn from it, or do we simply wish to cut and run, preferring to avoid any possibility of risk or embarrassment? We should remember that this nation created the Industrial Revolution through daring and lengthy processes of trial and error.
The idea that "fitting up" a culprit, tearing down or even blowing up the Dome will somehow wipe the slate clean is simply fatuous. It represents either wilful stupidity or serious ignorance of the way in which, through the global media, we are perceived by other nations. As the right reverend Prelate has suggested, we must approach the future with the same boldness of conviction as we unquestionably displayed in the past. If not, we shall become mere spectators, condemned to stand by and watch as other nations, such as Australia, sail past us—young, energetic, confident nations
1388
sailing past a timid, geriatric Britain. If, through our neurotic attachment to blame, we allow that to happen, the joke of the century will most certainly be on us. Our entire nation, irrespective of the Dome, will risk becoming a romantic ruin, fit only for its role as a heritage trail of faded glories.
I do not know how long it will take for the Millennium Dome to find its justified place in history. But I do not for a moment apologise for my belief that the Dome will be remembered as one of the defining projects of our age. It is now entirely up to us either to roll up our sleeves, assess the damage and set out to make a success of it, or to carve its failure on the epitaph of a nation that has lost its way and could appear to have lost its will and its nerve. I find it very difficult to believe that that is what the party opposite wants. By their present actions, that is what they are in real danger of achieving.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, it is not disputed that the Dome enterprise has been a financial disaster. It was almost admitted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer; it was brilliantly demonstrated by the forensic skills of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. That it has been inexcusably badly managed has been demonstrated, equally skilfully, by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman.
I want to suggest why it went wrong. We all know that the word "hubris" means "an excess of ambition, pride—ultimately leading to the transgressor's ruin". It is a word that might have been invented for the conception and birth of the Dome. I do not disagree with the description of the building given by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. However, the construction of such a gigantic edifice, however splendid, without the slightest idea of what to put in it, is a folly worthy of any Greek tragedy. I remember that in the early days of its gestation we were told that what it was to contain was so exciting that it could not yet be revealed. I am reminded of the South Sea Bubble of 1720. Your Lordships will recall from your history books that this culminated in one particular investment prospectus for, "a company for carrying on an undertaking of great advantage but nobody to know what it is"—not so very different from the words of the Prime Minister about the Dome, that, "it will be the envy of the world".
The idea of celebration was fine. The idea of developing Greenwich was fine. Indeed, the idea of developing the River Thames through London would have been even finer. Before I come to the Dome itself, I should like to express my profound regret that so little has been done in recent years to make the beauty of the Thames available to the people. Indeed, far from developing it in such a way as to emulate the beauty of the Seine in Paris, we are at this moment allowing a fresh generation of utterly undistinguished buildings to be erected on both banks.
Just to give one example, there have already been constructed on the north bank of the Thames between Vauxhall and Chelsea Bridges private palaces of

1389
supreme vulgarity—others are under construction—in some cases commissioned and paid for by minor foreign potentates. They will wall off the Thames from the people for the next 100 years. In the meanwhile, the river continues to flow virtually empty of all passenger traffic, while the roads on either side every day are a scene of extreme and polluting congestion. What a missed opportunity. And yet even today, in their recent urban White Paper, the Government do not seem to regard the Thames in London as even worth mentioning in its own right.
However, to return to the Dome, it is the ultimate and most costly victim of political correctness. The presentation, let alone the celebration, of Britain's history over the past 1,000 years was considered far too excluding, far too divisive; indeed, far too shameful to be allowed to be under starter's orders as a theme for what was to go into the Dome.
Instead, such is the arrogance of our ruling establishment—I direct this attack to the chattering classes of all three of the major political parties and of none—that they presumed to use our money (that is, the £628 million from all of us who take a flutter on the National Lottery) to reveal their vision of our future. Was it surprising that they could not come up with the goods?
I have of course been to the Dome. In January, along with several hundred other parliamentarians, I went by kind invitation of British Telecom. I was appalled at the vacuity of what I saw in the Dome. By far the best part of the day was the trip there by river; the general impression of the site, which is very good indeed; and the journey back by the new Jubilee Line. By far the most striking exhibit in the Dome was the purely commercial celebration in the De Beers Diamond Pavilion. Its contents were indeed thrilling, and they appear to have been the only things that anybody has made a serious attempt to take away.
The Black Adder film, to which we were subjected as the introduction to our heritage, was hugely embarrassing. It might just have justified an hour of TV viewing on a dull winter evening after supper. The money zone, with its tunnel of £1 million in £50 notes, was a vulgar gimmick. The talk zone, until one could escape from it, was a torture tunnel. The actor who cycled round the Dome dressed as a pastiche of an RAF pilot from the Battle of Britain might have been an amusing contribution at a village fete, but in the context of the Dome it was an insult to the recollection of "our finest hour". Much of the science section fell well short of what is now on view in the Science and Natural History Museums in South Kensington. Quite frankly, in some ways when I visited the Dome before they started putting in exhibits, I thought it was much more impressive than when up and running.
Those are the reasons it has not succeeded. Those are the reasons it failed every financial test set for it by this governing body. Like the game of Old Maid, the responsibility for the Dome has been shuffled from hand to hand and for the present has ended up in the hands of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I wonder whether he is proud of it. We shall see
1390
whether he adds it to his Who's Who entry. He has some sympathy from me and today I seek to help him. I want to make a specific proposal for the rebirth of the Dome.
To illustrate what we should have had in the Dome, I refer to the tiny former Portuguese colony of Macao, a pimple on the coast of southern China. Before they left, the Portuguese created a small museum to illustrate the social, political and cultural history of Macao since earliest times. I visited it this year and it is superb. It relates the history of Macao to the history of the world at the same time, in that case over several millennia. It thus gives a perspective of great educational value to children of all ages, including myself. I strongly recommend those noble Lords, and particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who are visiting Hong Kong or China to go to Macao and look at it.
It is not too late to do the same sort of thing in the Dome. Of course, it would be a year or two later than it might have been. But to illustrate Britain's role in the world from the time of the last invasion of these islands by Europeans from the mainland to the prospect—like it or not—of ever closer European Union would, I believe, draw millions. It would become an essential part of the educational programme for school children and students of all ages from all over the United Kingdom, and of course a "must" for tourists. In short, it could become as great an innovation and opportunity for the people of this country as has been the Open University, which is still flourishing after 30 years.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he opened his remarks by a rather unfair reference to a lack of focus on the Thames. Does he agree that various offshoots of the Millennium Commission or the Lottery Fund have regenerated Somerset House, the Globe, Bankside, Southwark Cathedral, the "Wobbly Bridge" and Hungerford Bridge all in the course of this year? Many millions have been spent in enhancing those buildings on the Thames.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am happy to agree in relation to Somerset House and many of the other fine buildings. But we should be doing much more. I am complaining that this Government, above all governments—rather like the failure of Melina Mercouri, the Greek Minister for Culture, who allowed so many awful things to happen in Greece— to protect the Thames and make full use of it throughout its length in London. That is my complaint.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, as has been said by a number of noble Lords, hindsight is a useful forensic tool. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, made a distinguished professional career almost exclusively based upon making himself an expert on the subject. It enables the investigator, with the benefit of perfect

1391
vision, to examine the relevant sequence of events and then to provide an expert opinion as to what went wrong.
In relation to the Dome, hindsight has taught us a number of important lessons. First, the successes of the Great Exhibition of 1851 and the Festival of Britain of 1951 were entirely irrelevant precedents. In those days there was no competition for a pay-to-visit attraction. Today the public have extremely sophisticated requirements.
People have been to Disney in Paris, Florida and California. If they want to, and I have no doubt a number of noble Lords have done so and will continue to do so on a daily basis, they can play console games such as Nintendo 64 and Playstation. They can play Internet games with limitless numbers of players or opponents. That is the reason why it has proved so difficult to create the so-called "Wow!" factor; or the notion in the minds of the public that the Dome is a "must-see" attraction.
Secondly—and on this point I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman—we now know for sure that if the private sector will not touch a proposition, then it should not be touched by governments with a barge pole. Certainly, they would be well advised to tread with great caution.
In the case of the Dome, it was plain as early as June 1996 that the private sector would not accept the risks. Nevertheless, in January 1997 the then Conservative government decided to deliver the project in the public sector using the vehicle of a limited liability company whose sole shareholder would be a government Minister accountable to Parliament. I am confident that we shall never see such an absurd and (to borrow the noble Lord's expression) Byzantine structure again.
Thirdly, this is not a case of serious miscalculation on the expenditure side. The current forecast is that expenditure will be about 5 per cent over budget. The real problem is that all the sums and the key decision to award a lottery grant of £449 million in 1997 were done, or made, on the basis of 12 million visitors to the Dome in the year 2000. We now know that the actual figure will be about 6 million. It is the shortfall in visitor numbers which has given rise to the problem.
I should like to deal with the target of 12 million. The facts are that in January 1997 the Millennium Commission adopted a plan with a visitor target of 10 million. In May 1997, just five months later, the New Millennium Experience Company produced a business plan which assumed that there would be 12 million visitors and that the budget would balance with about 11 million visitors. The commission promptly asked Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group to review the figures which had been forecast by the company. It concluded that 12 million was at the upper end of the range and, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, rightly pointed out, that the worst case scenario was 8 million. The noble Lord did not refer to that figure specifically, but that was the range anticipated by the experts. In the event, the company
1392
stood by its target of 12 million. That was the basis of the business plan and budget which were duly approved by the commissioners. With hindsight, we know that there were not enough visitors, which turned out to be the critical point.
The Dome is the most successful pay-to-visit attraction that we have ever had. It has easily beaten the previous record set in 1999 by Alton Towers. Further, in exit polls the overwhelming majority of visitors said that it was a satisfactory experience. Mr Gore may have his own views about exit polls, but that is another matter.
There are one or two other aspects of the story which need to be emphasised because they are of importance in arriving at an overall judgment about the whole episode. First, the site at Greenwich was selected as long ago as March 1996. The choice of Greenwich was in part driven by its historic association with time. It was also chosen because it was recognised as an area badly in need of economic regeneration. It had previously been the site of a gasworks: it was derelict and contaminated. The strategic objective of the commission was the regeneration of the whole of what became known as the Greenwich peninsula.
The site was duly purchased for £20 million in February 1997 and the structure was completed in February 1999. I have seen figures to suggest that over the next seven years approximately 30,000 new jobs will be created as a direct result of the Dome project. Perhaps when he comes to reply my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer can confirm the accuracy of that prediction and tell us something about it. I believe that the regeneration of Greenwich and the new jobs represent real social gains with which we should all be pleased.
I should like to comment on the involvement of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. My noble and learned friend has been the target of some criticism by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who I note is not in his place. My noble and learned friend became the shareholder in January 1999. He specifically did not have responsibility for the day-to-day management of the Dome, and paragraph 26b of the report of the National Audit Office is to that effect.
There are two important sentences in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which bear directly on this part of the story. The first is as follows:
"19. Once the Dome had been constructed and much of the project cost already incurred, the room for manoeuvre in the face of low visitor numbers was very restricted".
The second states:
"20. As the financial situation deteriorated the only options, short of closing the Dome and liquidating the company, which in the light of knowledge about the company's commitments would not have made financial sense during the year of operation, were to rely on receipts from the planned sale of the Dome and further grant from the commission".
Next, reference has been made to solvency. I leave aside the technical point that my noble and learned friend was not a director but shareholder and so had no day-to-day responsibilities for the affairs of the company. However, on four occasions in the course of

1393
this year additional awards totalling £179 million were made by the commission to support the project. The accounts were regularly and independently audited, insolvency practitioners were retained and the commission's own auditors were sent into the company. My noble and learned friend was at all times in receipt of advice from outside professionals. I believe that he was perfectly entitled to conclude that the money would be forthcoming, and it was. I also note that no criticism is made of my noble and learned friend in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
What emerges from all of this? I believe that I can summarise it in three short propositions. First, it should be borne in mind that we now have the benefit of hindsight. It is very easy to be judgmental after the event, especially when the critical events cover a very short and fast-moving period of time, as was the case here. Secondly, this was a cross-party initiative and attempts to point the finger at my noble and learned friend in order to make him a scapegoat are entirely misguided and utterly unfair. Thirdly, the report of the National Audit Office makes it quite plain that by the time my noble and learned friend became the shareholder in January 1999 the die was cast and there was little or nothing that he could have done about it.
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, we must all acknowledge that there have been failures and disappointments with regard to the Dome. Certainly, the Dome has not met our very high expectations, some of which may have been unrealistic in terms of visitor numbers. That was a mistake. I should like to underline the importance of regeneration, to which several noble Lords have already referred. We are all aware of the dire consequences of urban decay and neglect and what happens to very unfortunate members of society who live in such areas. We have already heard about the number of jobs which have already been created and are predicted. For once, we got the infrastructure right with the introduction of a very good transport system that will be of immense benefit to the whole of London and beyond.
There are other important points about the site. The site provides excellent access for disabled and older people. Such access has been neglected in the past. The Dome also provides a very good example of what may be called customer care. The mainly young people looking after visitors to the Dome have been exceptionally good at caring for people who are sometimes marginalised. I hope the future will provide opportunities for many of those marginalised people to benefit from the experience and that new avenues of employment and entrepreunership will include them in the future business park and development site. It is terribly important that they are included. In IT development it is especially important that the over-fifties and disabled people are targeted to benefit from the development.
1394
The opportunities that are available, and will become more available as the years go by, would not have existed without the decision to go ahead with the Dome.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, two years ago the TUC—of which I was then an official—decided to join with Tesco's and others in the creation of the learning zone. The TUC has no hesitation in saying that it is very glad to have been involved.
Three main points have emerged from the debate. First, April and May 1997 was just about the worst time to have received a carefully considered answer to the strategic question. But that is how the cards were dealt. Secondly, it is clear that the National Audit Office is far from lending support to the idea that the Government should have pulled the plug on the Dome half-way through the year. My noble and learned friend in paragraph 20 stated:
"Closing the Dome and liquidating the company would not have made financial sense during the year of operation".
Some of us who have not been the greatest enthusiasts for the Dome and all its works have concluded that the attacks on the handling of it in recent months—in particular on the actions of my noble and learned friend the Minister—have been way over the top.
The third point is to refute the fallacy that 12 million as a visitor plan assumption is a recent act of madness. Even today we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, saying that, with the logic of hindsight, the figure is four times higher than any other visitor attraction, as if any fool could have seen that the figure of 12 million was wrong. But, going back to April 1997, if that figure was then a "tent of fools", we were all of us in the same tent.
Talking of tents—big tents in particular—it is the Labour Party which has found itself occupying this big tent, but it does not mean that the Conservative Party would not have happily occupied it themselves. Indeed, at the present time I suggest that if the Conservative Party could find any big tent to get into they would be in it like a flash.
It is a well-known phenomenon to all noble Lords who have tried to run a village fete when not enough people have turned up and one has spent £400 to hire the marquee. Many people around the country can identify rather precisely with this situation at a number of levels. The British people will not have much difficulty in seeing that there is an upside to the matter. The local village fête does not give one the immense spin-offs that we are now realising will come out of this.
Let us go back to the beginning, to Michael Heseltine. He was the one who supported—I come from the north of England originally—the idea that Liverpool and many other places should have a regeneration idea on which to work. It is very important that they do. I should be happy on a different occasion to argue—I have argued this before—that there is a regional question here. Let us stick to the Thames gateway for a moment. It was

1395
Michael Heseltine's imagination that led to the London Docklands Development Corporation and the emerging new reality of the Thames gateway for the whole of the estuarial area. We must give credit where it is due.
Perhaps I may also say in a non-partisan spirit that some of the Labour local authorities in east London, and to some extent in south London at that time, were rather parochial in not accepting the need for strategic growth points in the whole of east London. We need strategic growth points in London. The same argument would apply with west London, if Brent, or some area like it, could pose itself as an alternative to the Heathrow airport economy for the west London corridor.
The aim of the project partners, with the full backing of the Government, has been to ensure that the regeneration of the peninsula delivers a high quality environment that is suited to people's needs and which is innovative and sustainable, both environmentally and commercially. Construction contracts worth £300 million have been awarded as a result of the Dome. The vast majority of those have been to UK companies: 13,000 employees have gained work in construction and the operation of projects on the Greenwich peninsula. There has been a boost to the UK economy which has benefited the whole country.
The transport strategy has been very important. The transport access to the Dome is a model of integrated public transport. These days that is something that is not often said. It provides access to the Dome via a variety of public transport. The North Greenwich Underground station adjacent to the Dome—one of nine new stations on the new Jubilee Line extension—has not only encouraged the use of public transport to the Dome but also provides a major boost for east London as a whole. There is the Millennium transit link which was constructed to take state of the art guided buses from Charlton and Greenwich mainline railway stations to the Dome. Finally, there is the new £2 million pier to the east of the Dome, helping to bring the Thames back to life and become one of London's main transport arteries again. There has also been the construction of a river walk and cycle way right the way around the peninsula which links into the existing river walkway and the expanding national network for cyclists.
We can look forward with confidence. We can look to the news, which we hope will come to fruition, that Legacy plc is at an advanced stage of negotiation. We can look to an exciting future for the Dome, with £1 billion investment expected in the area as a whole. That will further change the mindset. That is why public investments are not the same as private sector economics. We have changed the whole mindset towards the Thames gateway. That is not something one can measure on a narrow private sector accountancy approach. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, is nodding in agreement.
Just as when we rescued Canary Wharf—I say "we" because it was the public sector, through the diversion of the London Transport investment plan towards
1396
building the extension of the Jubilee Line in preference to CrossRail, which had the greater return—I predict that north Greenwich too will join Canary Wharf as a £400 million jewel in the Thames gateway corridor.
7.9 p.m.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I intend to keep my remarks brief not least because, at this stage in the debate when so much of substance has been said, it is difficult to avoid the possibility of repetition. I hope I will be forgiven if some of what I say has already been said by other noble Lords.
From its inception, the Dome was always liable to be controversial because new and interesting things very often are, as my noble friend Lord Puttnam eloquently pointed out. The Government have, as is proper, accepted responsibility for what has been by common consent a complex and difficult project. My noble and learned friend the Minister is the man left holding the parcel when the music stops. That is usually a winning position, but I hope he will not mind if I suggest that on this occasion it has been something of a mixed blessing. Let us not forget that there were a number of others in this game when it began back in 1996 and decisions taken then are still reverberating.
Unlike other noble Lords, I can claim no expertise in project management on this scale. But I do know a little about the entertainment industry and from that perspective I want to make two points about, as it were, putting on a show. First, making an accurate and robust assessment of the likely capital costs of a major creative enterprise is exceptionally difficult. I spend a good deal of my life trying to do that in a small way. Getting the project within 5 per cent of original estimates and on time, as has been achieved with the Dome, is fairly sharp shooting, as any producer of a big West End musical will testify.
Secondly, a great deal has been made in the press and in the House of the fact that 12 million visitors were predicted and only 5 million will have been. Five million sounds like a hell of a lot to me. I am sure that I would be grateful for that number of visitors. The most vexed issue with regard to putting on any entertainment, regardless of the kind and scale of that entertainment, is whether anyone will come. Almost everyone in the theatre business would admit to having occasionally miscalculated—sometimes quite significantly—the likely appeal of something which they believed on quite reasonable grounds would be popular. Initial estimates of potential visitor numbers to the Dome were clearly optimistic, but they were not imprudently so, as my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall pointed out.
The implication lurking behind a good deal of the discussion on this issue—that any fool could have predicted that 12 million was an unachievable target and that no one in his right mind could have imagined that 12 million people would want to see what the Dome had to offer—is misguided. It is really not that simple. An audience of any kind for any event is a strange and recalcitrant beast, as I know to my cost. It sometimes resists what it has liked before and often goes where no one has tried to lead it. The gift of

1397
discerning accurately in advance what will please is given only intermittently even to the most successful of cultural entrepreneurs. The fact that well over 5 million people, many of them young, will have been to the Dome by the end of the year is a major achievement, particularly in view of the relentless negativity of the press comment about the Dome. The great majority of those who go like what they see. That is a lot of satisfied customers, something of which everyone concerned should be proud.
Finally, I join those who have already called attention to the remarkable qualities of the building itself. It is architecturally and aesthetically innovative and very beautiful, particularly at night. In fact, it is beautiful at all times of the day. It makes a distinguished and distinctive contribution to our urban landscape and it has brought in its wake the regeneration of a formerly blighted tract of land. I hope we can agree that at the very least the vision it represents and the courage of those of all persuasions who backed it deserve to be celebrated and built upon.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, like many noble Lords, I came to the debate with a considerable degree of sympathy for the position of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Many of us have been in the position of receiving a constant barrage of criticism for some task that we have undertaken in public life. The noble and learned Lord said that he had been asked 1,100 parliamentary Questions on this matter. I remember receiving 650 parliamentary Questions on one defence procurement project from one Member of the other place, who is now a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House and sits on these Benches. Answering those Questions involved a great deal of work and I dare say that the noble and learned Lord has been similarly preoccupied.
However, I must confess that my sympathy for the noble and learned Lord began to evaporate as I listened to his speech, which, frankly, was a little OTT. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, was slightly in the same vein. Perhaps one point has been overlooked. Whatever may have been the inspiration behind the project—no doubt well intentioned inspiration—the plain fact is that public money was being used. Some people say that it was not public money; that it all came from the lottery and that is not public money. It is public money. It is subscribed by the public. I agree that a certain amount of corporate money was used to support some of the attractions inside the Dome, but basically it was a public money project. That is why the criticism has been so intense, and rightly so.
I intend to moderate my criticism on this matter and deal with just four points. First, the estimate of 12 million visitors was by any standards optimistic. When intervening towards the end of the speech of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that the estimate came from the business plan of April 1997. That is not so.
1398
Paragraphs 1.30 and 1.31 of the NAO report state that the business plan was approved in the following month.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in April 1997 the business plan was approved by the hoard of the New Millennium Experience Company. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is shaking his head. The facts are that in April 1997 the business plan was approved by the New Millennium Experience Company If the noble Lords, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Crickhowell, have any evidence to the contrary, I should be glad to hear it.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, all I can do is read from paragraph 1.31 of the NAO report, where the company's May 1997 business plan is referred to. The month is May, not April, by which time a different party had come into government.
It is the case that when in power both parties have given a degree of approval to the estimate of 12 million. Sadly, it has proved to be an overestimate. But it is no good the noble and learned Lord saying that it was entirely the construction of his predecessors that caused the plan to be agreed. That is not so. The noble and learned Lord is just as much in it up to his neck, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, as anyone else.
I turn to my second point. Another area of disappointment was the creation of all the internal attractions. I have been to the Dome on three or four occasions and I must say that they are really very, very disappointing. I am told that the gentleman who was principally responsible for them has a name which will be familiar to noble Lords because his mother sits on the Government Front Bench in your Lordships' House. So perhaps he will take the view that his career has not been advanced by the project.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I worked with Ben Evans. He was responsible for three of the zones. That is far from being the majority.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. I understand that he was the so-called "editor" of the attractions. I am not quite sure what that means.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, he was one of four editors.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am glad to hear that he was not exclusively to blame for all the problems that have emanated from those attractions. But I do not think that anyone seriously claims that, taken together, the attractions have not been a considerable disappointment.
The next point that needs to be dealt with is that the noble and learned Lord has not sufficiently answered the questions raised, particularly those put to him by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell both in the form of parliamentary Questions, letters and in his speech today. I refer to the noble and learned Lord's

1399
responses to the allegation that at various points during the programme, and particularly in July of this year, the project was seriously insolvent and by any standards unable to meet its future debts.
I have to accept that the legal position in these matters is almost certainly not as simple as many people would have us believe. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord had received some assurances from sources other than the Lottery Fund—for example, from the Government— that they would stand by the debts if the need arose. That would not be a disreputable thing for the Government to do, but they must tell us whether that was the case. I do not know whether it was or not and perhaps the noble and learned Lord will say whether he received at the time any assurances from the Government in that regard.
I have addressed these questions to the noble and learned Lord as the principal shareholder in the project. Like my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I am puzzled that questions were not more frequently asked and answered by the board of the company itself. Although we know that the noble and learned Lord attended many of the board meetings, it was the duty of the directors of the company, presided over by the chairman, to address these matters and to answer these questions. But they seem to have been extraordinarily silent leaving the noble and learned Lord to take the criticism and the flak.
I come to what I consider to be the most serious allegation; namely, that it is clear that there has been almost a complete failure by the New Millennium Experience Company to keep proper books of account. The plain fact is that throughout the time it has been conducting this programme, not only after the disastrous opening at the turn of the millennium, but also in the run up to that time, it is clear that it has not kept proper books and records of the money received and going out and also of the various contractual arrangements that have been put in place. I am not saying that there has been misappropriation of funds; I am not aware of any evidence of that. But it really is a disgrace that this vast sum of public money approaching, we are told, £800 million, has not been properly accounted for—not yet, anyway—and was being spent with gay abandon at a time when—
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It would be very interesting to see any passage in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which supports the proposition that the company did not keep proper books, which I believe is the allegation that the noble Lord makes.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the allegation has been made quite widely, not only in this report, but elsewhere. If the noble Lord would like to study that document and others with a little more care, I believe he will find the difficulties to which I have referred.
The noble and learned Lord said that this matter is now being put right. I welcome that assurance. It is rather late in the day. What a pity that it was not done earlier. So much for the criticisms.
1400
I turn now to the final matter that I wish to address; namely, the future use of the Dome itself. Nobody doubts that it is a great building. I readily accept that. As I have said, I have visited it on several occasions and I am easily persuaded that that is the case. I am sorry that it is to be something modest in the form of a business park. Perhaps that is not modest. No doubt the noble and learned Lord would welcome any financially sound proposal that is put to him or anyone with a cheque for £100 million or more. I wonder whether the Dome could not be better used as a centre for international trade fairs. London is singularly lacking in such facility. We have Earls Court and Olympia, but they are both very old and in many ways unsatisfactory by modern standards. I believe that the Millennium Dome would be an admirable venue for activity of that kind.
I am glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord that the books of account at least are now being put in order. It is about time, too. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord has suffered so much criticism and attack during the time he has held responsibility in this matter. Let us hope that it can all now be brought to a glorious conclusion as the noble learned Lord hopes.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I shall be brief because I believe that virtually all the points that could be made have already been made. The original concept of the Dome under the previous government embodied vision. It was exciting and it has led to important regeneration. It has resulted in a project which has attracted in one year 6 million visitors. Even Manchester United would be envious of that number of visitors in a year. It is possible that if the life of the Dome were extended for, say, two or three years, the project would become financially viable. Other projects, such as Disney, took well over a year before becoming viable. There was a great deal of ambition in trying to accomplish so much within 12 months.
Mistakes were made by both Governments, although listening to some of the speeches from the Benches opposite it seems as though only the present Government made mistakes. That is simply not the case. Mistakes were made on all sides. Under the previous government the decision was taken to build the Dome; to choose Greenwich; to appoint the chief executive and the chairman; to develop the corporate structure; to use Lottery money; to develop the Dome's structure; to split job responsibilities between different Government departments; and to develop the forecast of 12 million visitors. All those decisions were made under the previous government and they were inherited by this Government. In those circumstances, it would have been difficult for this Government to say that, despite all the excitement and enthusiasm generated by the previous government, the project should have been dropped. That is difficult to do except with the wisdom of hindsight.
However, I believe that over the years the Dome will be seen as a more successful venture than some of the speeches from the Benches opposite suggest. In a few years time when we see Greenwich regenerated and the

1401
Dome being used for positive purposes, I believe that we shall forget this "Let's have a go, Charlie" atmosphere in this debate. We shall remember the positive things that have been achieved on that Greenwich site.
I regret that this debate is becoming a series of attacks, verging on the very personal, against my noble friend the Minister. I do not believe that that is called for. It is not appropriate given the previous government's record. The noble Lord is waving his hand at me. Does he want to intervene or is he simply gesturing?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord said that this debate was becoming rather personal. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is the Minister responsible for this matter and naturally we are addressing our questions and criticisms to him.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, nevertheless there is an element of personal attack on my noble and learned friend which I believe is inappropriate. It is not justified by the facts, but only by party political rhetoric coming from the other side of the House.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is a much admired, even a loved, Member of this House. He is one of the most effective Members of the Government Front Bench. I regret very much that, with others, I have had to criticise some of his actions and policies as regards this matter. But he is the responsible Minister and I do not believe that even he would wish to duck that particular point.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, he is not ducking it. I have listened carefully and read in Hansard the comments made by my noble and learned friend. I have also listened to his opening speech. He is not ducking his responsibilities at all. It is a little mischievous to suggest that he is. He is taking the valid criticisms on the chin, but he has no reason to take on the chin criticisms which are not valid and which should be directed at those on the other side of the House who made the decisions when the Conservatives were in government.
I turn to a more positive note. There are many lessons to be learnt and perhaps I may pick on three. The first is the better forecasting of numbers. Clearly, had the forecast for the number of visitors been 6 million we would all be celebrating a success, but because the forecast was 12 million, people say that the project has not succeeded. Frankly, at the outset a figure of 6 million visitors would have been a successful achievement for the Dome. We would have all said that that was a good sign of popular support, as indeed it was.
The second point I wish to make in terms of lessons to be learnt is this. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made the point some little while ago that there is a difficulty for governments in knowing how far at arm's length they should be from important projects. I fear that governments tend to get too close to projects when they should keep further away.
1402
Governments are not good—I say this as a long-time member of the Labour Party—at managing certain kinds of projects. Not that this one is managed by the Government, but if they had taken a few steps further away from it we might not be having this debate. Certainly there would not have been some of the criticisms that have been made. It is a challenge to governments to know when to take a step away rather than to get too closely involved.
My third point concerns the system that was set up by the previous government and continued by this Government. I have a feeling that there has not been quite the clarity of departmental responsibility that there might have been as between the DCMS and other departments of government. Had there been, it may have been easier to manage as things went on.
Above all—and I finish with the point with which I began—the project was exciting and showed vision. We should not be churlish about something which history will judge as being more positive than some of the speeches made today.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, criticised my noble and learned friend for being over the top. I shall begin my speech with my criticism of my noble and learned friend. If I have any criticism of him at all, it is for his excessive equanimity and courtesy in the light of the unnecessary, politically motivated and quite outrageous attacks that have been made upon him, not only in this House but in another place, over far too long a period of time.
The National Audit Office report has been seriously misquoted by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I challenge him to show where it talks about "spending money with gay abandon". However, the report performs a singular service by giving a precise genesis of the Dome project. The Greenwich project—selected, as we all know, in February 1996—was quite clearly chosen for two purposes: because of its historic association with time, on the one hand, and the regenerative capacity of the project on the other. Those objectives were quite clear; they were there from the start and they were realised in the Dome project.
Greenwich never was selected by the previous government as an objective choice on the basis of the adequacy of its funding, its clear coherent business plan or its economic viability. If those had been the bases of choice, the previous government would have been forced to choose the alternative Birmingham project. I do not criticise them for not choosing it. However, they chose the Greenwich project for clearly political rather than economic reasons. To its credit, Birmingham did not do anything to rubbish the Greenwich project, although it felt a deep sense of grievance at the partisan nature of the discussion when there had been the pretence of an open competition based on proper financial viability. Were there to have been that choice, this debate would not be taking place.
Greenwich was a political choice on criteria other than financial viability, and we saw examples of it time and time again. Let me give the noble Lord, Lord

1403
Trefgarne, a real quotation from the National Audit Office report. At pages 12 and 13 it shows, for example, that the accounting officer of the then Department of the Environment considered the advance acquisition of land at Greenwich to represent less than good value for money. He sought, and received, a direction from the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment to commit the funds, even though the accounting officer said very clearly that it did not represent sound value for money. That was done because of the political nature of the decision.
Clearly the Dome has not been a success. It has not been the success it was stated it was going to be in a number of respects. To that end, we should heed very clearly the sound advice of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, and my noble friend Lord Grabiner, in relation to the basis on which the public sector should get involved in projects where the private sector has decided that there is not a sufficient basis of viability for it to get involved.
From the initial conception of the Dome, the forecasts of visitor numbers were wildly wrong. A target of 10 million became 10.9 million to 16 million; then it was reduced to 13.5 million. Those targets were set on 18th January 1996, February 1996 and 11 th December 1996. They were acknowledged by the person who created those targets as being "all over the place". Those are the words of Mr Peter Ainsworth. When he was talking about the inaccuracy of his estimates he described them as being "all over the place", but now, as the Front Bench spokesman in another place, he seems to want to wash his hands more thoroughly than Pontius Pilate could manage to do.
If the Government have made any major error of judgment in relation to the saga of the Dome it is that they trusted members of the previous government. They believed their words of commitment and accepted that they could be relied upon to act with honour. That was the decision made by the Official Opposition, at the behest of the previous government, to guarantee the continuity of the project. Events concerning the Dome have shown that the official spokespersons of the Conservative Party have proved themselves to be totally untrustworthy, unreliable and with no sense of honour in respect of the agreements that were made with them when they were in government.
The record is clear. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, listed the decisions that were the responsibility of the previous government, from the decision to build the Dome right through to the decision to use lottery money on the basis of the business plan on which those lottery funds were committed. "Hypocrisy" and "hypocritical" are much over-used words in what sometimes purports to be political debate. In the saga of the Dome over recent months, some of the people who have participated in what seems like an increasingly frequent and politically motivated vendetta against the noble and learned Lord, Lord
1404
Falconer, appear to be acting deliberately, as if they wish to attract those words as descriptions of their deeds.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer has behaved with total integrity in relation to the public and to the House. He has pursued the project that was created by the previous government and followed by this government at the behest of the previous Conservative administration. My noble and learned friend has earned the support of your Lordships' House. He deserves that support. As far as I and my noble friends are concerned, he will continue to receive it.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, with hindsight it is always too easy to make penetrating comments about what should or should not have been done to make the Dome a success. I shall confine my remarks mainly to what I believe were the mistakes made when the Dome project was launched.
I seem to be one of a rapidly diminishing band of supporters of the Dome project at its commencement. Now, many people seemed to be certain that the Dome project would fail, but apparently were silent at the time of its launch. My own confidence in the Dome evaporated rapidly when I discovered, to my astonishment, that there was no clear idea of what was go inside it. It was never suggested that the Dome would be an architectural marvel sufficient to draw millions of visitors—although I must agree that it is an exceptional building architecturally. Clearly, the attraction had to be based on what was inside.
It appears that the originators of the concept did not even consider the possibility that, without the right attractions, the Dome could never succeed. It is like a successful industrialist deciding to build the most modern or futuristic factory in a development area such as Tyneside, and when the question is posed as to what the factory will produce, responding that he will work that out in the fullness of time. No entrepreneur would adopt such a course. Yet the creators of the Dome saw nothing unusual in not having decided what would go inside it. It seems that they believed that the concept was strong enough to stand alone even if the contents were of no great merit or attraction.
Let us consider for a moment why the Great Exhibition of 1851 was such a success. For the three preceding years, public consultations were held in all the main cities of Britain to discover what people wanted to see in the exhibition. The consultations were led by no less than Prince Albert and Sir Robert Peel. Perhaps in our time, the Duke of Edinburgh and Mr Prescott—who are renowned for their diplomatic skills—could have carried out a similar public consultation.
In one sense the Dome project was a success, for it came within 5 per cent of its budget. So the usual complaint that the Government and civil servants can never manage capital projects successfully has been refuted in this case. But that is not to say that they are equipped to manage operational businesses on a day-to-day basis.

1405
Where, then, did the project go wrong, apart from the obvious failure to make an attraction so exciting that vast numbers of people would demand to visit it? One can fairly compare the Dome project with another millennium project, the Tate Modern on Bankside. The Tate has the good fortune to be managed, directed and led by Sir Nicholas Serota—whose mother sits on the government Benches—who, in addition to having great artistic skills and judgment, is an exceptionally talented chief executive. That is one of the reasons why the Tate Modern has become a world-wide success. The Tate project cost just £234 million, of which only £70 million was public money, compared with the £600 million or £700 million that the Dome has cost.
Everyone in the UK knew that the Dome would be open for just 12 months. The public could not, therefore, delay their visit. The Dome secured 3 million visitors in its first seven months of operation, while the Tate Modern—which should be open for the next 200 years—secured 3½ million visitors in the first seven months after opening.
One can argue that entry to the Tate is free. That is true. On the other hand, in one year of operation the Dome has needed a subsidy of £179 million to cover its operating losses. As entry to the Tate is free, it has been granted an annual subsidy of £6 million, which, regrettably, is not sufficient. Those who run the Tate will no doubt be on their hands and knees begging for an additional sum, which I am informed is about £2 million a year. For me, that puts the whole Dome project in perspective. One can be sure that the Tate's claim for an extra £2 million will be examined rigorously, and probably argued over, while the Millennium Dome unfortunately burnt £179 million in more or less the blink of an eyelid.
Content is clearly important, but there are other factors. Location is also of vital importance. The decision—no doubt made for the usual environmental reasons—that access to the Dome would be by train or boat rather than by car or coach would very likely have caused a significant drop in visitors, particularly in the numbers from up north. The cost of travelling was an important factor for visitors to the Dome. It would have been immensely encouraging if they could have embarked on a coach in their local town and emerged from it at the entrance to the Dome. Disembarking from a coach in London and then going on by Underground is not a very attractive proposition, particularly for families with children—not to mention the difficulty for disabled people. I say nothing of the number who would have come by car or taxi.
Alton Towers, the most successful comparable project in Britain, has parking spaces for 3,000 cars and 300 coaches. Alton Towers is a commercial operation which understands what is necessary to maximise the number of visitors. Its average daily attendance amounts to 12,000 visitors, but for special events it receives up to 25,000 visitors.
A great deal has been said about the estimate for the number of visitors to the Dome, which ranged between 8 million and 17 million. As one who has examined numerous commercial projects, I have invariably
1406
found that while the estimate of costs may be accurately arrived at, the suspect figure is always the sales figure. The estimate of sales—or in this case the number of visitors—is invariably sufficient to cover the cost of the project. Many plausible reasons are given as to why a particular estimate is chosen, but I am certain that the key reason for choosing any particular estimate is based on a calculation that goes as follows. The cost of running a project for 12 months is estimated, usually fairly accurately; an estimate is then made of the price that can be charged for entry, and the second figure is divided into the first figure. The answer—surprise, surprise—is a number sufficient to break even: in this case 12 million.
Everyone connected with the Dome project will deny with their last breath that that was how a particular estimate for the number of visitors was chosen. Yet if one looks at other millennium projects one finds that the estimate for total revenue is always sufficient to cover the costs. Unless that is the case, they do not get the money. That is when the estimates are prepared. However, when a millennium project then incurs a huge loss, it will be found immediately that the number of visitors will have fallen well below the estimate. Just look at the Armoury in Leeds.
One may well ask why the lower estimate of 8 million was not chosen—even though it turned out that this was significantly above the actual numbers. The answer is to be found in the arithmetic. If 8 million was considered to be the likely number of visitors, the project would be making a loss; the whole project would be in jeopardy and the Dome might have been stopped in mid-stream. That was politically unacceptable.
There is no getting away from this issue; and it arises from the absence of professional commercial management. If professional management, such as those who run Madame Tussauds and Alton Towers, or even a company such as Bechtel, had been engaged for a fair fee but a very large bonus if the project did not make a loss, there would have been some very hard-headed analysis as to likely visitor numbers and no doubt other changes such as improvements in transport arrangements. However, I think it is fair to point out that, had that course been followed, the Government would have been faced with the reality of the situation—which was that it would have been impossible for the Dome to complete one year of operation without making a huge loss. So presumably the project would not have been completed. As usual, politics wins the day, and, the UK citizens pick up the bill by using lottery money to make good the losses rather than use such money for improvement of amenities elsewhere in the country.
I do not believe that governments or civil servants understand the reality of the difference between a commercially operated project which has to try to make a profit, or at worst break even, and a government-operated project for which there is in reality unlimited funding. Sadly, very few politicians have business experience and probably even fewer civil servants. No doubt everyone is claiming that lessons can be drawn from the calamity that befell the Dome.

1407
However, I remain uncertain whether politicians or civil servants will learn the correct lessons from this sad financial fiasco.
However, I should like to end on a slightly more cheerful note. I believe that the Dome project has been a very exciting one; indeed, in many ways it has been worth while. If the lessons that I enumerated can be drawn from the experience and changes are made when we are faced with similar projects in the future, then it will be doubly worth while.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, if I had a title to my speech tonight it would be, "Voices from Greenwich". I have spoken on the subject of the Dome on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House and I am pleased to do so again, to give a positive approach to the Dome experience and to the future.
Before the Dome was built, the Greenwich peninsula was certainly very derelict and, as such, it reflected how run-down the whole area had become. But, more importantly, it reflected in its dereliction the lack of hope and opportunity experienced by many of those living in the area. Today the regeneration of Greenwich and of the wider Thames Gateway, as well as the development of the peninsula, are acting as a genuine catalyst for additional business, development and enthusiastic support for Greenwich and its residents.
We have heard much of the regeneration of the area and I shall not repeat what has been said. However, in relation to the river, as well developments already mentioned, I should like to emphasise that there has been a start on the infrastructures for water front transit. Two miles of the river front has been opened up to the public, the Cutty Sark Gardens have been greatly improved and an innovative river terracing scheme has been established.
The developments in the area have already provided 9,000 jobs in construction and over 6,000 jobs in other areas of work, as well as work in the Dome itself. This has benefited, in particular, younger and older workers, people with disabilities and those who have either not worked previously or not worked for many years. Many of them are young black people who are now training for future careers, rather than just gaining jobs. Employment has already been halved from its 1994 level and, for the first time in a generation, the job gap is closing between Greenwich and the rest of London.
All that has happened because of the Dome. This is recognised in Greenwich. In giving oral evidence to the Select Committee in June, Bob Harris, lead executive member for regeneration on Greenwich Council, said:
"If you look at pre-Dome and then post-Dome you are talking about two completely different pictures. Yes, these changes may have happened in time, but there is no doubt as far as I am concerned that the National Exhibition has absolutely made them work and accelerated that process, and that Greenwich is becoming a prosperous and attractive place to be and to live in".
1408
The Dome, therefore, has already generated for so many people a better quality of life and hope for their future.
There has been a lot of what my father would have described as "bunkum" talked about the Dome, which began even before it was completed. Indeed, it has become almost a national sport to attack it. And not always, but often, the attacks come from those who have never been anywhere near the Dome and are even hazy about where it is actually situated. I am sorry that those noble Lords who visited the Dome did not enjoy it, but I am pleased to say that they are in the minority. A staggering 88 per cent of people enjoy their Dome day, and that figure rises to 94 per cent when the millennium show is discussed. Moreover, 73 per cent of visitors think it good value for money, and 79 per cent would recommend others to visit it.
What a pity that those statistics have not been stressed, rather than the constant "moaning Minnie" attitude illustrated by many who should know better. Currently, discussions are taking place with the staff of the Dome to ensure their future—an action that I am sure everyone in this House welcomes. Recruitment advice sessions and open days are being held with advisors from Jobnet, aimed at securing redeployment opportunities for staff of all grades, ages and skills. The new bidders for the Dome are also playing their part. Legacy plc aims to spend a further £125 million developing the site and is set to create thousands of new jobs. It will be a high-tech business at the forefront of developments of the 21st century economy.
I can tell the House that the people working at the Dome and the local authority, the Greenwich Borough Council, as well as many people who live in the area, have no doubts about the building of the Dome in Greenwich. Indeed, many of the workers are both bewildered and hurt by the constant carping against the Dome, which has fed and fuelled the vitriolic press outbursts against it.
I can also tell the House that there is a great deal of anger in Greenwich about the Conservative Party's attitude to the Dome. The blame for many of the Dome's problems is being laid fairly and squarely at the door of those who have deliberately encouraged and taken part in the bad publicity for the Dome. That is not the Government and it is certainly not my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, whose commitment to working for and supporting the Dome and its workforce has been second to none. Indeed, the recent involvement of Legacy plc with the Dome is seen by many Greenwich residents as yet one more positive step that my noble and learned friend the Minister has taken.
Finally, I can do no better to illustrate the positive local attitude to the Dome than by quoting the leader of Greenwich Council, Chris Roberts, who said this week:
"Our bid to host the Dome in Greenwich was always based upon the long term legacy that it offered the Borough, and the recent news about the Legacy bid confirms that we were justified in that vision. The Council will be working with Legacy to ensure that Greenwich residents are well placed to make the most of these new opportunities".

1409
Thank goodness for positive thinking. If every politician, press mogul and the private sector had been as positive towards the Dome as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has been, they would have served this country better in its millennium year.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that I speak more or less at the mid-point of this debate. Therefore, I intend to be brief, which will no doubt be a relief to all noble Lords. As my noble friend Lady Gibson pointed out, it has been fashionable throughout this year to run down the Millennium Dome. I believe that that is part of a wider disease in this country, which means that we are dismissive of anything new or different.
The Dome had a difficult opening and it did not help its subsequent coverage in the media that so many distinguished—and perhaps a number of not-so distinguished—newspaper editors and columnists, media moguls and other assorted opinion-formers had excessive waits for security clearance at Stratford Underground station. But the Dome was also subjected to a lot of negative sniping in advance of that from those MPs and others who did not believe that the country's celebration of the millennium should be centred on London. Indeed, the same people seem to object to anything being based in the capital city.
I have to say that I am saddened by the anti-London attitudes in the rest of the United Kingdom. After all, London is our capital city. It is the capital for everyone in the country as well as Londoners. We should all be proud of it and not try to knock it or starve it of funds. The Dome debate outside your Lordships' House has been coloured by the many anti-London voices who think that London gets too much. Indeed, we heard something similar in a few of today's contributions.
It is sad that so many politicians from outside London find it difficult to celebrate the Dome, the new Tate Modern or the Globe Theatre. These are national monuments—achievements of which everyone in the country should be proud. Yet those who knock London cannot accept it if anyone suggests that their areas are less than perfect, however much the remarks are made tongue in cheek. Today, for example, I find myself attacked in the Evening Standard by the former Lord Mayor of Birmingham for saying that I am a fan of this great capital city of ours. I subscribe to Dr Johnson's view: if you are tired of London, you are tired of life. Admittedly, I went on to say that I also subscribe to his lesser known dictum that if you are tired of Birmingham, you are absolutely right—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Harris of Haringey: But that does not mean that London is threatened by Birmingham's success; indeed, quite the contrary. I should also make the point that this is not so much a criticism of Birmingham but perhaps of a number of places slightly further north. This jealousy of London which has so undermined the Dome is very damaging. It rests on the incorrect view that London has received and continues
1410
to receive more than its fair share of resources. The decision to site the Millennium Dome here was, for such people, yet further proof of that incorrect belief.
Yet the facts are rather different. It is not the case that London receives more than its fair share of resources. The opposite is the case: London subsidises the rest of the UK. It contributes nearly £20 billion more in taxes than the Government allow to be spent in London. What is more, London acts as the engine for the UK economy. The fortunes of the country as a whole are entwined with the fortunes of London. London is not only an employer on a massive scale accounting for 15 per cent of the workforce, but also a vital domestic market. Each year the city imports goods and services worth £53 billion from the rest of the UK and more than 4 million jobs outside London depend directly or indirectly on supplying those goods and services.
London is a magnet for the whole world. It is the main gateway to the UK and possibly the premier gateway to the European Union. Some 23 million visitors come to London each year, spending £7 billion, and many go on to the rest of the country. My point is that the UK's prosperity depends on London and its prosperity and security.
That is why the Dome and its visitors—even the more realistic visitor figures that everyone today accepts—were an important investment in locating London, and continuing to locate London, as a prime visitor attraction. It is to be hoped that not too many overseas visitors were put off by the sniping.
I conclude by echoing the words of my noble friend Lady Gibson. The Dome has also been a vital contributor to the development of the Greenwich peninsula and the wider Thames gateway. The galvanising effect of the 1996 decision to locate the Millennium Experience in Greenwich prompted a huge amount of regeneration activity that has begun to lift the whole area out of the economic decline it had been in for a generation.
The direct impact of the Dome has resulted in the 8,700 construction jobs that my noble friend mentioned, 9 per cent of them going to Greenwich residents, and the 5,700 operational jobs, 40 per cent of them going to Greenwich residents. We have seen the decontamination of 300 acres of derelict land; the creation of 50 acres of new parkland; new leisure facilities; a new primary school and health centre; 1,400 new homes and an expanded industrial estate. There are the transport improvements attributable to the Dome. I refer to the completion of the Jubilee Line extension, which I rather suspect would never have happened without the Dome; the new millennium pier at Greenwich; the widening of the Woolwich Road; the Cutty Sark station on the Docklands] Light Railway and so on.
All of this has kick-started the wider economic, environmental and social regeneration of the entire area. The expected outcome of this over the next 10 years is 30,000 new jobs, increasing the jobs base in the borough by 60 per cent; 10,000 to 15,000 new homes and major improvements in existing housing;

1411
1,000 acres of land decontaminated; and a general raising of skills and educational achievement among local residents and an improvement in their health status.
Those will be real and lasting achievements and, if noble Lords want to draw up a balance sheet for the entire Dome enterprise, the impact on the local economy must be properly recognised, as should the impact on London and the beneficial effect that that will have on the nation as a whole.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, noble Lords will have heard many interests declared. I shall start with that, not that I have been to the Dome. However, the noble and learned Lord who is to reply to the debate will know that I am a compatriot of his; I am a Scot. Most Sunday evenings I am fortunate enough to obtain a window seat on one of the flights from Edinburgh to Heathrow when I am able to look down upon a marvellous structure in east London. It is a striking and impressive structure and is broadly similar in outlook to some of the structures that I viewed earlier this month, St Peter's in Rome and, indeed, the lovely cupola of St Paul's in London.
The structure is beautiful from above but I think that even the noble and learned Lord and all noble Lords who have spoken this evening might admit that the events at that site on 1st January 2000 were not the most glorious debut for the project. Many reasons have been put forward for that which I may mention later. The Motion that we are discussing this evening concerns the,
"planning, management and operation of the Millennium Dome, and of its future".
I concentrate my remarks briefly and humbly on the financial management and control of the Dome. I declare my interest as a member of the Chartered Accountants of Scotland. Many years ago when I undertook my apprenticeship in Glasgow and then in London I was taught as a young apprentice auditor to ask questions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, may have considered a career with that wonderful institute north of the Border. Certainly many of the remarks that he has made over the year—we await his reply tonight with eager anticipation—might have benefited from an apprenticeship in our perhaps slightly narrower and, I dare say, less lucrative profession.
However, in this debate I take cover behind the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, who, alas, has had to slip out of the Chamber, no doubt briefly. He used the marvellous terms "breathtaking" and "byzantine". He is a man of enormous experience, far greater than mine as an accountant. I await with great anticipation the speech of my noble friend Lady Noakes. It was nice to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs. The noble and learned Lord will no doubt appreciate the wisdom and the trenchant remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who for many years has been a representative of the accountancy profession.
1412
Many years ago I sat roughly in the same position as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. When any trouble was directed at me I used to invite the Opposition to play what I called a game of Bingo. I used to direct noble Lords' attention to various Acts. That worked wonders. I ask noble Lords to glance briefly at the National Audit Office report. The first provision that attracted my attention is to be found on page 31 at paragraph 2.52. That paragraph states—perhaps not in the language of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne which caused the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, some difficulty—
"the Commission's own assessment, based on 4.4 million paying visitors, was that the Company might run out of money within two weeks and might require an additional",
sum of money. The notion of paying visitors is important to an accountant. When the report came to the attention of the noble and learned Lord, let alone any of his advisers—I understand that he has many responsibilities—I believe that it would have triggered a trip wire. However, I have never had the responsibilities of the noble and learned Lord.
Paragraph 3.7 of the report on page 40 refers to what I shall term the "forecasts" which are part of the major business plan. The paragraph refers to the run up to the opening of the Dome. The paragraph states:
"The Company used this data in November 1998 to estimate that some 8.74 million people were 'likely' to visit the Dome and that a further 3.65 million 'could be persuaded'"
to visit the Dome. I am only an accountant. We have to leave this to the marketing people. But that might cause me to stub my little toe on a trip wire.
I apologise for directing the Minister's attention back to paragraph 3.3 on page 39. There it mentions the vast range of visitors and those who might appear. But certainly there is an interesting figure mentioned in that paragraph which hints that 11 million people might visit the Dome. Paragraph 3.13 states that I million schoolchildren would obtain free entry.
There will be many reasons for that. I am a humble auditing accountant. Can we differentiate between paying visitors and those with free entry? It will be nice if there will have been 6 million visitors by the end of the year. But does that figure include 5 million paying visitors and 1 million free entry visitors? The 1 million school children with free entry might have to be included in the financial forecast. Visitor numbers seem to be rather like my skiing and that of my noble friend Lord Selsdon, downhill very quickly, with figures decreasing from 12 million to 10 million to 6 million and now to 4.5 million. According to the NAO report, the figures at the end of August were 3.8 million. It is hoped that the figure will be 6 million at the end of the year. I hope that that will include 5 million paying visitors and 1 million free entry visitors, or thereabouts.
The original figure of £199 million was presented in the business plan of May 1997. That is stated at the end of the report in large capital letters.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with that point. The May-April issue was raised with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I have

1413
had produced the evidence given by Miss Jennie Page to the Select Committee. It makes clear that the 12 million visitor figure came from the NMEC board meeting in April 1997. What the National Audit Office report indicates is that the business plan was put to the Government in May 1997 for the purposes of the review. That is why it is called the May business plan in the MAO report. It was in fact approved in April 1997 by the NMEC board.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may I continue. The figure was accepted by the noble and learned Lord with alacrity. Perhaps he had the number 15 jersey at Twickenham; or perhaps one of his predecessors accepted the figure. But the noble and learned Lord is a traditional lawyer; I am not. I leave the matter there.
I was somewhat scared when I found on page 52 of the National Audit Office report a note addressed to "Dear Charlie". I suddenly thought, "Good heavens, is that something I should have answered?" However, I was delighted to note that at the top left-hand corner of the page the letter is addressed to "Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC". My noble friend Lord Crickhowell pointed out that the third paragraph of the PWC report makes salutary reading. However, a slight bruising of my little toe was caused by page 53. The second sentence of the reply of the noble and learned Lord to the noble Earl, Lord Dalkeith, states,
"Like you, I was shocked by what the PWC report implied".
This is nearly nine months into the year. I hope that I am not being impudent; it was perhaps at the end of a holiday season when matters in Whitehall tend to ease off somewhat. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord had other matters to consider. He made a fair statement in July. If the noble and learned Lord had used the word "startled" I might have understood but he says that he was "shocked" to receive the news. It seems odd that no one in his department had presented to him those serious figures relating to the budget. That startled me and caused me some amusement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, made a valid point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, with regard to London. It is excellent stuff; I enjoy it greatly. However, I travel about the furthest distance to this House. The Official Report of today's debate may go down well in the glens of Angus, Kirriemuir and Forfar. The reports I have received from those who have visited the Dome have not been too harsh. Nor have they been as glowing as those of that eminent institution in the north-west referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I wonder whether the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, are suffering from a case of what some call "BSE"—blame someone else. I hope that that statement is not over the top.
At paragraph 3.23 on page 44, noble Lords will note that in February 2000 the company reviewed its marketing approach, and so on. The original reason for setting the level of budget was,
"that ticket sales would be driven by: massive free media exposure; word of mouth recommendation; [and] a traditional fascination with 'Expo'-style events".
1414
I am fascinated by paragraph 3.25. It states that the company considered that several factors had not helped the finances. First, there was,
"negative media coverage which undermined people's confidence …; word of mouth had not spread the message to the extent anticipated".
That is somewhat at variance with what the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, said. It states thirdly that,
"the Dome's content had not been explained".
and so on, and that,
"there was a perception that travel costs were high and travel times long".
That was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs. The report is from an austere, correct, middle-of-the road organisation. It is not from the Conservative Party; it is not from this side of the House. I hope that I can align myself as a simple accountant. I do not think that all the people who have not visited can be wrong all of the time. That may be carping. It is in the past and perhaps should justifiably remain there.
The Minister may have much to say in winding up. Perhaps he will write to me. The word "May 1997" is written in large letters on page 71.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to quote the whole of the report, perhaps he would like to cite the final paragraph on page 75. He has nearly reached it, but in case he missed it, it states:
"It is unsatisfactory that procurement processes operated in October to December 1996 did not conform to those agreed with the Commission".
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am a simple accountant. Perhaps we can discuss the matter at the bar. Perhaps I may finish my own speech. The issue to which I refer is on page 71. We have heard a great deal about a 5 per cent overrun. Can the noble and learned Lord explain this to me? In the business plan there was due to be a shortfall of £199 million. Is 5 per cent of that to be £10 million or thereabouts? How is that figure arrived at? What is this figure of 5 per cent over budget? I am not entirely clear.
I conclude—I am sure that that will give the noble and learned Lord much pleasure—that the contents of the Dome have not given entire satisfaction. Paragraphs 3.23 and 3.25 demonstrate that the contents of the Dome have not been entirely what the public wanted. I do not know whose fault it was. Perhaps the matter goes back to April 1997 or the year 1996.
I have taken two sets of visitors round your Lordships' House. They would have paid a great deal more to go round the House than the cost of entry to the Dome. One visitor was the wife of the head of the Australian army. The others were a bunch of "Miss World" people. They had never seen anything like it.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the noble and learned Lord but if he can be of help I shall be grateful.
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, I do not want to detain the noble Lord any longer, because we have already had 17 minutes from him. I apologise to the House, but

1415
I cannot resist asking him a question. He drew our attention to paragraph 2.52 of the report and appeared to criticise my noble and learned friend because one sentence in that paragraph says that it was estimated that the company might need an additional £45 million. The next paragraph says that an application was very promptly made for £53 million. Paragraph 2.58 records the fact that on 4th August, an additional grant of £43 million was made. I do not understand the force of any criticism that he may be seeking to make.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I have said enough. My remarks rest.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Sawyer: My Lords, I have a simple point to make and I shall try to make it simply and briefly. I congratulate the previous Conservative government on having the vision and foresight to build the Dome. Their decision was right in principle and they were right to choose the Greenwich site, which will now fulfil its potential as an important and vibrant part of our capital city. They were right to make decisions about senior management and business planning. With hindsight, those decisions were not perfect, but they had vision and took us forward in the right direction. They were right to take decisions about lottery finance and to be bold about visitor projections.
The previous government took risks to achieve a big vision. Nothing of significance has been achieved on that scale in our history without risks being taken to achieve a big vision. My party was right to take the project forward in government. Yes, we should have changed course sooner on a number of aspects, such as visitor projections, management structures and financial control, but we were right in principle to keep going and to take forward the procedures that had been put in place by the previous government.
The politicians and the journalists who used the management failures to undermine public confidence in the project were wrong, not the people who chose to take it forward—and they were wrong in a major way. There is another side to the balance sheet or the story of the Dome, which has been ignored by most of those who have spoken—with one or two notable exceptions, such as my noble friend Lady Gibson—or distorted by the Conservatives. That is due to the under-representation in the Chamber of the millions of people who have had a damned good day at the Dome and will remember it for the rest of their lives.
The figures have already been given, but I do not mind repeating them, because repetition is a requirement for political success. The latest figures, produced by MORI between August and September, show that 88 per cent of visitors were satisfied with the Dome, 68 per cent thought that it was something that they should be proud of, 79 per cent would welcome a day at the Dome and 94 per cent enjoyed the millennium experience. Those figures should be on the record, along with the contributions made by the doubters, the managers and the accountants. The
1416
Dome debate has been dominated by cynical journalists, point-scoring Opposition politicians, accountants and businessmen. There needs to be a little balance. We should remember that most of those who went to the Dome loved it and enjoyed the experience. Their voices have been absent.
The trade union movement organised a day at the Dome—on May Day, understandably. Some 35,000 trade union members attended on 1st May this year. That is not quite the same audience that the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, might find attending the Tate Modern. They were working class families from all over Britain who travelled by train and coach. Their comments are important and need to be on the record: John Churchill, "Excellent"; Carolyne Burten, "Fantastico"; Julie Underwood, "Excellent; better than was told"; Cameran Day, "At last"; Valerie no surname, "What a day"; Mary Whelan, "A wonderful day"; Annie Thompson, "Get better pens—hope York Health is better"—she must have worked in the National Health Service; Rosalind Alexander, "Keep up the good work"; June Thomas, "Super day—super way to get the message across. Well done".
Those voices and many more of them need to be on the record, so that when we come to pass our eminent verdict on the Dome, the people's verdict of, "Thank you and well done", is not forgotten. When the people's verdict is recorded, of course they will note the failures in leadership and financial management, but they will not condemn one person for those failures. They will rightly hold the negative attitudes of opposition politicians and all their journalistic courtiers responsible for much of what went wrong. I think that they will hope against hope that the next time that we need to mark a momentous occasion in our history, there might just be a possibility that the classes who govern, manage and comment on our affairs will for once pull together and make a success of something that the people love and enjoy.
8.26 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, when I saw the speakers' list for the debate, I had a feeling that it was going to be a long, hard night with endless repetition and recrimination. There has not been too much repetition, but there has been quite a lot of recrimination, some of it misplaced.
If I am listened to at all in this place, may I make a plea that we try to get away from the insidious and demeaning blame culture that is so much a part of our civilisation nowadays? I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is not in his place, because I pay tribute to him for mentioning the same point.
The blame culture is one of the most disfiguring aspects of what we like to think of as civilised society. I have always thought that ever since, as a small child, I was told that the worst sentence in the English language was, "It broke". I am determined not to be a practitioner of the blame culture. Trading insults has never had any place in our House and I hope that it is not being introduced. I gently suggest that the Minister might think again about saying that the Tories have no

1417
financial sense and no honour and show gutless hypocrisy. I do not think that he really meant that. He is too honourable a man for that
The four aspects of the Dome that the debate is intended to focus on are its planning, management, operation and future. I shall try to stick to those headings and not talk about the great developments in Greenwich, including the widening of the local road, improvements in existing houses and the uprating of the skills of the local population. Such comments have been impressive and informative, but do not relate to the planning, management, operation and future of the Dome.
Looking at those four headings makes me realise that the Dome started with a huge disadvantage. That list contains all the rational, tactical processes of big businesses, but I suspect that it is not the normal tactical process list of governments. Can governments of whatever political persuasion produce experts in the planning, management and operation of a massive project? Almost certainly not. I know that the French have a successful record of grands projets, but France has a very different training and career structure in its public service. At the upper echelons of the French civil service are people who have been commercial engineers, financiers or marketing experts. That is not true in this country. The Minister has already acknowledged that by saying that the lesson that governments cannot manage such projects has been learned.
We all have the benefit of PhDs in hindsight. I guess that many people, besides those who have already mentioned it in your Lordships' House this evening, now say that such a large and complicated project should not have been driven primarily by the public sector.
When the project was first mooted, many were sceptical, particularly from a planning point of view, but I fear that scepticism is a national characteristic. As the project gained momentum, another problem emergecl—one that most of those involved still do not want to talk about and one that I have never seen described in the endless acres of newsprint about the Dome.
The problem was the attitude of British business. British business was leaned upon in the most heavy-handed way to support the Dome. Both the previous government and this Government were determined that British business should play a major role in the financing of the content of the Dome. I looked on aghast when I saw the huge sums of money involved and felt that, in all conscience, shareholders' money was not going to be well spent.
For some of our huge global companies and our big and prosperous national companies the monies involved were not a large part of their profits. However, the pressure applied was something else. A hundred and sixty million pounds of sponsorship was given grudgingly and thousands of man-hours of senior management time were wasted in trying to justify the amount of money spent by interfering in the
1418
content decisions. At a rough estimate, I believe that the cost to British business was probably at least £200 million.
Why was British business so gullible? I believe it is a fact that business has always been closer to the Conservative Party than to the Labour Party. There were some difficult moments when in May 1997 business began to realise that it had few friends among the politicians who were now in power. That, of course, is a generalisation. But every business needs to have good relationships with those close to the policymakers, if only to have a "way in" to ensure that it can get its message across. Requests to stump up large sums of money to sponsor the Dome were gulped at but acceded to. I firmly believe that an amount of arm-twisting went on. That was not good enough but it was not resisted.
My personal view of all that is that not enough thought was given by business to the requests. Business should have realised that the attendance figures could never materialise at the high entrance price. The Dome never had more than four times the pulling power of Alton Towers. Therefore, business should been much more forthcoming in saying, "We don't think you'll make it and therefore we could not justify £160 million plus masses of senior management time just to put our name before 4.6 million people". I am taking the noble and learned Lord's figures of 5.6 million, less the one million schoolchildren. However, businesses wanted to curry favour. They were seduced.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Whatever happened to the great fund-raising abilities of IMG? Did it get paid handsomely for its efforts? As I recall, we had quite a skirmish on the Floor of this House when the announcement about the IMG involvement was made, but there has been no mention of it since. I fear that the Government must have been encouraged by the monies pouring in from big business. They probably believed that a huge wave of enthusiasm was being generated for the Dome. As a result, they went on planning blithely. That was obviously a mistake.
The second issue in the wording of the title of this debate is "operation". The operation of the Dome is a completely different area, and I am absolutely sure that all involved did their level best with great enthusiasm. However, the marketing of the Dome left a lot to be desired. The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, has already referred to that. I simply wonder when large companies will resist the urge to become famous TV stars by allowing fly-on-the-wall documentaries to be made about their organisation. One has only to think of the harm done to the Royal Opera House and St Paul's Cathedral. The fly-on-the-wall documentary about the Dome was not good news. It must have put off very many people and contributed to the "anti" feeling that abounded right from the opening of the place. I wonder where the marketing director was when that decision was made. I hope that he is not still in place.
Those points have not been aired. Both may seem inconsequential but they did nothing to endear the project to potential visitors. Perhaps I may remind

1419
your Lordships that responsibility for both those actions does not lie at the feet of the Minister. They happened long before the Dome opened and before he loyally took on the job that none of us would have wanted.
Many contributors this evening have concentrated on the subject of finance. I shall not add to the points already made.
The fourth area to be debated relates to the future of the Dome. I cannot understand how any of us has the vision to say that this, that or the other should happen. I only hope that whatever happens, it will be successful. By the law of averages, it should be. There could hardly be more catastrophe around that site.
I ask the Minister what will happen to the exhibits. Are they to be sold or destroyed, or are they to be returned to the sponsors to be sold or destroyed? Many of them could embellish a local amenity in other parts of the country. It would be good if a place outside London could finally benefit from part of the expenditure entrusted to the Dome, bearing in mind that much of that expenditure was contributed to by men and women throughout the country through the National Lottery.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I say at the outset that from the beginning, and until and including now, I speak to your Lordships as a supporter of the building of the Dome and of the establishment of the various facilities, and so on.
In another place in the late 1940s and early 1950s I had the experience of being present during the establishment of the Jubilee Exhibition on the other side of the Thames. I well remember that at that time there was a good deal of furore about the amount of government expense involved. Government expenditure had a certain significance, even in those days. Yet, many of us felt—I believe that the feeling was common throughout the nation—that, after the experiences that we had all endured in one way or another during the war, we were entitled to have a celebration. The economic grounds really did not matter so long as we could celebrate.
It is a fact that the 1951 exhibition was a success. I spoke to the Minister, Peter Mandelson, about this only a few months ago when we were discussing the role of his grandfather, the late Lord Morrison, in the establishment of that particular celebration. He was surprised to learn from me that Herbert Morrison, as he then was, took very much for granted the success of the Jubilee celebrations. He always regarded as the most important thing in his career the building of Waterloo Bridge. That was an extraordinary thing, but it shows what the climate of opinion was in those days.
Now we come to the Dome. Although the title of the debate concerns the various events that have taken place, I gather that by common assent it has been agreed—unofficially or otherwise—that it could provide a debate upon the report of the Comptroller
1420
and Auditor General which has been widely quoted this afternoon, and rightly so. Perhaps I may say that, although the accusation may be made that the National Audit Office has made observations on the basis of hindsight, in the circumstances it is very difficult to know on what other basis they could be made. Anything that happens after the event is hindsight.
For myself, I wish to congratulate the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff. Although full of findings as to fact and certain guarded observations as to opinion, they have produced a report of such validity and neutrality as to make it very difficult for any political party, including my own, to make capital at the expense of its opponents. Voices more skilled than mine can give an opinion on that. However, it is quite clear that they sought to present a report which was as objective and as free from political partisanship as it possibly could be.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that I have not been to the Dome. Unfortunately, a physical affliction in my spine has prevented my walking more than a few yards to the end of the other place. Undoubtedly, I shall go to it in due course. But I must say that there has been an extraordinary outburst by, I regret to say, some of my own people—and I still regard them as my own people—as to the cost of all this. Estimates have been made that we may lose some £900 million. How enormous. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who is unfortunately not in his seat at the moment, thundered to your Lordships that this was public expenditure and there had to be the utmost examination and rigour applied to the application of public funds. I regard the amount of public funds involved in this as peanuts.
I have good reason to say that. Why should I be indignant about it? I hope that there will be no groans when I say that for the past 20 years, I have been drawing your Lordships' attention to fraud and irregularity on a massive scale in Europe. As my reward, I have received somewhat unwelcome observations as to my advancing years and how they may have affected my judgment, observations about my partisanship, my ignorance and so on. And yet I was ultimately proved to be right after some 20 years.
Perhaps I may make this observation on a topical matter about which, no doubt, I shall be reproached again and again and again. At this time we are really tearing our hair out about the possible loss of as much as £900 million. And yet only three days ago the Court of Auditors' report on European finances in the year ending 31st December 1999 announced losses of £5 billion without any outrage spreading anywhere in the House.
That strikes me as being slightly incongruous. Of course, the £5 billion that we have lost in that regard and many billions in the years before is irrecoverable. But it is virtually certain that the £900 million, which has been mentioned this afternoon with some accuracy, and more, will be recovered for the very reasons which have been brought to the notice of your Lordships' House by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, and my noble friend Lord Sawyer.

1421
The amount that we shall lose, about which there is all this outrage, will be recoverable and will be recoverable again and again and again whereas what has been lost and what your Lordships in your wisdom have chosen to ignore when I have mentioned it—the various losses through fraud and irregularity—is irrecoverable.
Therefore, I believe that we are approaching the matter from a slightly dishonest standpoint if we try to make any party capital out of it at all. I am a good party man, I think, and to my credit, I have many years of complete loyalty to my party, which I joined in 1935. That is longer than some of your Lordships have been alive.
What can we learn from the report? As your Lordships would expect, I have read the report two or three times. It mentions two rather new phenomena. It mentions the degree of reliance which managers of business and even civil servants—or should I say more particularly civil servants—place on the services of so-called experts.
One of the leading matters on which they were advised—whether they were in the Tory government of the time or Labour is quite immaterial—was an estimate of £12 million turnover per year. It was accepted thereafter that that was at the higher end of the advice of the expert management consultants—note the word "expert" and note the words "management consultants".
Those who have been in the accountancy profession for a long time, as I have, know perfectly well that there is certain information the accuracy or near accuracy of which is vital; that is, the estimate of future business. Everything depends on it. Once you have determined a reasonable view, then your capital investment follows; your whole apparatus of trade follows; your whole profitability follows; the entire effect of your financial circumstances in terms of required finance and phasing all depend on that.
Why, oh why, oh why did those responsible or those who succeeded them accept the higher estimate of 12 million turnover? Why did they do that? That is one of the mysteries which that most admirable report does not seek to address.
There was an additional difficulty which any prudent management, whether it be Tory, Conservative or maybe Liberal, might care to take into account. The proposed exhibition in the Docklands, the Dome, had to be so phased that the phasing, once fixed, remained fixed.
In the 1951 exhibition, for example, if the weather forecasts, such as they were, had predicted anything like the inclement weather and deluges which we have had in the earlier months of this year, the project could have been moved forward. But the Dome had to be tied to an anniversary—1st January 2000, for the millennium year. All had to be phased accordingly. There was no room at all for variation.
When I mention that, I trust that the House will agree with me—and I am quite sure that the Minister will agree—that we owe a lot to Miss Jennifer Page for having delivered the Dome on time. For whatever
1422
reason she may have been discharged, and I am not quite sure about that, nobody can blame that upon her.
What is the lesson? The lesson is that we can all make mistakes. We must all admit the feasibility of error, even those dogmatic among us, including possibly myself.
Noble Lords: No, no!
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we must all accept the feasibility of error. From that it flows once again, as though it came from Aneurin Bevan himself: the experts should be on tap, never on top.
For my part, I wish the Dome every success. As soon as the doctors have manoeuvred me enough, I hope to be able to go and see it. In the meantime all of us, including myself, can pray that we ourselves will never make any larger mistakes either in our business, professional or political careers.
8.52 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, one of the most shocking things that I have heard during this debate is the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, commenting that £900 million is peanuts and, furthermore, going on to make a wholly unsubstantiated forecast that the whole of it will be recoverable many times over.
The noble Lord is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, of which I was president last year. As a much honoured member of my institute, I believe I shall have to recommend him for continuing professional development so that he can get straight in his mind matters relating to numbers. We are talking about very large sums of money.
I read the NAO's report with incredulity. If we found the levels of financial and operational expertise that seem to have existed in NMEC in any commercial company, that company would have imploded or, to be more technical, would have gone into insolvent liquidation. I want to touch on one or two of the financial aspects of this matter.
The NAO report, somewhat inaccurately, tells us that the financial difficulties were largely as the result of shortfall in income. Today we have heard much about those shortfalls in income. Remember that ticket sales and associated visitor income will fall short of the original budget by a staggering 70 per cent. We are talking about large orders of magnitude in terms of getting estimates wrong.
I shall not go through the sequence of the 10 million and the 12 million, although I support the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in being surprised at the figure of 12 million being adhered to notwithstanding that a prudent estimate of a lower figure—namely, 8 million—had been produced. We can all view matters with hindsight, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned.
In business one learns that success or failure often comes down to how well risks are recognised and managed and not how well the predictable parts of the business are managed. Identifying risks and managing

1423
them effectively is part of modern corporate government. At the time that these forecasts were being used for the purposes of approving significant sums of lottery money being handed over, there appeared to be a lack of appreciation of the fact that there should have been significant contingency planning around an area of major uncertainty; namely, visitor income.
There was still much to play for. We knew that the content was not settled; access was not settled; marketing plans were not settled; and pricing was not settled. People should have been focusing on many matters in a detailed way. Sound business planning and sound business management are about identifying those areas, thinking the unthinkable in terms of what could go wrong and producing sound plans in response; not waiting until the year starts and we find that advance sales have fallen massively short of budget and saying, "There is not much we can do about it". Much should have been done a lot earlier.
I do not believe that it mattered that the plan was dated April 1997. The fact is that it was not submitted until after April 1997 and, therefore, no government decision could have been made until May 1997. When that plan was submitted for decision it should not have been approved and the project should not have been given the go ahead as it was without serious consideration being given to detailed contingency plans. My reading of the NAO report, and anything else that I have read, does not display that there was ever any appreciation that this was a major risk area which should have been dealt with. The project was simply given the approval to go ahead. That is not a decision made by the former government; it is a decision made by the current Government.
I shall now say a little about directors and the role of directors in NMEC. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne talked about whether proper accounting records had been kept and there was a query raised by a noble Lord on the Benches opposite. If one looks at the PricewaterhouseCoopers' report—project Mozart—one will see that the systems were poor, did not record all the liabilities and some of the assets were not really assets at all. We have learned that the company did not have a proper asset register. I suspect that one could not have said that the financial position of the company could have been disclosed with reasonable accuracy and, therefore, proper accounting records could not have been kept. That is one important area of the responsibilities of directors under company law, and this is a company that comes under company law.
Another point is that directors must not trade while insolvent. The PricewaterhouseCoopers' report reported that in August 1997, as we have heard, the company was insolvent. The NAO report says that—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the reason why the PricewaterhouseCoopers' report said that was because of the unidentified wind-down liabilities. She will also agree that the directors would have been bound, as a matter of law, to continue trading until they made the
1424
application to the Millennium Commission because that would be in the best interests of the creditors. She will also agree that within four days of making that application, it was granted.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I hear what the noble and learned Lord has said. Perhaps I can continue. The NAO report also gives the view of the current chairman of NMEC that the company was probably insolvent back in February 2000. The question is: was there a responsibility on the directors to respond once they knew about that? There are bigger questions about when the directors should have known that the company was insolvent. If the company had been insolvent for most of the year, the grant applications—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise for intervening again. The noble Baroness is making quite significant allegations against the directors, who are not here to defend themselves. To be fair to them, she should perhaps speak to the following matters: first, the PWC report identified the company as being insolvent because of the unidentified liabilities; secondly, the directors would be bound to go on trading until they made the application to the Millennium Commission; and, thirdly, the Millennium Commission granted the application within days.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the most important point is the view of the company chairman that the company had been insolvent for most of the year. One has to query whether any of those grant applications were properly made in order to deal with that matter.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the people against whom the noble Baroness makes those allegations are not present. It is important that she answers my point.
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Members on the government side may care to reflect upon the way in which we normally conduct our debates in this House. The Government are here to answer questions. When a Member of the Opposition makes a point, and when he or she is able to check the facts outwith the House, I am sure that he or she will wish to write to the noble Lords concerned. If the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, wants to ask a question of my noble friend, perhaps he will give her the courtesy of the opportunity to make another point first.
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, with great respect, whether or not the noble Baroness wishes to give way is a matter for her. My understanding is that she did give way.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is a comparatively new Member of your Lordships' House. His intervention is not in accordance with the traditions of this place.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, perhaps I may continue. Under company law, if it is proved that

1425
directors have traded while insolvent, or not kept proper accounting records, there are penalties. However, it is unlikely that that would ever now be a relevant issue because we have heard that the Government have given full indemnity to all the directors for any civil liability, including for wrongful trading. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord gave an undertaking that there would be no actual insolvency, which is what usually triggers such examinations, because the Government would bail out the Dome company one way or another.
I am trying to make the point that the Government have totally excused the directors for their part in governing the company's affairs.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government have given no indemnity in respect of wrongful trading. As the noble Baroness knows full well, wrongful trading involves knowing that one is trading wrongfully and no such suggestion is made here unless the noble Baroness is making it. If she has material to suggest that such indemnity has been given, she should point to it.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, my understanding was that the indemnity that was given in the earlier part of this year covered all such matters.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the indemnity did not cover knowingly trading or fraudulently trading in a way that one knows to be wrongful. The facts are important.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I apologise if I did not use the correct legal language.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is a much more fundamental point than simply fact. It concerns ensuring that what one says when referring to people who are not here is accurate.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, perhaps I can turn to the role of the shareholder. The NAO report shows how closely involved the shareholder was in the affairs of the company, attending most of the board meetings, the weekly meetings and receiving all the reports. He got the company to accept the 1 million free visits for schoolchildren to the Dome, notwithstanding that that would put another hole in the finances. The directors seemed to act in accordance with his instructions, which may or may not make him a shadow director and, therefore, fully within the points that I have already raised in respect of the normal liabilities of directors. If one asks where the directors were in looking at what went wrong with the financial affairs of NMEC, we should also ask where the shareholder was, if not because he was a shadow director, because he entered into a very detailed financial memorandum with the company, not all of which appears to have been kept. For example, one of the conditions is that the company has to meet its debts as they fall due. There were certainly instances referred to in the NAO report and PricewaterhouseCoopers' report of that
1426
not happening. The question has to be asked as to where the shareholder and the directors were when all these things were happening. That is what I am trying to establish.
I invite the noble and learned Lord to agree that a model which purports to use a Companies Act company, but then so undermines it that the checks and balances in that framework do not work, becomes a deeply flawed model to carry out this kind of project. It pretends to have the face of a commercial operation but it does not have any of the counterweights. That results in everybody who is involved in the project not bearing any of the responsibilities that would normally be expected to attach to such projects in the private sector.
I should be grateful for the noble and learned Lord's views on the adequacy of this model for projects such as the Dome. I should also be interested in his view as to what the consequences would have been if this project had been carried out by a Government department reporting to a Minister, had the project been as badly managed as it has.
I have two final questions for the noble and learned Lord. I am still unclear about the final financial outcome. Will the noble and learned Lord say how much money he expects to be paid to the company by Legacy and how much will be repaid by the Millennium Commission? Will he also say whether the final drain on Lottery funds of £628 million set out in the NAO report, which I would remind noble Lords amounts to a subsidy of about £140 per paying visitor to the Dome, will be reduced?
Will the noble and learned Lord also explain what expert advice he received before Legacy was proclaimed the preferred bidder, whether that advice was accepted and, if not, why not? Finally, will he explain what further risks remain before this project is brought to a final conclusion?
9.3 p.m.
Lord Varley: My Lords, coming in to bat at number 22, or whatever, in a list such as this—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am number 29.
Lord Varley: My noble friend is number 29. I am sure that he will slog a few around when he gets in. Coming in at this stage reminds me of what was reported as having been said by a noble Lord many years ago in a debate with as many speakers as this. He said:
"Everything has been said in this debate that needs to be said, but it has not been said by me".
I do not intend to follow the line of the National Audit Office report. I am quite prepared to wait until the Public Accounts Committee in another place has come to its recommendation. It would be easy to select quotations from the National Audit Office report. It has been done quite often. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is not in his place. I had intended to say

1427
something about him but I shall postpone it in the hope that he may return. I should prefer him to hear it rather than read it in Hansard tomorrow.
This has been a strange debate. Every speech made from the Conservative Benches, with the exception of that of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has looked at this project from the day when the Labour Government came into office; it did not exist before then. The noble Baroness was very fair. She said words to the effect that everybody is to blame.
I should like to make one or two points for the record. The project was conceived by the last government. The Millennium Commission included people from all political parties and none. The Cabinet Committee that took the decision in 1996 to build the Dome included Mr William Hague, the then Secretary of State for Wales, now the Leader of the Conservative Party. The Cabinet Committee agreed the method of funding the financial structure of the company and those to be appointed to it. They approved the site and the way in which it should be designed. They appointed Miss Jennie Page. That was an extremely good appointment. She did an exceptional job while she was there. When the election was about to take place, the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Heseltine, was so concerned about the future of the Dome that he sought a meeting with the then Leader of the Opposition and asked for his support.
It is strange that we have not today heard a speech from the Conservative Benches mentioning Mr Michael Heseltine. I know that he is now persona non grata as far as the Conservative Party is concerned. He is a bad boy and no one likes to mention him. Only 16 days ago in another place Michael Heseltine said that it seemed reasonable to back expert advice that around to 10 to 12 million visitors were possible. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark was right to lambast the press about how they behaved in connection with the Dome. On 13th November, Mr Michael Heseltine said:
"I have been engaged in the development of many controversial public projects but I have never known one so undermined and vilified by the national press from the moment it was announced".
That was a speech made by someone committed to the Dome. I pay credit to Michael Heseltine for the work that he did.
When Labour won the election, there was some hesitation about whether the project should go ahead. But I believe that if they had not decided to go ahead, the cry from the Conservative Party would have been deafening. Perhaps they would have been screaming from the rooftops that this wonderful, imaginative project, on which the Deputy Prime Minister had set his heart, had been abandoned by the Conservative Party. Labour won and the Dome was constructed, employing thousands of people. It became the largest building project in Europe. It was finished on time, unlike the building of the British Library, the completion of which was delayed by many years and cost millions of pounds. I do not make any complaint about that. But nobody has mentioned that and that took place during almost the whole of the period when
1428
the Conservatives were in office. There was no great tirade at that time from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, when he was a Cabinet Minister in that administration. There were no cries from other members of the Conservative Party. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is nodding her head to say that she criticised it. Does she want to intervene to say her hands are clean?
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I simply wish to say that there was a massive amount of criticism about the project management of the British Library. The noble Lord should go back to the official record. We have a wonderful Library here which will dig up all the stuff for him. It came from all sectors of the House.
Lord Varley: My Lords, who resigned over that project? Whose head were they calling for? Who did they pillory? Who did they hound? Nobody. They simply decided that when the Dome came along they would hound my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. Those are the facts.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is the noble Lord really suggesting that this Government were so feeble that they were afraid that if they abandoned the Dome, after all the advice they received at the beginning of this project when they took office, the Conservatives might make a bit of a fuss?
Lord Varley: My Lords, if they had wanted to abandon it, they could have done so. But the noble Baroness would have been the first person charging up and down the country saying that it had been abandoned. That is my belief. Others would have done so also. They would not have dared not to support the Deputy Prime Minister at the time. I wonder whether the noble Baroness sat on one of those Cabinet Committees with Mr Michael Heseltine. She shakes her head. That is her misfortune. If she had, she would not be making the comment she is making today.
The reason for the controversy which caused this debate is that insufficient people visited the Dome. I only hope that my noble friend Lord Bruce, when the doctors get to work on him, will be able to visit it. I am sure he would enjoy it. I and my family have been. We enjoyed it, particularly my grandchildren. They loved every moment they spent there. Of course, as others have said in the course of this debate, that is in common with the majority of people who have visited the Dome.
All the financial difficulties stem from the shortfall in visitor numbers. The visitor figures on which the financial calculations were made were accepted long before the Labour Government came into office. To blame the present Government alone for the shortfall in revenue, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer in particular, is preposterous.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is not in his place. But that should not restrain me. I did not ask him to leave. It is sometimes said that Members who come to this place from the House of Commons mellow; they do not enter into the spirit of

1429
politics as they did previously. No such charge can be made against the noble Lord. He is still as nasty and disagreeable as he was when he was in the other place. I am sure that he will not mellow for the whole of the period he is in this House.
The way in which leading Conservatives have behaved is absurd and their antics do them no credit. I know that they are in a bit of difficulty in the country. There were three by-elections last week, all of which Labour won. I do not believe any elector refused to go to the polls until my noble and learned friend resigned. The House will recall that the Conservative Party tried to do the same to my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury as they are doing to my noble and learned friend. When my noble friend Lord Simon left BP to become a Labour Minister, they went after him in the same way. John Redwood spent every waking minute attacking him. The same happened when my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville became a Minister. Both he and my noble friend Lord Simon came through those onslaughts with their reputations and dignity intact and enhanced.
Those of us who have looked at this matter objectively have every confidence in my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. He has the confidence of all those who are prepared to look at the facts. He should take no lessons from a Conservative Party that gave us the poll tax, mishandled the BSE crisis, invented Railtrack and caused all the chaos on the railways. My noble and learned friend will come through this period with credit and go on to play a much greater role in government. I wish him every success.
9.14 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I hope to be a little less aggressive, perhaps even mellow. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for introducing this debate and defending his position so spiritedly. I do not intend to speak at great length but shall concentrate on the visitor projections and leave the report of the National Audit Office and other matters to your Lordships.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Varley, my right honourable friend Mr Heseltine does feature in my notes. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who made a skilful speech, I worked on the Greenwich peninsula in the late 1980s and have also visited the Dome. Apparently, I was stunned. I shall not say what stunned me, but I enjoyed the "BlackAdder" film. I was definitely struck by the extravagant design of the structures of each zone. Like many noble Lords, I agree that the Dome itself is, and will continue to be, a very impressive building. I also agree with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, about comparisons with the Sydney Opera House.
I do not profess to be an expert on property. However, like my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, I hope that the Dome will be kept for exhibitions. I believe that it would be wasted if it were used purely as a tent over prefab offices. To knock down the Dome may well be better value for money, but London will be
1430
better off if it is kept. I hope that a comment of that kind from the Back Benches is not too much at variance with the views of my noble friends on the Front Bench.
The Minister referred to my right honourable friend Mr Heseltine. If I inherited a project from my right honourable friend, be it a helicopter or single currency project, I would exercise a certain amount of caution. A target of 12 million people requires a substantial proportion (about 20 per cent) of the population of the United Kingdom to visit the Dome. Some noble Lords have asked at what point the Dome's budget will go into balance in terms of attendance. We must not forget that visitors to the Dome finance the running of the Millennium Experience, not the whole project. Only £200 million of the budget comes from commercial receipts, including visitors. I do not argue with the arithmetic. However, the total budget is about £758 million, which appears to equate to a planned subsidy of about £80 per visitor. That point seems to have been missed by many noble Lords.
My difficulty with the whole project is that most families cannot afford the discretionary expenditure required to visit the Dome. That expenditure includes the cost of travel to the Dome and sustaining them, normally by way of fairly expensive fast food outlets. Think of an ordinary family of four in Newcastle upon Tyne, or some other great northern city. Even if use is made of a family railcard, the cost is £60 per adult and £15.75 per child. In addition, a family ticket for the Dome is £57. Therefore, the total cost per family is £200. I do not believe that many families can afford that discretionary expenditure, and perhaps that is the underlying cause of the lack of attendance. I do not understand why the consultants to the Dome did not foresee the problem.
In addition to travel costs, there is transit time. A family from the north may spend six hours in a train. Young children will become very tired during a journey of that length. For families who travel from northern cities, there must be many places which are easier to reach and perhaps more interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, referred to the use of coaches. The problem of tiredness will be made worse with coaches because of the longer travelling time required. It may even involve an overnight stay, which will result in yet further cost. Your Lordships can pop over to the Dome any day of the week. However, would we take the trouble to go all the way to Liverpool or Edinburgh if the Dome was sited there?
The noble and learned Lord said that the Dome was the most successful UK visitor attraction, but with a subsidy of £80 per person it should be.
There is one further difficulty. Two weeks ago I visited the Dome late on the Sunday night. I would certainly not like to go there when it was any busier. There was a 30 minute wait for the journey zone and a 40 minute wait for the body zone. Even with the low attendance figures that we are sadly experiencing I understand that those are not unusual delays. If there were a 100 per cent greater attendance figure at the Dome, the whole experience would be unbearably busy.

1431
Finally, I have a question for the Minister. Can he say whether there are any other visitor attractions in the UK which are subsidised to the extent of £80 per visitor?
9.21 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer for introducing the debate and for his unending good humour in the face of scurrilous scape-goating and blame-seeking by the media and their friends.
Having listened for several hours today, and not just today, to some noble Lords opposite decrying the Dome, I have come to the not unsurprising conclusion that an unhealthy amount of pleasure is being taken in exaggerating the admitted shortcomings of the Dome project and in minimising its undoubted successes, not least to the wonder and satisfaction of up to 6 million people.
Those noble Lords who would be first off the starting blocks in calling themselves patriots in a debate on so-called European superstates—I do not refer to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington—suddenly lose all sense of patriotism and national pride when it comes to sharing collective responsibility over our major national millennium project, the Dome.
There appears to be a media feeding frenzy of failure when it comes to the Dome—almost an exultation in searching for failure of any kind—which masks three important issues. First, the Dome was the centrepiece for a wonderful range of millennium projects throughout the regions of the United Kingdom. The Birmingham Millennium Point is one such project. Secondly, it masks the fact that the risk venture which is the Dome—many noble Lords here today agree that it is a risk venture and was from the start—had its genesis in the previous Conservative government. Thirdly, there are those who never wanted the project to succeed in the first place and are taking prurient pleasure in a media-fuelled controversy. They see it as an early Christmas present. No wonder people get cynical about politicians.
The Dome was a risk venture. No noble Lord on this side of the House is claiming that it is an outrageous success. But what we are saying is that as the country's number one visitor attraction it has brought considerable pleasure to millions of families across the United Kingdom. Through its exhibits, zones and performances it has redefined what millions of British families can expect in the future from a great day out.
In the cold light of dawn, I believe that the Dome experience will have altered families' expectations of what standards a national visitor attraction needs to reach to ensure satisfaction in the future. That is in addition to all the benefits that noble Lords have identified, such as the strong regeneration benefits and the marvellous employment benefits that the Dome has brought.
1432
Finally, perhaps I may set the accusations that we keep hearing into some kind of context by comparing the records of the Dome with those of our most popular tourist attractions. According to the latest figures from the Office of National Statistics Social Trends publication, the Dome is attracting similar numbers of people to Blackpool pleasure beach, without the candy-floss and the donkeys. It has had double the number of visitors of Alton Towers and the Tower of London and far more than the Natural History Museum and the Science Museum put together. Those are figures to celebrate, not figures to be condemned in negative terms.
While willing to understand and learn the lessons highlighted for the future by the National Audit Office report, the Government are not willing to devalue the experience of millions of families, the exciting benefits of a huge regeneration project on the Greenwich peninsula or the security of employment of thousands of people, especially young people. That is a legacy from the Dome which will endure and of which we should all be proud.
9.26 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I shall try to be brief at this hour, after a long and, I believe, revealing debate, out of which, with the exception of the contributions of a few noble Lords, has come a balanced picture of the successes and failures of the Dome and, even more clearly, an overwhelming endorsement of the integrity of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer.
The exceptions have been concentrated, to a statistically—but perhaps not politically—extraordinary extent, on the Conservative Benches opposite, whose occupants, with the noble exception of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, seemed to have approached the issue with a rare mix of condescension towards popular taste and enthusiasm, surprising ignorance and a selective amnesia verging on Alzheimer's of the Ernest Saunders variant. For what it is worth, my own assessment of the project endorses the near universal admiration of the building itself and the recognition of the invaluable benefits of the resulting urban regeneration. If the contents of the building, on the harshest criteria, have scored, overall, as solid performers, rather than smash-hit blockbusters, my noble friend Lady McIntosh has already testified to how creditable that result is in even the best-run creative businesses. At least as important as the quality of the Dome's contents during this year is the decision as to its future. It seems to me that the benefits from a successful new use of the Dome have the capability of dwarfing whatever mistakes and disappointments, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, even-handedly described them, that have arisen in its short life to date.
In that context, I was surprised by the rather deprecating terms used by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to describe the Legacy consortium's proposed use of the Dome as a science and technology business park. Perhaps that accurately reflects his party's attitude towards the new business on which our

1433
future employment and prosperity depend. Like Southwark Council, I intuitively favour such a use of the Dome rather than as a continuing entertainment venue. I shall keep my fingers firmly crossed that the designation of Legacy as preferred bidder now leads swiftly to a successful sale. I think that the preference of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—and, if I understood him right, that of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—for an international exhibition centre may have been formed without any awareness of the major new such centre opened close to the Dome in the past few weeks.
Many noble Lords have referred back to the decision in June 1996 by the previous government to pursue the project as a public sector one, following the failure of any private-sector operator to come forward. This, remember, from a government which had elevated the worship of privatisation and the degeneration of the public sector to an ideological fetish. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, and others have emphasised, the reticence of the private sector signalled clearly and powerfully one thing: beware, high risk. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested, the identification of risk is a key issue for businesses and indeed all organisations. When the then Conservative government made the decision to proceed despite the signals from the private sector, it must implicitly have acknowledged the high risks of the project. When, in opposition, senior members of the Conservative Party from their Front Benches and Back Benches gave support, and in some cases strong encouragement, to the project's continuation, they must have recognised that those high risks remained.
It is for that reason that the sanctimonious strictures from the Benches opposite—even when they are based on accurate matters of implementation where acknowledged mistakes may have been made—are so offensive to those of us on these Benches.
In looking for lessons to learn, I would be sad if a blanket conclusion were reached that the Government should shun completely the active promotion of popular cultural and entertainment projects, particularly those with significant regenerative aspects. Rather, I believe the cumbersome structure and other handicaps to the Dome's optimal management that other noble Lords have analysed should clearly be avoided if and when future projects are pursued.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, suggested that the Dome was conceived out of hubris. If it was, I find it difficult to attribute that hubris other than to the government in office at the time of the project's conception. In fact, I believe the conception was based not on hubris, but on a brave, possibly excessively brave, aspiration to mark the new millennium on a widespread, popular basis. Since May 1997, and not least since January 1999 when my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer assumed responsibility, a remarkably challenging and difficult situation has been managed with persistence, patience, skill and integrity. We owe him, and all others who have worked on the Dome, a vote of thanks, not of censure.
9.32 pm
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I am probably an unnecessary appendix in this debate. When I looked at the list of speakers today I could not understand why there were names of so many noble Lords on the Benches opposite. I suppose it is a Parliament of Crows where they are all cawing together because the senior crow has a wing down at the bottom of the tree.
I wonder whether the Dome may not become the kind of dimpled chad of the Labour party. I know not. I intend to go back a little. I have always ended up appointed to difficult jobs by the Labour Party, because it always appointed hereditary Peers to unpaid jobs. The one I intend to talk about now was when the present noble Lord, Lord Shore, appointed me to be chairman of the Greater London and South East Councils Sport and Recreation body. It was to prepare a plan for sport and recreation for the future.
Tonight I have listened to the biggest example of short-term thinking and short-termism that I have ever heard in this House. People seem to be attacking each other with absolutely no knowledge or understanding. The preparation of a regional recreational strategy was a non-party task. We came to the very simple conclusion that we must look after people when they are not working or sleeping. One needed a very careful plan. We had the help of many trade union leaders and my executive committee of 152, including the Army, the Navy and the Royal Parks. Some wonderful people were involved. There was Clive Jenkins who wrote an excellent book called The Collapse of Work. There was another one called, I believe, The Leisure Shock.
We decided that it was a good idea to make people happy. But, when the report was produced, somebody said, "Wait a moment. You'd better do something about it". But half way through the proposal Michael Heseltine appeared. He then reappointed me. I found myself in the most difficult situation of all, in that we needed a really big venue in inner London for multipurpose activities. This led to one of the most embarrassing moments of my life. I learned later that I had only been appointed because someone had looked me up in Who's Who and found my father instead.
My father had an interesting career in many ways, apart from wartime and so on, and he decided that he would be a boxer and an all-in wrestler for charity down the East End and the Isle of Dogs. It was a very good idea. He was told that he must lose because everyone liked to beat up a Peer. This seems to be what is happening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I thank him for being in his place all day. He has had nothing to eat. Should he wish to leave while I am speaking I shall be very happy that he should do so. I have nothing to say against him personally. As a good Celt—I, too, am a Celt—we have a lot in common, whereas many Members of his own Benches are slightly different from him.
People seem to get hung up with this business called "PR". The Labour Party calls it "public relations", or the presentation of something. The twitters from the Liberal Democrat Party—if that is what a collection of

1435
starlings is called—talk about "proportional representation". I have always used it for the phrase "protecting your rear". I detect that this gathering on the other side has a certain guilt feeling that someone will be unfairly attacked for having done something wrong. That may be the case—but we are talking about the most extraordinary project I have ever come across.
I want to explain my own project. We were asked whether we could find a big, multi-purpose venue. We had a study carried out by very good people and it was decided that it could be at Greenwich, in an old shed at Brooklands in Woking, at the Alexandra Palace or in a banana shed in Docklands. The banana shed in Docklands was chosen.
I was asked—I was young, the same age as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and not very experienced in these matters—if I would be chairman of this body. The Government were kindly going to give us the building—the banana shed—and the DOE were going to give us a grant. But we had not got any money to start with and it was back to the business of rooks or crows. As many people know, the Docklands symbol was a crow. We managed to arrange for the marathon to run past this part of Docklands, and my cousins, friends and others, on roller-skates and dressed up in crow uniforms, collected £200—and we formed a charity to start this great event.
The plan was for the structure to be as big as a football pitch inside, with a single span. We had the great and the good there. The company of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, instead of jobbing backwards after the event, produced the budget. We had the great GEC as one of the partners, and the great P&O Group and the great Grand Metropolitan, who were to manage it. We also had the Sports Council, the representatives of 41 different sports and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets—you name it, they were there.
This was a remarkable achievement. It was going to be on budget; it was practically finished. Then, in 1986, a rival emerged on the scene—a dome. The London dome was to be built. Sponsored in a way by Americans, it was to be a 25,000-seater stadium which looked remarkably like the current Dome. That appeared on the day we were seeking to raise some more money with Kleinwort Benson and it caused a bit of difficulty.
There was then a fire—the Bradford fire. You would not have thought that the Bradford fire would have anything to do with Docklands, but it did. The fire chiefs came along and said, "We are terribly sorry, you cannot have any people in your building. The 10,000 people you were going to have cannot come in. You have got to completely re-roof it". The reason for that was that the building belonged to the Port of London Authority, not to the local authority. Therefore it did not exist. So when the new legislation came in, it had to be deemed to exist and comply with the new legislation.
1436
We liked the London Borough of Tower Hamlets; it was a good Labour council. Peter Shore was the Member of Parliament who appointed me and, although I was never paid anything or received any expenses, I felt that I owed him something, and I owed Tower Hamlets something because that is where my father had lost most of his fights. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets then had a problem—the Labour Party was kicked out. Its recreational strategy, which led to support, was not able to be implemented because it had a young councillor who held the balance of power who was under age. So it was defunct.
Then, much to my regret, the GLC, which was a very good supporter and was going to provide an annual subvention to ensure that we kept our head above water, decided that, as I was a Conservative, I was persona non grata and that unless I voted to retain the GLC it would withdraw its support. It then said that I must stand up and speak in its favour. This was difficult for me because my mother was the Lord Mayor of Westminster and was opposed to the GLC, and my cousin was doing the PR for the GLC. So I went to see the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition. It was placed on record and it was thought that the Sergeant-at-Arms should properly go over the bridge and take the person concerned because he was trying to influence Parliament. But we lost the grant. We then found to our surprise that we had to get full private sector money. With the help of the organisation of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, a new budget was produced. It was decided to have many more entertainments, in particular pop concerts and music festivals. The ICA was there, promoting new arts. It had headless chickens falling around, and the local Jamaican community got upset and the project lost support.
At the end of the day we had a major problem. We ran out of money and found that there were directors' liabilities. As chairman of the charity, I said that we must go into receivership and must protect the relatively small amount of public money that had been put in. I resigned, but the directors who remained were all disqualified from being directors thereafter.
What I am trying to say is that when we are dealing with public money—and 66 per cent of all expenditure is public—the public sector often makes the mistake that it is not a single body but a collection of many bodies, which must obtain the necessary permissions and observe the necessary rules and regulations. One cannot think short-term.
Let us look at what happened. My right honourable friend Michael Heseltine did a remarkable job on inner-city regeneration. But even then there was short-termism. Look at the City airport in Docklands, which very nearly went under. Look at Canary Wharf—the biggest development of its kind—which very nearly went under. Look at Alton Towers, which decided that it would try to take on Battersea power station. That practically killed it. All major projects of this kind need at least 10 years; no profit will be made for five years, and the capital cost has to be written off.

1437
The original proposals for the London Dome were remark ably similar. The project was rejected at the time because of the pollution on the Greenwich site. It was thought that it could be in the Royal Docks. But it was rejected for another reason: it was impossible, without the right infrastructure, to make that kind of project work. At the end of the day, we are not talking merely about a building. The Dome is another venue. We are desperately short of venues in this country. Look at the crap that was around in terms of football stadiums until they were sorted out recently. Look at Wembley. We have fewer facilities than any other country in the OECD. We have always failed to look at the need for the infrastructure that goes with them.
Let us take the simple issue of car parking. One car parking space is needed for each 60 visitors. The Dome would need 3,000 car parking spaces if it were to be a proper venue, accepted internationally and with local planning policy. A project cannot succeed if people cannot get there. I regard the Dome as a remarkable building. It is a brilliant design concept. There is bitching, if I may so describe it—at least, men do not bitch; they do something else—but there is this complaining about each other. We know what happened. This was to be a landmark project on the right site and the design concept was good. The fault lay in the simple fact that no one bothered to work out what would have go inside the Dome in order to make it work. That is the truth. The Dome is not a short-term project—it cannot be. It cannot be made to pay for itself. Incidentally, the subsidy is £102 per person, not £80 as my noble friend Lord Attlee said.
It is a question of what we do. I feel very sorry for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. He has been left as tail-end Charlie—perhaps that is the wrong phrase; I am tail-end Charlie in this debate. It is difficult to find a solution. I should be inclined to write off every single item of expenditure and start again from scratch. It will be a pity if the Dome is turned into a high-tech business park—the idea applied to any building when it does not work. It needs some thought. It needs the infrastructure that goes with such projects. It is an outstanding building, but it is like so many things that we get wrong: we do not think them through.
I declare an interest in relation to the Tate Modern. I am president of the Anglo-Swiss Society. That building was Swiss-designed at the end and it worked extremely well. The bridge is not as good as the bridge in Newcastle. But if we look at some of the engineering projects that we have advanced in this country—whether it be the Severn Bridge, or others—most of them have not been thought through far enough so as to link up all the infrastructure. It is infrastructure and lack of access that kills many such projects.
I wish the Dome project well; and, indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I heard about his success on the Dome in Switzerland, and his role in "Cool Britannia"—which, I gather, is now dead and things are hotting up. The world was waiting and assuming that the Dome would be the symbol of modern Britain. In the end, the outside is; but I do not think that that can be said for the inside of the Dome.
1438
However, the inside does not matter. It is a great building. I hope that someone will find something proper to do with it in the future.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. I have listened to him on many occasions and he is always entertaining. The noble Lord began his speech by asking the rhetorical question as to why there were so many Labour colleagues present in the Chamber sitting behind the Minister. I shall tell him why I am here. Having witnessed the attempt to crucify my noble and learned friend over the past three months at least for matters that he defended excellently tonight, I was determined to be here to show solidarity with him and with what both he and the Government have been trying to do. I believe that he has done that very well.
My noble friend Lord Varley said that there was once a Peer who said, "Everything that can be said has been said, but not by me". I do not intend to go over the ground that has already been covered because I believe that all of the facts have been exposed. But my noble friend also said something with which I completely agree; namely, that the nastiest speech that we heard tonight came from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. He pleaded in aid the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, had changed. I had the experience—I nearly said "the pleasure"—of being in another place. I can vouch for the fact that the nasty, shabby and shoddy speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is on a par with the speeches that he has made previously both in this Chamber and in another place.
The other speech that I should like to comment upon is that made by my noble friend Lord Puttnam. To me, my noble friend was able to put into a well-prepared case the reason why the Labour Government are proud of what they did. They have learned from the experience. My noble friend painted for me a picture of the practical value of the Dome, as he saw it from his eminent position, to the school children and the communities who have visited it. I have not yet had the pleasure, but I intend to visit the Dome before the year is out.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, used as an analogy the fact that it is costly for people to come from Newcastle upon Tyne, which is my home town, to visit the Dome. Years ago, I did what I suggest not many people did: I travelled from Newcastle to see the 1951 exhibition. Wherever the exhibition was sited, there were bound to be people who were disadvantaged. Of course, the costs are greater now than they were at that time. In 1997, the Government were faced with the decision of whether they wished to mark the millennium. All of the available evidence, and the work that had been carried out prior to them coming into office, led the Government to believe that the right decisions had been made as regards the site, the concept and the vision.

1439
In my view, my noble and learned friend has acknowledged where there have been derelictions and where there have been mistakes. However, at the same time, I believe that he has kept us on the straight and narrow as far as concerns the main issue. Members opposite have been champing at the bit for months to have my noble and learned friend before them to defend his case. They would not wait; indeed, the proper time to do that would have been after the committee in the other place had examined the matter. But, no, they would not wait—and they have not stayed to listen to his response.
I do not wish to enter into the issue of criticism because the House must move on. However, our noble and learned friend the Minister has not only done his best—his very, very good best—for his party and his Government; he has, more importantly, also done his best for the people who will benefit in years to come. Indeed, there was similar criticism in 1951 about the whole concept of the exhibition; for example, there we were in the days of austerity spending much public money on remembering the Great Exhibition in 1851 as something of which we could be proud.
Fifty years after the 1951 exhibition I look across at Festival Hall. I remember visiting the Festival Gardens and the South Bank. As the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said, it takes a long time for such a project to come to fruition. It discredits the leadership of the party opposite that they should believe that they can manipulate this issue to their credit over the next few months. It is my humble opinion that when the people of this country have all the facts—they do not have all of them yet—and have heard all the debate, they will not only consider that the decision we are discussing was the correct one, but they will also consider that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer served not only his party and the Government but also his country very well indeed.
9.51 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I too thank my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer for initiating the debate this evening. It constitutes one step in the long process of the demonstration of his accountability as a Minister. Many noble Lords will be aware of the number of Questions and debates he has replied to on this subject. There have been three debates in this House on the subject, the most recent on 12th July. He was anxious to initiate the debate this evening, which I welcome.
Many positive comments have been made about the Dome. I do not intend to repeat them, as in the debates I mentioned I recognised the regeneration that has taken place in the deprived area of Greenwich where the Dome is located. I hope that the Dome is not pulled down. It is certainly a London landmark whether one flies in or sees it from the road. It stands out like a beacon. It is something to be proud of.
Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the executive summary in the National Audit Office report identify the failure to achieve the visitor numbers and income required and
1440
the complex organisational arrangements as being responsible for many of the Dome's financial difficulties.
I am not one of those who blame the press for things that go wrong, but I think that they do have an influence. Paragraph 23 of the executive summary states:
"The Company estimates that each time the Dome received tad press' sales enquiries dropped by 30 per cent to 50 per cent in the following week".
That is a substantial percentage. Unfortunately, today people believe much of what they read in the press.
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, wondered why so many noble Lords were present on this side of the Chamber. I believe that my noble friend Lord Graham answered that point. Many of us who are present this evening have attended not just this debate but have also been present when Questions have been asked and when debates have taken place on the Dome and have attended Select Committee hearings when evidence has been heard on the Dome.
Like others on these Benches, I too wonder why, after the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition and his supporting shadow Ministers in another place made such a song and dance on this issue, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is so poorly supported in terms of numbers on the opposite side of the House. I wonder whether a reason for that is that some noble Lords opposite are more interested in the vote that is taking place at the Carlton Club this evening on whether women should be admitted as members. Perhaps they consider that that has a higher priority than the matter we are discussing.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, it used to be the practice in this House that only people who knew about a subject would speak on it in Wednesday debates.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I have been a Member of this House since 1993 and from my observation of many of the debates in this House I have never considered that to be a criterion for taking part in one!
When I worked in Fleet Street I was often the only woman taking part in negotiations. When I saw employers and trade union men run for cover when the going got tough and when they might be blamed for something, I developed the theme that the world was full of males but few men! Over the past month that thought came to me time and time again as I heard and read about Opposition spokespeople in another place and some noble Lords in this House trying to paint out their role in the development of the Dome. I agree with the right honourable Member, Mr Heseltine, that it is a role to be proud of. But listening to some of the statements one would think that those people were trying to rewrite history; and that is not possible.
I wonder what the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition thought that he was doing when, in support of the shadow Minister Mr Peter Ainsworth, he said on 7th September, "Shut the Dome, and now". What did the people employed there, the businesses

1441
with investment in the Dome and the people of Greenwich think when that statement was made? I believe that when he made it the right honourable Member the Leader of the Opposition knew that it would cost more to close the Dome then than to keep it open until the end of the year.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, was right in his approach. I congratulate him on dealing with the issue by following the traditions of this House. The noble Lord talked a lot of sense. I do not say that in a patronising way. I respect his vast business experience. He was right to deal with the issues that he did. However, he also said that he would not blame any one individual, because it would take all his allocated time in the debate to name all the individuals concerned. He is absolutely right. Mistakes have been made. Much needs to be learned for the future. But the mistakes have not been made by one person or one party. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and my noble friend Lord Puttnam are right. We are in grave danger of developing a blame culture in this country. This Government have made mistakes; the Minister admitted that mistakes were made. I just wish that those other males would become proper men and admit their role in the whole process.
Perhaps I may say this in a friendly way to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. She mentioned the reference of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington to £900 million and said in what I took as a friendly comment that he probably needed some vocational training. The noble Baroness may not call it that but that is how I term it. The noble Baroness is a new Member of the House. When she has been around a little longer she will know that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, needs no vocational training on accountancy from anyone—not even, with respect, from someone who was last year the president of a professional institute. My noble friend runs circles around most people when it comes to knowing facts. I congratulate him on his ingenious way of bringing his pet subject into the debate.
Let us get the matter into perspective. Before the debate began, I, with other noble Lords, listened to a Statement about inherited SERPS. It referred not to millions but billions of pounds which people lost because of the policy and inaction of the previous government. So let us get this issue into perspective.
I think that in the longer-term future the inheritance from the Dome will be judged more fairly than by today's generation. It is self-evident that it has contributed a great deal. The figure of £900 million has been mentioned. It is not £900 million down the drain. There are houses, jobs and the regeneration of the whole area. I suggest that the Dome has been a major contribution to the regeneration of the heart of the City, the River Thames. It is a pleasure today to travel down the Thames; it was not so a few years ago. That was because of the vision of the previous government and the courage of this Government to carry that vision forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that he thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord
1442
Falconer, had gone over the top. I do not agree, because, with respect, he and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, before him, who was the first to speak after the Minister's introduction, called for my noble and learned friend's resignation. Some might think that it is going over the top to answer vigorously, but if someone calls for another's resignation they should mean it seriously and we should examine the issues and defend the person who is being attacked, if necessary.
In closing, I urge my noble and learned friend to take no lessons from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about what he should do and how he should do it. His record on accountability is clear. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, as Secretary of State for Wales between 1979 and 1987. He presided over the biggest job losses and the greatest increase in deprivation that the Principality of Wales had seen for a long time. The people of Wales recognised that, and the action of one of his successors, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, by ensuring that at the following election not one Tory MP was elected from Wales. My noble and learned friend has no lessons to take from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell.
10.1 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, in the four minutes of this gap moment, dare I offer a thought that I hope will encourage us all? I simply remind the House again of the neighbouring, massive cultural assets sited near to the Dome in Greenwich. I have not heard them being underlined. There is the superb Greenwich Park, where Henry VIII went hunting and hawking; there is Greenwich Palace, where Queen Elizabeth I was born and where James I died; there is Greenwich Hospital—latterly the Royal Naval College—which is one of the supreme masterpieces of Sir Christopher Wren, one of the great architects of enduring influence in this city. The painted hall in Wren's complex is becoming a great centre for concerts. In this Bach anniversary year, Sir John Eliot Gardiner and the Monteverdi choir took their orchestra and their cantatas there just the other week. There are wonderful riverscapes and views across the river—such a contrast to the views of the past.
I am a 66 year-old south Londoner whose family was bombed out in 1940, but I have witnessed the regenerative energies of our city. I therefore ask the Minister to assure us that the next occupants of the Dome, whoever they may be, will be committed to joined-up thinking for those other historic assets in the Greenwich area, bringing cultural and spiritual regeneration to that place. We should unite in support of the Government to ensure the Dome's contribution to that future in the richly cultural area of Greenwich. That will be done by joined-up thinking with the other people involved.
10.3 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is useful to have current problems put into geographical and historical context. I welcome the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield.

1443
I expected a large number of speakers in the debate. I was startled to see the heavyweight presence on the Government Front Bench at the beginning of the debate. It is highly appropriate that his ministerial colleagues were supporting the noble and learned Lord, who has found himself pitched into such a controversial position. I leave it to the public to judge whether the large number of speeches from the Labour Back-Benches were made out of admirable loyalty and solidarity, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, or whether they might have protested a little too much.
The debate started on a very personal note. The Liberal Democrats have deliberately chosen not to personalise the issue. The Minister rightly started by asking what lessons should be learned. I shall resist the temptation to ask what the Conservatives would have done and when they would have done it had they remained in office. However, at some point I should be interested to know what lessons they might have learned from this exercise.
The Secretary of State, the right honourable Chris Smith, in a debate in another place earlier this month identified what he called "four key lessons". Those were: to adopt a clear management structure; to bring in the experts; to make prudent estimates at the outset; and to improve, he said, everyone's performance on risk analysis. I was glad to hear the noble and learned Lord extend that to the issue of whether governments should try to run projects. I believe that the consensus of this House is that that is a risky business for a government to get into.
However, if politicians are to run projects—politicians, after all, should be particularly nimblefooted—I believe it is a little odd if they do not have a plan B in case things start to go wrong. Of course, plan B may always have been to play Oliver Twist.
As has been pointed out, as early as 1996, or perhaps earlier, it was clear that the private sector would not accept the risks. Why was that not treated, in the current jargon, as a wake-up call, as my noble friend Lord Sharman, who knows Byzantium when he sees it, might have said? As the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated, the risks must have been accepted. That must be the logic.
If the Government run a project—I understand the distinction from managing a company—I believe that it is unbecoming of them to make scapegoats of those who are not politicians. At any rate, it is unbecoming of them to have allowed the succession of postholders, who left their posts in a manner that began to be reminiscent of the programme "Big Brother", to be cast as scapegoats. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and others said, one of them—Jennie Page—brought the project to fruition. I believe that she deserves enormous credit and praise. It was tough on her that the world seemed to assume that the same talents could be used to run the project as those which were used to complete the project. I am glad that her contribution is now being acknowledged.
1444
Several noble Lords referred to the projected visitor figures fitting the funding required in order to achieve the funding. I believe that my noble friend Lord Jacobs is probably correct that, while that may be our analysis, it will never be acknowledged. However, we know that in June 1997 the Millennium Commission was concerned about the business plan. I cannot understand why later no one said, or at least said with any force, "How can we ever again believe a forecast? Each time a transfusion of cash is requested, the public is led to believe that that is the last transfusion". Were there no conditions attached to each grant? As my noble friend said, perhaps it is a little byzantine.
The National Audit Office report stated that sponsorship income was received more slowly than NMEC expected. Surely enforceable contractual commitments were in place; and, if not, why not? Perhaps I may also raise a point which I do not believe has been referred to tonight; that is, the question of contracts and the payment of contractors and especially small contractors. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can confirm that tales that they have not been paid on time are not correct.
I have had difficulty in believing not only the visitor numbers and the cash amounts required, but also, like the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, the apparent effect on sales figures of what the press said—a drop of 30 to 50 per cent in the following week. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who talked about the press's obsessive negativity. Members of the press who queued with increasing impatience at Stratford last New Year's Eve have treated that bit of revenge as a dish not only to be eaten cold but to be eaten several times over.
Is there a lesson too in relation to the negotiating skills required? I mention that this evening in particular, given that we now have a single preferred bidder for the Dome. At least I understand that that is the case. I read today that briefly within No. 10 there was a suggestion that it might prove a new home for Arsenal. I am not sure whether the Prime Minister is a Spurs supporter and floated that one. At any rate, we are now left with the Legacy bid.
Before coming to this debate, I was asked what step the Government would take if the Legacy deal falls through. But that is a plan B which I really do not expect the Minister to share with us this evening.
Another question that is in my mind is how best the Comptroller and Auditor-General can play his part. Audit, by its very nature, is after the event. But how effective can it be? The report is intensely interesting but, inevitably, rather late.
The Dome project is, as has been said, not just a national project. It is also a major regional project. I refer, of course, to the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula. If central government become involved in projects which have both national and regional aspects, a point for the future may be how Ministers will relate to regional government on such issues. I declare an interest as a member of the Greater London Assembly and I know that the noble and learned Lord is sympathetic to having a dialogue with

1445
London's government on the issue, although we have still not resolved how formally and publicly we can do that.
The regeneration is certainly to be applauded, although it has been trumpeted relatively recently. To me, the justification is just a little bit post hoc ergo propter hoc. But I ask: how good is that return? We have heard about the number of jobs and about the housing. But how good is that proportionate to the investment? Will the Minister tell the House what objectives were set for regeneration, both in 1994 and in 1997; how far those objectives have been met; and to what extent the regeneration compares with other major schemes in the sense of the return obtained? The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, talked about the real social gains but we also need to know about the real cost, so that any lessons in that regard can be applied. Regeneration is expensive, but I should like to know quite how expensive.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and others referred to transport and the Jubilee Line in particular. That is certainly a success, in sharp contrast to the order in which things were done across the river. But as my noble friend Lord Jacobs said—and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, also referred to this—there was scope for integrated ticketing and more imaginative transport arrangements.
The right reverend Prelate gave us wise words about employment, skills development and the amount of affordable housing. He referred to the proportion of affordable housing as being 25 per cent. I hope that we shall soon see a higher proportion of affordable housing in the new development achieved within London, including for people on moderate incomes.
Like others, when I see the building, my spirits lift. I love the building. But I am not sure that I can agree with the comparison with the Sydney Opera House whose function was planned from the start. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that a building without a function is poorer for that. I should feel more comfortable where I knew that the function preceded the form.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to the Thames and criticised the private palaces which have been built on some parts on its banks. That must be due to the planning policies of some, but happily not all, London boroughs. In others, there have been huge successes including most recently, the Thames Barrier Park, which is a terrific facility.
Finally, the NAO report says that there should be a full understanding of the project from cradle to grave. That is an unfortunate expression. Many of us were happy to celebrate 11 months ago, but some of us took the view that the new millennium would start on 1st January 2001. There may be some connection there with what has happened with the Dome but I shall not pursue it. I merely say that I wish the Dome and the Greenwich peninsula well in the second millennium.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, my noble friend Lady O'Cathain was absolutely right when she
1446
said that tonight we should not be looking at the person behind the office and attaching blame to that individual, although we should expect high standards of public accountability from our Ministers. I shall concentrate on that aspect. I cannot play fine games with fine words. I simply have to look at what the public outwith this Chamber see; how they understand what has been said here; what has been understood here; and what picture has been painted for them.
It is always interesting to listen to the noble and learned Lord plead a case with the consummate skill of a lawyer even when that case is flawed. Let us get some of the misunderstandings out of the way. Yes, of course, there was all-party support for building the Dome. Nobody has hidden from that fact; no one has run away from it, despite what some noble Lords have said today. The bipartisan support was for the celebration of the millennium in the best way possible, for all that is best about this country and with the regeneration of Greenwich as a welcome consequence. However, that consequence should be within a budgeted forecast, not one that simply happens regardless of cost and regardless of outcome.
The fact that we supported that bipartisan project does not mean that as a result we should be expected to support the financial mismanagement of the Dome that has occurred under the guardianship of this Government. As the Minister said, the Government reviewed the entire project after the election in 1997. We have had a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about who said what and when about particular visitor forecasts.
On several occasions we have been directed to the NAO report and noble Lords disagreed about the month in which a budget was adopted. The simple fact is that in the NAO report there is reference in paragraph 3.1 to the fact that the project was a provisional one that would be amended as time went on. I shall be delighted to give way to the noble and learned Lord. Perhaps he wants me to read out paragraph 3.1 and in so doing extend my speech.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, does the noble Baroness eschew the proposition that the figures first offered when the Conservatives were in power were between 15 million and 30 million visitors?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, that is an extraordinary question. Why should one dispute what is in the NAO report? I hope that, if ever the PAC comes to a united report, noble Lords on Opposition Benches will accept without question what is in that report. My point is that throughout all this the Government, when they took office, had the figures presented to them. There was a thorough review of those figures and they made a decision, but, as we understand from leaked matters in the press, perhaps the Prime Minister made the decision.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, like noble Lords on Benches opposite who are making such

1447
braying sounds, I too suspect what I read in the press and I take it with a pinch of salt. I can report only what I have read in the press.
On visitor numbers, the figures have to be set against the background that my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lady Noakes pointed out so well, that the Government made the really crucial decisions after that about what went into the Dome; about the ticket prices, as my noble friend Lord Attlee pointed out, and about the ban on car access. Those were all contributory factors to the low visitor numbers.
We have heard tonight that the management structure that the Government inherited was complex. It says so in the NAO report. Surely, just because a job is difficult to do, it does not mean that it has to be done badly. As far as I can see by watching what has happened within the Chamber—I refer strictly to ministerial accountability within this Chamber—the problem is that the work has been carried out with an element of secrecy. That is a word that at one point even the Minister used on the Floor of the House. I believe that has created many problems and much mistrust here and outside the Chamber.
As long ago as February 1999, my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked the Minister to,
"undertake … to produce a document which will make clear to members of the public the Government's plans … for the cost of the project, its contents, access, parking and traffic".—[Official Report, 8/2/99; col. 2.]
My noble friend Lord Luke repeated that request. We got nowhere. We were led to believe that the New Millennium Experience Company was working well and that the finances were fine. We believed the Minister. The unfolding crisis was hidden from the view of the public and Parliament. On 12th January this year, when my noble friend Lord Elton asked what would be the shareholder's position if the Dome were sold at a loss, the Minister's reassuring responses gave no hint of the financial problems to which it now appears he had been alerted. I shall detail those. At that stage he implied that he could personally bear any financial consequences of a shortfall. I have a copy of Hansard with me and should be delighted to quote it to the Minister.
At Question Time on 10th February, the Minister joked about the fact that the Deputy Chief Whip was organising a whip-round behind him among Charlie's Angels to help him pay up if there were a shortfall. Despite all the good humour, the impression that was given was that there were no financial worries, and we were reassured. But we now know that what was happening was very different. We know that on 11th November 1999 the Minister was advised by the Dome company's accounting officer, and on 21st December 2000 by the department's accounting officer, of the probability that the Commission would need to provide further cash flow funding to the company. On 7th January 2000 the department informed the shareholder that there was no alternative but to go back to the Millennium Commission for more money. Having tried to explore other alternatives, they said "We shall have to go back to
1448
them". On 28th January the commissioners were advised by their own staff of a serious concern about the company's solvency. That was discussed with NMEC, a company whose board meetings the Minister attended, as he has told us in this House. While that was happening, we in this House believed that all was well. We were given no indication on the Floor of this House that it could be otherwise.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell referred to the fact that in February the right honourable Chris Smith wrote to the Minister. He said:
"Either the Board did not see or it chose to discount the warning signs of the cash flow difficulties. As a result, it seems possible that it failed to take decisive action until after a date when the company became technically insolvent".
They are his words, not mine. The right honourable Chris Smith continued:
"Clearly it is for you and the Chairman to decide what needs to be done to improve corporate governance".
The Minister did not reply until 24th March.
In May the board of the company engaged solicitors to advise them on the directors' responsibilities because of the danger of insolvency. I should have thought that that was rather an important point for the shareholder to notice when he attended meetings.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting. The noble Baroness will, of course, confirm to the House that it was made public in February, when the first application was made to the Millennium Commission.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am pleased that the Minister has referred to that. Prior to that application to the Millennium Commission, the Minister had appeared on the Floor of the House on 12th January, knowing that at that stage an application would have to be made, and yet he chose not to make any mention of it to this House. When I later learned of that, I found it quite extraordinary and I felt let down.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness could answer the question.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I believe that I have answered the question.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is trying to paint a picture of people not being kept informed. She has referred to the application that was made to the Millennium Commission at the beginning of February. Will she confirm that a public statement was made about that?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Unfortunately, a public statement was not made to this House. Furthermore, it appears that, until today, no Minister has come to this House of his own volition. Other so-called debates have taken place. One of my noble friends has asked an Unstarred Question; debates have

1449
been raised by my noble friends; statements and Private Notice Questions have been requested by the Opposition.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, those allegations are inaccurate; they are not based on fact. Let me take the example that Ministers have only come to this House when called. On 27th September I came here entirely of my own volition.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that it was not in response to the letter sent by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition to the Leader of the House. I was simply aware that the week before, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde wrote to the Leader of the House and requested that there should be a Statement. I assumed that the Statement came as a result of that request.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, let me confirm what my noble and learned friend said. We offered a Statement on the first day the House returned. My noble and learned friend came to the Dispatch Box, as he has done on a regular basis throughout the year, to volunteer information.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for making that clear. To return to the matter, in February it was perhaps unfortunate that at that stage the Minister, after being made aware of the problems already accruing, was able still to joke about the fact, saying that his noble friends would have to have a whip-round to support any shortfall. It is unfortunate that the Minister joked about such matters, and that appears in Hansard.
Perhaps I can progress to other matters. I referred to the letter written by the right honourable Chris Smith to the Minister, and the fact that after the company engaged solicitors to advise them on the directors' responsibilities and the danger of insolvency, we heard nothing about that from the Minister. By 25th May the fear of insolvency was so great that the directors of the NMEC sought and obtained from the Government, on 21st June, indemnities against actions brought against them for wrongful trading.
Dispute across the Chamber arose earlier on that matter. All I can say is that when I read in an NAO report the full account, I could understand what the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, was trying to achieve by his cross-examination. But he did not quite get the right result. Certainly when one reads the full report, one sees the legal points the noble Lord was trying to make. But this House did not know that any application had been made or granted about anything to do with indemnities. When indemnities are mentioned, people get worried about things like insolvency.
Then the Minister appeared on 12th July in front of the Select Committee. Questions were asked at that time about indemnities. I shall not go into a detailed examination of that because, quite frankly, I do not have the noble and learned Lord's legal expertise. I am
1450
sure that he will be able to show me that in some way what he said was technically correct. But if one is being an accountable, open, frank Minister, and one is asked by a Select Committee of the Commons a range of questions about indemnities, why does one not say in detail what had been granted by the Government to the directors, giving a full explanation? Why not say what happened on 21st June? Why leave the committee in the dark?
On 17th July the Minister wrote to my noble friend Lady Blatch saying,
"I am confident that NMEC will continue to trade solvently until 31st December 2000".
On 27th July he wrote to me saying,
"the New Millennium Experience Company was trading solvently on Monday 17th July".
That was a statement he later admitted was "technically incorrect".
The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, was kind enough to remind the House that on 14th July the company's chairman had indeed sent the Minister a letter to advise him of the further deterioration in the Dome's finances and that more money would be needed, and soon. It said,
"[The] Company might run out of money within two weeks and might require an additional £45 million".
Unlike the noble and learned Lord, I am not a successful commercial barrister. But even I might have noticed that something was seriously wrong after all those warnings. But, as we have already been told tonight, on 21st September the Minister wrote to Lord Dalkeith at the Millennium Commission, saying,
"I was shocked by what the PWC report implied about NMEC's financial management and corporate governance".
After being warned by his right honourable friend Chris Smith at the beginning of the year, that is extraordinary.
There has been much comment about the budget. It certainly does seem to be a case of, "pick your date and pick your budget". The latest is that we are told by David James that the cost of the Dome may be at least £839 million. I shall be interested to know whether the Minister can comment on Mr James' estimate.
The point is that Parliament was repeatedly led to believe that each extra grant and draw-down would be the last. Can the Minister tonight give the House an assurance that the draw-down in September was the last amount of money that will go from the lottery to the Dome company, either directly or indirectly? We have heard tonight about parliamentary Answers. I have had a Question tabled for six weeks which has not yet been answered. Perhaps now I shall get an answer.
Our experience of the handling of the Dome project by the Government so far means that we must ask whether we can expect better guardianship of it as it winds down and is sold off. I was interested to hear the proposals of my noble friends Lord Trefgarne and Lord Marlesford for the future of the Dome. Whatever is done, there is public concern, expressed recently on the radio by the Minister's honourable friend Diane Abbott—perhaps the Minister does not regard her as

1451
his friend—that in their anxiety to offload the Dome as soon as possible the Government might not have achieved the best deal either for the public or Greenwich by naming Mr Robert Bourne's company as the preferred bidder.
Why has the Minister overruled warnings and advice about the risks involved in Legacy's plans from independent accountants appointed by Ministers to monitor the bid? Will the Government publish the risk assessments that they have made? What are the outstanding issues that need to be resolved with regard to Legacy? How much will be given to the Millennium Commission by the NMEC, and when? How much will go to English Partnerships, and when?
I have trespassed on the time of this House for more than the 15 minutes which are normally allowed, simply because I have given way to other noble Lords on several occasions. However, I should like to make one or two further points. I was intrigued that on 4th March 1999 the Minister wrote to his noble friend Lord Burlison, who I am delighted to see is on the Front Bench:
"The Government will wish to achieve good value for money from the disposal of the Dome and related land, and will have regard to whether the proposal would generate receipts which at least match those which could have been achieved if the site were clear and disposed of for ordinary commercial development".
Tonight the noble and learned Lord tells the House that that deal will deliver only reasonable value for money. Does that mean he no longer seeks good value for money, because earlier he used the word "reasonable"?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not intend to make any distinction between reasonable and good value for money.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for that clarification. Can the Minister also reassure me that Legacy's bid at least matches what could be achieved if the site were clear and disposed of for ordinary commercial development?
My observations throughout have been aimed solely at what is expected to be Ministers' accountability and clarity in presenting what they do on behalf of the public. At the beginning of the evening the Minister, uncharacteristically, referred to two of my right honourable friends and myself, as a Member of the Opposition Front Bench, as being dishonourable. I take the word "dishonour" very seriously, and I shall remember it. I have made mistakes, and one of them is to believe the honour of this Minister.
10.33 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. We have had a good debate, and I believe that we have learnt a lot from it. Perhaps I may draw together a number of the strands. First, a large number of noble Lords have taken part in the debate on the Dome, and for the first time in such a debate not one
1452
noble Lord has said that it should be pulled down. Everybody who mentioned the Dome today said that it was a good building which should remain. I believe that that represents a change in people's views in relation to the Dome.
Secondly, everybody was united in the desire to achieve regeneration of the London Borough of Greenwich and to ensure that there was a proper legacy from the Dome in future. Equally, I believe that everyone in this House paid attention to the speech of my noble friend Lady Gibson, who made specific reference to the voice of Greenwich and what it wanted in relation to the future of the Dome.
Thirdly, everybody appeared to accept that there might be in excess of 5 million visitors to the Dome and that the vast majority who visited it enjoyed their time there. That was not a matter which subsequently appeared to be in dispute.
Therefore, I think we can all agree that there are quite a number of pluses. There was also a genuine consensus that the blame culture, to which my noble friend Lord Puttnam and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred in very powerful speeches, is a debilitating and negative aspect of matters. The fact that one has a no-blame culture does not mean that one should not look to learn lessons from what has happened. It is worth pointing out that everyone was impressed that the Dome was delivered on time as a capital project. The then chief executive, Jennie Page, said that the reason for that was because there was a no-blame culture down at the Dome in the course of the building of that great capital project. Everyone should be proud that we delivered it on time on 31st December 1999.
We have to learn lessons from it. We do not criticise the Conservative Party for supporting the Dome; trying to work out how many people would come; making arrangements for it to happen; and setting up a Cabinet sub-committee to look at the project. We do not criticise them for that because we, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has identified, reviewed and adopted the project and accepted the figure of 12 million. We made a mistake in so doing. Our difficulty is that the Conservatives now turn around, in what appears on the face of it to be opportunistic politics, and criticise the scheme. That is where the difficulty arises.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, asked what was the cost of cancellation at the time when we decided to go ahead with the project. The figure was about £50 million. We were aware of the figures because we had looked at them. They obviously were a factor in our decision, but they were not the major factor in deciding to go ahead.
There are many lessons to be learnt from the project. First, one has to have better risk management; secondly, one has to have better assessments of how many visitors there may be; thirdly, one needs to make provision for contingencies; fourthly, even though it will not be a private sector project, one has to see whether, in effect, one will be competing as a private sector project. One has to recognise that expertise is

1453
needed not just for the capital project but also for the visitor attraction projects. Those are matters that we have learnt from the project. There is a huge amount that we should learn from the project. I, for one, am willing and keen to learn from it because there are lessons that we should take into the future.
Perhaps I may go through the major points raised by individuals in their speeches. First, I turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I am sorry that the Cardiff opera house was not financed by the Millennium Commission. I do not think that Miss Jennie Page was necessarily to blame for that, as he suggested. I am told that there were flaws in the business plan. The Millennium Commission were keen to help in relation to it, but the flaws could not be put right despite the suggestions made by the Millennium Commission. That is why it did not go ahead.
The noble Lord made the following criticisms. First, he pointed out that I attended a significant number of board meetings. Yes, I did. He failed to point out that the NAO made it clear that I started to attend board meetings in August 1999 when, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly points out, the first financial difficulties began to arise. This body is not like many non-departmental public bodies which have an unlimited life, it is one with a limited life, where what was happening was very important and quick. Therefore, I needed to know what was going on. Therefore, it seemed appropriate to discover what was going on by attending board meetings.
The noble Lord then pointed out that the 12 million visitor figure was obviously and utterly wrong right from the beginning. He made a powerful and impassioned speech to indicate that it must have been obvious to everyone that it was wrong. Regrettably it was not obvious to everyone that it was wrong. There were a large number of experts who told us that it was right. My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington may be right when he said that one should not pay so much attention to experts. There were many people who were not as clever as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and did not spot the error at the time. We made the mistake of believing them. If only the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, had made his views known so clearly at the time, it would have been of great assistance to the nation.
The noble Lord also referred to the letter dated 7th February 2000 which was sent to me by my right honourable friend Mr Chris Smith. That letter rightly pointed out that the corporate governance had to be improved. Indeed, the Millennium Commission had made it a condition of its grant at that time that corporate governance should be improved. On 12th April, after I had had considerable discussions with my right honourable friend and after he had discussed the matter with the chairman of the company, the Millennium Commission was then satisfied that the condition had been satisfied and it released the balance of its grant. I am slightly surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, did not mention that point in his forensic account of what the NAO said.
1454
The noble Lord then referred to the position in July. He rightly referred to the fact that I had received a letter on 14th July 2000 saying that the financial position was deteriorating and yet in the House on 27th July I said that the company was solvent on 17th July, a point also made with vigour by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Every one of those points is absolutely true. The reason I thought the company was solvent was that that is what the board of directors thought the position was—a board of directors that contained such honourable and eminent men as Sir Brian Jenkins, Len Duvall and David Quarmby; honourable men advised by, as the noble Baroness pointed out, City solicitors and assisted by accountants put in by the Millennium Commission. I was wrong about that, but I would have regarded it as irresponsible to have said at that stage that the company was insolvent when all the people involved in the day-to-day management believed it to be solvent. They were wrong; and they were wrong because there were a number of wind-down liabilities that had not been taken into account which were identified by PricewaterhouseCoopers in its report which was sent to the board at the end of August. I was shocked when I discovered that, because no one knew about those liabilities.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I want only to make the point that at Question Time in July I did not ask about the solvency of the company. It was not an issue that I pursued. I questioned the noble and learned Lord about his expressions of confidence that the project would be completed within budget at a time when the company was publishing its annual report setting out very properly the considerable risk as to why that would not be achieved. That was the question I put to him. That was the matter about which I wrote him a letter, to which he replied two months later without giving me an answer.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to whether the project would deliver within budget, the noble Lord will recall that the budget at that time was £758 million. The question of whether it would deliver within budget is one of whether it would deliver spending only those costs; it is not one of dealing with what was the source of those costs. The noble Lord will recall that the report and accounts specifically identified that an application might have to be made to the Millennium Commission in order for it to deliver within budget.
With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and to the noble Lord, the criticisms that have been made are completely unfounded. They are as much an attack on the board as they are on me. They are completely without foundation.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, that is a very serious charge. As, almost without exception, every criticism that I made in my speech was a direct quote either from

1455
the National Audit Office report or from the letter from the right honourable Chris Smith, I find that rather difficult to accept.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is the effect of the criticisms made by the noble Lord. If the noble Lord thought through a little more what he was saying, as the noble Baroness should have thought through a little more what she was saying, that is the inevitable consequence. I believe that on 27th July I answered questions entirely honestly and honourably. I was wrong, as I made clear because of what was disclosed in the report made by PricewaterhouseCooper.
I believe that I have dealt with the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark congratulated us on the boldness of the vision and hoped that it would be taken through into the future as regards regeneration and jobs for the people of Greenwich. I agree with that sentiment. It would be wrong to impose specific conditions, but one of the factors applied in the competition for judging who is to take over the Dome has always been what the regenerative benefits will be.
I have mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. In his speech the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to hubris. I would not accept that word as being right. I believe that there was real enthusiasm on both sides of the House for a project that we believed we could make work and would bring benefit to that part of London. I do not believe that that is hubris but a perfectly reasonable ambition for both sides of the House to hold.
I do not need to respond to the specific points of the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, referred to the infrastructure and the excellent access for older and disabled people. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, heard her remarks that there is very easy access for both elderly people and those who do not find it easy to get around.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, referred to the TUC's support for the Dome. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who is in her place, referred to the fact that it is very difficult to budget accurately as regards putting on entertainments. Our budget has been exceeded—on the basis that every single penny of the existing grant from the Millennium Commission is used—by 4.6 per cent. It is regrettable that it has been exceeded at all, but I believe that noble Lords should put that in perspective.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, described it as public money. It is lottery money, but the point is exactly the same. He was absolutely right to emphasise that, because so much lottery money is required, it is important that there should be proper scrutiny. He is right when he said that people are angry about the lottery money, particularly the extra money which has been spent during the course of this year. He said that proper accounts had not been kept. With respect to the noble Lord, that is a totally inaccurate account of the
1456
NAO report. It is right that it made criticism in relation to certain aspects of the record keeping, but nowhere does it say that proper accounts were not kept. If that were the position, the company's auditors would not have been able to give a certificate to the accounts in July 2000 as it did.
The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, referred to the fact that the estimate of visitor numbers before 1997 had been all over the place and that the Tories wished to wash their hands of the project. He also made a point about Birmingham, but that is a debate I do not want to become involved in at this moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, referred to the fact that the contents were not known. Much has been said about the contents during the course of the debate. The best judges of the contents are the people who have been there. Between 5 million and 6 million people will have visited the Dome by the time the project ends. Independent opinion polls have been carried out and they show that the satisfaction level as regards the contents is very, very high. Noble Lords who go there will find that for the most part it is a very enjoyable experience. Indeed, I very much hope that before the end of the year I shall be able to arrange one more trip for noble Lords of all parties to visit the Dome before it closes on 31st December. No whip round will be required.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, made a very powerful speech which resonated around the House. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, was involved in the London v. Birmingham debate. I do not wish to become involved in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, referred to a number of specific points. He mentioned the letter of 14th July. That letter said that the finances had deteriorated, and that is absolutely right. Indeed, I was very aware of the position at that particular time. Noble Lords will recall that an application was then made to the Millennium Commission and a grant was given to cover the position as regards the deteriorating finances. The noble Lord also referred to marketing. He is right again in saying that there are problems there. They were identified by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, in his speech and by the National Audit Office.
The marketing strategy was obviously wrong. The difficulty was that everyone involved did not have much experience of marketing domes. Even when an experienced visitor attraction manager was brought in, the marketing process was difficult to get right. That is perhaps not surprising. It is a unique, innovative project which has gone through an experience in the press that very few projects go through.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, in congratulating the previous government on the decision that they made to be bold and for going with that decision.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, made a powerful speech, which resonated around the House, about the role and commitment of big business. She asked about IMG. Questions have been answered in the past in regard to IMG and the extent to which it brought in sponsorship. A confidential settlement was

1457
made with IMG and, therefore, I am not in a position to inform the House of the details of the arrangements made. As the noble Baroness is aware, much of the business sponsorship came through the company going directly to business and seeking sponsorship.
The noble Baroness asked what will happen to the exhibits. Some are owned by sponsors—for example, the talk zone is owned by British Telecom and the journey zone is owned by Ford—some are owned by third parties and some are owned by NMEC. I hope that proper homes will he found for them. The faith zone, for example, is a serious contributor to spiritual matters and I hope that a permanent home can be found for it outside the Dome.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, picked up points in the NAO report about contingency planning, which I agree is very important. She seemed to be criticising the actions of the directors during the period between 22nd August and 6th September. That is totally unjustified by the terms of the NAO report. Indeed, the view that has been taken is that the directors were obliged to act in the way that they did between those two dates.
The noble Lord, Lord Varley, gave an impressive political speech, which indicated the strong and powerful position in which we find ourselves. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was one of those who enjoyed the Black Adder films—on which I congratulate him. The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, emphasised the regenerative point.
The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, spoke about the future. The position at the moment is that Legacy plc is the preferred bidder. There is a way to go before contracts are signed. There are a significant number of issues on which the Government have to be satisfied before they enter into the contract. No decision has yet been made as to the split in the proceeds between English Partnerships and NMEC. The advice that the Government received from the competition team was that they could appoint Legacy plc preferred bidder within the rules of the competition, which is the appropriate course to take. Ultimately a decision will have to be taken by the Government as to whether or not a contract should be exchanged. They will do so in accordance with the rules of the competition and the criteria set out therein.
1458
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, was informative and amusing. He described the project as a landmark project. He spoke favourably about the Dome building and his hope that it will stay there for a considerable time. I express my profound gratitude for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Graham.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, made a significant contribution in relation to the press, particularly drawing attention to the fact that the report shows that every time there is a bad press about the Dome, visitor numbers fall between 30 per cent and 50 per cent in the following week. She also emphasised the point about the long-term future of the Dome and the fact that it will lever into the peninsula a large amount of private money. I think all noble Lords will agree that that is worthwhile.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield hoped that there would be joined-up thinking between the new owners of the Dome and those who are presently involved in historic Greenwich. One of the criteria in the competition is the recognition of the Dome as an important architectural site. Again, it would be wrong to impose specific conditions, but I entirely endorse the sentiment expressed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a sensible and constructive speech about the lessons that could be learnt. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made specific criticisms in relation to, as she put it, "secrecy". That is unfair and untrue. I have always answered questions fully and openly in this House. The particulars given by the noble Baroness did not for one moment support such allegations.
The Dome has been a troubled project. Mistakes have been made. The NAO report is a worthwhile report from which many lessons can be learnt. Speaking entirely for myself, the Dome is a project that has had many difficulties, but it has also brought many, many gains which can still be won if we support it as a worthwhile project which has done good rather than bad.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Army Pay
  Army Pay
  Sierra Leone: UK Troops' Rules of Engagement
  Sierra Leone: UK Troops' Rules of Engagement
  The South East: New Housing
  The South East: New Housing
  Special Areas of Conservation
  Special Areas of Conservation
  Disclosure of Information in Criminal Proceedings: Guidelines
  Disclosure of Information in Criminal Proceedings: Guidelines
  Late Payment of Commercial Debt: Implementation of Directive
  Late Payment of Commercial Debt: Implementation of Directive
  Coal Mines and Miners
  Coal Mines and Miners
  Coal Industry: Operating Aid
  Coal Industry: Operating Aid
  Broadband Services in Rural Areas
  Broadband Services in Rural Areas
  Internet Participation by Developing Countries
  Internet Participation by Developing Countries
  Broadband Radio Spectrum Licence Awards
  Broadband Radio Spectrum Licence Awards
  Medeva Polio Vaccine: Foetal Calf Serum History
  Medeva Polio Vaccine: Foetal Calf Serum History
  NHS Estates Agency
  NHS Estates Agency
  Disability Information: Funding
  Disability Information: Funding
  Indonesia: Lasker Jihad Islamic Forces
  Indonesia: Lasker Jihad Islamic Forces
  Israel: Beit Sahour Shelling
  Israel: Beit Sahour Shelling
  European Rapid Reaction Force
  European Rapid Reaction Force
  European Court of Human Rights: Costs
  European Court of Human Rights: Costs
  EU-Israel Association Agreement: Possible Infringement
  EU-Israel Association Agreement: Possible Infringement
  Ethiopia/Eritrea Conflict: Displaced Persons
  Ethiopia/Eritrea Conflict: Displaced Persons
  European Charter of Fundamental Rights
  European Charter of Fundamental Rights
  UN Information and Communications Advisory Group
  UN Information and Communications Advisory Group
  Strategic Communications Unit and the European News Grid
  Strategic Communications Unit and the European News Grid
  Treaty Compliance
  Treaty Compliance
  The Irish Republic and the Commonwealth
  The Irish Republic and the Commonwealth
  Kosovo
  Kosovo
  US National Missile Defence System: UK Facilities
  US National Missile Defence System: UK Facilities
  Diamonds and Conflict
  Diamonds and Conflict
  Conflict Prevention and Resolution
  Conflict Prevention and Resolution
  European Defence Co-operation
  European Defence Co-operation
  South Eastern Europe Stability Pact
  South Eastern Europe Stability Pact
  US National Missile Defence System
  US National Missile Defence System
  Stamp Duty Exemption Areas
  Stamp Duty Exemption Areas
  UK Tourism Industry and the Euro
  UK Tourism Industry and the Euro
  Share Dealing Costs
  Share Dealing Costs
  EC VAT System
  EC VAT System
  European Movement: EC Financial Support
  European Movement: EC Financial Support
  Personal Incomes: Top Rate of Direct Tax
  Personal Incomes: Top Rate of Direct Tax
  British Museum: Trustees
  British Museum: Trustees
  Horseracing: Levy Board Abolition and Sale of Tote
  Horseracing: Levy Board Abolition and Sale of Tote
  Police Information Technology Organisation: Chairman
  Police Information Technology Organisation: Chairman
  Police Authority Costs
  Police Authority Costs