Sitting of 24 October 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
  SPEAKER BOOTHROYD'S RETIREMENT
  Mr. Graham Allen (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): I have to inform the House, on behalf of the Prime Minister, that the Address of 24 October 2000 to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that she will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of Her royal favour upon the right hon. Betty Boothroyd for her eminent services during the important period in which she has, with such distinguished ability and dignity, presided in the Chair of this House, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same, has been presented to Her Majesty, and Her Majesty has been pleased to receive the same very graciously, and has commanded me to acquaint this House that Her Majesty is desirous, in compliance with the request of Her faithful Commons, to confer upon the right hon. Betty Boothroyd some signal mark of Her royal favour.
DEATHS OF MEMBERS
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the deaths of Audrey Wise, Member for Preston, and of the right hon. Donald Dewar, Member for Glasgow, Anniesland. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will join me in mourning the loss of two colleagues and extending our sympathies to the right hon. and hon. Members' families and friends.
WRIT ISSUED DURING THE ADJOURNMENT
MR. SPEAKER acquainted the House that Madam Speaker had issued, during the Adjournment, a warrant for a new writ for the county constituency of South Antrim in the room of Mr. Clifford Forsythe, deceased.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HEALTH

    Private Finance Initiative
    Sandra Gidley: What studies his Department has commissioned, undertaken or reviewed concerning the use of private finance within the NHS. [131847]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): It is a very real pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to be the first Minister able to welcome you to your new official responsibilities. I am sure that you will discharge your responsibilities with your customary fairness and good humour—qualities which, even during Health questions, I hope will not be too sorely tested.
    The greater use of private finance is helping to modernise the national health service, especially through the private finance initiative. The PFI can be given the go-ahead only when it demonstrates better value for money in comparison with the publicly funded alternative and provides improved facilities for the NHS. NHS trusts are required to monitor performance throughout the lifetime of the PFI contract.
    Sandra Gidley: May I also be among the first to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker? I hope that your choice of clothing is an indication of a more modern approach to come. It is strange to be here; this is my first question.
    Will the Secretary of State concede that the recent King's Fund report is the latest in a series of reports to suggest that local health needs, particularly bed capacity in PFI projects, are not being consistently met? Will he go further than reviewing individual projects, as promised by Ministers in another place? Will he undertake to review publicly all PFI hospital projects?
    Mr. Milburn: I welcome the hon. Lady to her first Health Question Time. I am sorry that I will have to disappoint her by saying no, that will not be possible. The truth is that the PFI is providing much needed new hospitals in many parts of the country, sometimes in communities that have long campaigned for them. It is an efficient means of procuring new hospitals. Indeed, owing to the time and cost overruns associated with the old method, which tended to procure through Exchequer capital, the taxpayer ended up footing the bill for six hospitals and receiving only five in return. I do not know about Liberal Democrat economics, but that does not seem to make sense to me.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: I, too, congratulate you, Mr. Speaker.
    Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State give an assurance that the private finance initiative will not threaten UK ambulance services? Will he consider establishing an inspection service for ambulance services, like those for police and fire authorities, so that we can be sure that the funding and performance of UK ambulance services are monitored and that there is an equitable service throughout the UK?
    Mr. Milburn: I assure my hon. Friend that we already monitor the performance of individual ambulance service trusts; it is important that we do so. I can further assure her that, in future, we intend to move away from the PFI approach based purely on the procurement of an individual institution such as a new hospital. As she is aware, when we establish a new hospital in a community, it has implications for primary, community and social services, as well as for ambulance services. The NHS plan

    109
    published in July sets out a new approach to procurement, whereby private finance will be extended into such areas and out of the purely acute sectors of the NHS.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: May I add my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, and, at the risk of embarrassing you, say as a Catholic that it is remarkable that we have our first Catholic Speaker?
    Will the Secretary of State tell his officials to rule out private finance initiatives that involve substantial cuts being made to the number of acute beds in East Kent? I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, even at the height of summer, there were patients on trolleys in offices and corridors in the Kent and Canterbury hospital and its two sister hospitals?
    Mr. Milburn: There are problems in Kent and we keep the situation under review, but, in all candour, I have to say that many of the problems of pressure on parts of the NHS and of backlogs in repair, maintenance and new developments have not arisen suddenly and recently, but are the consequence of decades of under-investment in the NHS.
    Rather than judging the Opposition on their rhetoric on such matters, we should judge them on their record. We know that, in their final year in office, revenue expenditure on the NHS fell in real terms. In addition, when the Conservative Government left office at the end of their last full Parliament, capital expenditure on the NHS was less than it had been at the beginning of that Parliament. The Conservatives have a record as long as your arm, Mr. Speaker—no wonder the Leader of the Opposition drinks to forget.
    I can provide other facts and compare the Conservatives' record with ours. Capital spending has risen from £1.6 billion a year when we entered office to £2.8 billion a year this year; the biggest hospital building programme this country has ever seen is under way; and two new hospitals have already opened, with another to follow this year, seven more next year and nine the year after. There is a straightforward choice before the country: more investment in health with Labour, or less with the Conservatives.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: I, too, congratulate you, Mr. Speaker.
    I welcome the new capital investment of £700,000 in the accident and emergency department of the James Paget hospital in my constituency, and the £2 million capital investment allocated for new renal, eye and skin services at that hospital. None the less, after the neglect of so many years, there is more to be done, so may I ask my right hon. Friend what additional capital investment can hospitals such as the James Paget hospital expect?
    Mr. Milburn: We shall make announcements in due course on further capital and revenue allocations to health authorities. As my hon. Friend is aware, the extra investment we are now making provides the foundation for a real expansion of NHS services. Under the NHS plan, during the course of this decade, we expect to build 100 new hospitals and to modernise every accident and emergency department that needs it. In the next few years, there will be 250 new scanners and more beds, nurses and doctors in the system. We have achieved a lot, but we are
    110
    the first to acknowledge that there is a lot more to do. We have a long way to go if we are to rectify the decades of under-investment over which Conservative Governments presided.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Mr. Speaker, as one whose first name is Martin, I congratulate you on your new office and assure you of my good wishes and those of my colleagues.
    I acknowledge that we in Northern Ireland have in some ways benefited from the private finance initiative, but we want people to be empowered. Will the Department of Health consider the possibility of enabling purchasers of groceries and other products who do not want air miles to receive instead medical miles, which could allow more money to go into the health service, perhaps for their own treatment?
    Mr. Milburn: That is what we want and it is happening, not only in England, but throughout the United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is more money than ever before going into the NHS. Of course, that will not solve every money problem and there will continue to be pressures in the NHS—there will be pressures this winter and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise. However, there is a good reason for that: the problem facing the NHS today is no longer purely one of a shortage of cash; it is a problem of capacity. When we have not enough trained doctors and nurses, it is self-evident that it will take time to put that right. The question is, who is best placed to deal with those capacity problems? Are they best dealt with by a party that is committed to growth in the national health service, or by a party that is committed to cutback and closure in the NHS?

    Cancer Research
    Ms Linda Perham: What funding he is committing over the next three years to research into the cancers specific to men. [131848]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.
    The most common male cancer is prostate cancer, which kills about 8,500 men each year. The Government are concerned to cut deaths from prostate cancer, which is why we are increasing the Department's directly commissioned research into it by an extra £1 million each year over the next three years, to bring it up to £4.2 million.
    Ms Perham: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker. I also welcome the Minister's boost for prostate cancer funds. Will she join me in applauding the achievement of my constituent Colin Osborne, whose Orchid appeal in respect of male cancers has raised £6 million in three years? Will she also recognise the work of the men's health forum, which is also campaigning for increased resources for male cancers? Does she agree, however, that there is much more to be done to increase awareness of male cancers, and of men's health issues in general?
    Yvette Cooper: I certainly congratulate my hon. Friend's constituent on his work in raising awareness of

    111
    male cancers, but I also congratulate her on her own work in raising awareness, and raising funds for future research as well.
    We agree that there is more to be done. Under the last Government, only £98,000 was spent by the Department of Health on research into prostate cancer in 1996–97. That is why it is so important for us to work with other funders, with the charities and with the Medical Research Council to increase investment in prostate cancer research.
    Dr. Liam Fox: May I be—possibly—the last to congratulate you on your post, Mr. Speaker, and, perhaps appropriately, wish you the health to enjoy your time in office?
    I wonder whether the Minister agrees with the Government's cancer tsar, who was quoted in Nursing Times as saying that
    he would never consider having a prostate cancer test himself because treatment was likely to do more harm than the disease itself.
    On the day that the Government announced £1 million for prostate cancer research, they gave an extra £47 million to the dome. What message does the Minister think that sends about the Government's sense of priorities?
    Yvette Cooper: We believe that it is up to individual men to make their own choices about whether to have a prostate-specific antigen test. That is why we are developing an informed-choice programme, to provide men with all the information that they need to make their own decisions about whether to have the test.
    As for cancer research funding, the hon. Gentleman's party's record is appalling. By 2003, spending on cancer research directly commissioned by the Department of Health and the Medical Research Council will be £73 million. In 1995–96, it was just £25 million. We have said that we will increase investment in cancer by £500 million. The hon. Gentleman has said that he will increase the subsidy to private health insurance by £500 million. Which does he think is the priority of the British people?

    Nurses (Kidderminster)
    Mr. Christopher Gill: How many nurses previously employed at Kidderminster district general hospital have accepted alternative employment within the NHS in the last two years. [131849]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I add my congratulations, Mr. Speaker.
    Neither the Department of Health nor the national health service collects firm details of the future employment intentions of staff. However, Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS trust reports that from 1 October 1998 to 30 September 2000 its records indicate that 41 qualified nurses previously employed at Kidderminster general hospital accepted alternative employment in the NHS in Worcestershire.
    Mr. Gill: I must say that I am rather disappointed by that reply. I am sure that the Minister will be as concerned
    112
    as I was to learn that the chairman of Worcester Acute Hospitals NHS trust has said, "We must attract more nurses and retain them."
    When new Labour was in opposition, it lost no opportunity to criticise the Conservative Government in terms of the national health service. Now, however, the Prime Minister says that the Government failed to estimate accurately the scale of the problems of the NHS. That is the reason why there are not enough doctors, nurses and dentists—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech.
    Mr. Gill rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will not get away with making a speech. He had an opportunity to put a question, and that is the end of it. Does the Minister wish to reply?
    Ms Stuart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) will be delighted to learn that Kidderminster hospital has a full complement of nursing staff. In addition, unlike the previous Government, who cut nursing training places consistently—between 1992 and 1994, the number went down to some 13,000—we have not just increased nursing training places but we have brought back some 5,000 nurses. Furthermore, unlike the Tory Front-Bench health team, we regard women, who form a large part of the nurses who return, as being 100 per cent. members of the work force, not as being worth only 80 per cent.

    Single Currency
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What administrative impact the national changeover plan has had on NHS trusts. [131850]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): As set out in the second outline national changeover plan published in March, the NHS has carried out a measure of pre-planning for the possibility of UK entry into the single currency. This was carried out by existing staff from within current running cost budgets. Resources have not been diverted from patient care.
    Dr. Lewis: Is not that an extraordinary answer, when it has been estimated that the cost to the NHS of the national changeover plan will total between £75 million and £95 million? That is four times the cost of the new community hospital that is being built to service New Forest. How does the Minister feel about sacrificing four community hospitals to the Government's obsession with the single European currency?
    Mr. Denham: Those Opposition Members who are so fanatically opposed to anything European that they are even further to the right than those on the Opposition Front Bench are in the habit of quoting wild figures, exaggerations and unfounded claims about this matter, like many others.

    113
    I quote from the press statement put out by Buckinghamshire health authority on 9 October this year. It states:
    The amount of time and money taken up by this exercise so far is a few days in each trust and would equate to a cost of several hundred pounds, rather than the hundreds of thousands of pounds previously quoted in the press.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I wish you all the best, Mr. Speaker, in your new role.
    Despite efforts by the NHS executive to stifle our inquiry into the changeover costs by health authority, we have obtained figures. One of the examples is Buckinghamshire health authority—I am glad that that example has been cited. The changeover plan will cost Buckinghamshire health authority £500,000 and 13,000 staff-days. Does the Minister support that use of public money which could otherwise be used for patient care?
    Mr. Denham: It is outrageous for the Opposition to suggest that such figures have been diverted from patient care, when, as I made clear by quoting from the statement issued by Buckinghamshire health authority, that is not the case. That health authority refers to costs of several hundreds of pounds, not the £433,000 previously quoted in the press. The Opposition should not peddle figures that are simply not true. I am one of those who, unlike the Opposition, believe that at the right time the British people should have the choice as to whether we join the euro, and it is obviously right that a modest amount of sensible planning to anticipate what a change would involve should be undertaken.

    Occupational Therapists
    Helen Jones: What steps are being taken to recruit more occupational therapists for the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [131851]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Qualified occupational therapists increased by 1,000 between September 1997 and September 1999. The NHS plan will see a further 6,500 more therapists and other health professionals by 2004. The Department's recruitment and retention strategy includes introducing more flexible and family-friendly employment conditions, increasing training commissions, attracting former staff back to the NHS, and encouraging flexible retirement.
    Helen Jones: I add my congratulations to those that you have already received, Mr. Speaker.
    The Minister's reply was encouraging, but does he agree that developing new ways of working is vital if we are to recruit and retain more occupational therapists in the NHS, especially as many are women with families? What is he doing to promote that? Will he join me in congratulating Warrington hospital, Warrington Community NHS trust and our local primary care groups, which have recently agreed to review together all their therapy and rehabilitation services, not only to deliver a better service to the patient but to make better use of the skills of the staff? Is not that the way in which we should progress?
    Mr. Hutton: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. She and the House will know that my right hon. Friend the
    114
    Secretary of State recently announced a major new investment to ensure that, in future, the NHS provides effective child-care facilities for NHS staff. That would be a major contribution to ensuring that we attract large numbers of extra therapists into the NHS. My hon. Friend will know from discussions with her health authority and her trust the strong and important role that occupational therapists will play in ensuring that the new £900 million investment in intermediate care services, especially for older people, constitutes effective intervention and effective investment.
    Mr. Nick Harvey: While I welcome the Government's commitment to recruiting more occupational therapists, especially in view of the current 20 per cent. shortfall, what steps will they take to ensure that they do not lose occupational therapists? There is a particular problem with pay, which lags behind even that for other NHS professionals. Will the Government take steps on that, on in-service training, which is underfunded in comparison with other NHS profession, and on career development? Occupational therapists do not have the same opportunities as doctors, nurses and other health professionals to move into management in the health service or in social services.
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful for the qualified support that the hon. Gentleman expressed for what we are trying to do. He is right to say that we need to provide a more attractive career structure for occupational therapists and other NHS professionals. That is why, for example, consultant therapists will work in the NHS in future. That constitutes an extra career grade and is an important development.
    However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that we must be realistic about the matter. We have an ambitious plan to increase the number of therapists in the NHS. I am not sure about the vacancy rate to which he referred; I think that the information is from the College of Occupational Therapists. I am not sure about the data on which it was based. As my right hon. Friend said, recruitment problems relate to the growing capacity of the NHS. Trusts and hospitals around the country are actively trying to recruit more occupational therapists and other members of professions allied to medicine. The problem is associated with the growth of the NHS, but we will get there, and address the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.
    Earlier this year, I attended an open day at Plymouth Derriford hospital for young school students from Plymouth, Devon and Cornwall to see the good work that occupational therapists do. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the occupational therapists on that initiative? What message does he have for young people who are currently considering entering the profession?
    Mr. Hutton: That is a tricky one. I support my hon. Friend's comments and her actions in her constituency to support the expansion in the NHS. I would tell young people in her constituency and everywhere else that the future of the NHS is optimistic and positive as long as Labour is in government. I could not say the same if there was a change of Government, given the Conservative

    115
    party's record and the legacy that we inherited from it. Under us, the NHS has a positive future; under the Conservatives, it does not.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: May I also congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your elevation?
    The Minister should not only consider the recruitment of occupational therapists but that of complementary therapists. Does he know that, under the primary care group system, many areas do not engage homeopaths and herbal therapists, as they used to do? Will he look into that matter?
    Mr. Hutton: I shall look into the matter. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to stand on this side of the House when he asks questions about complementary therapy to see the expressions that they attract from the Conservative Front Bench. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest in the issue and I shall look into the anxieties that he raised.

    Chorley Hospital
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What support and assistance he makes available to Chorley hospital. [1318521
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): The total projected income of Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust for 2000–01 is £62 million. The trust is currently forecasting that at the end of the financial year it will be in a balanced position. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the regional office's recent approval for an additional 30-bed medical ward at Chorley and South Ribble district community hospital, which amounts to a £1.6 million capital investment.
    Mr. Hoyle: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. We welcome the new medical ward at Chorley, which is more success for the hospital. We could have even more success at Chorley hospital if we could end postcode medicine. Is my hon. Friend aware of the silly anomaly concerning the two health authorities of south and north Lancashire? If someone comes from north Lancashire and is to go to Chorley hospital, there may be an eight-week waiting list. If someone comes from south Lancashire, there is a 33-week waiting list. If we were to merge the health authorities, there would be more money for Chorley hospital. We would also end a bureaucratic anomaly within the hospital.
    Ms Stuart: I am aware that in the short term the regional office is promising to support south Lancashire. The long-term solution is a strategic review of the health authority configuration. I know that Members are actively engaged in that. The health authority will have to approve the arrangements. We are proceeding to consultation, and probably towards the end of next year we might be able to reach a conclusion on the best way forward.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: A number of my constituents use Chorley hospital and its neighbour, Royal Preston hospital. I have written to the Minister several times about the case of Mr. Salthouse, who has had three heart attacks. If he is not in hospital, he spends most of his time on a sofa with an oxygen mask. He is receiving
    116
    continuous morphine. His doctor has said that he is at the severe end stage of heart disease. The only procedure that will help him is percutaneous myocardial revascularisation, and the North-West Lancashire health authority says that it will not pay for it. Talk about the postcode lottery. The authority will not pay because it does not recognise the procedure. However, the procedure is carried out at St. Thomas's.
    I am awaiting a response from Lord Hunt. I have been told by his office today that it has lost my correspondence, although it is ready to send a reply. Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State to ascertain what is going on, to read the response before it is sent to me and to send a positive response to Mr. Salthouse, who is eagerly awaiting a form of procedure that will alleviate the condition in which he is living?
    Ms Stuart: I shall certainly examine the individual case which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I say to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that with this Government the way forward is to expand the facilities of the NHS through tax revenue. There should not be an expansion of the private medical health care sector, where treatment would depend on the ability to pay for it.

    Beta Interferon
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: How many patients are currently receiving beta interferon on the NHS. [131854]
    Mr. John Healey: What recent representations he has received on the provision of beta interferon on the NHS for certain multiple sclerosis sufferers. [131862]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): We estimate that between 1,700 and 1,800 people in England are currently receiving beta interferon on the national health service.
    Over the past six months, my Department's records indicate receipt of approximately 2,000 written representations and four petitions from Members, patient groups and the public expressing concern about arrangements for prescribing and funding of beta interferon.
    Mrs. Laing: I thank the Minister for that answer. He is fond of statistics, but that does no good for the many people in my constituency who plead with me to help them get beta interferon, which they need to try to alleviate their suffering. The Minister has not told the House that the NHS is prescribing beta interferon to less than 3 per cent. of multiple sclerosis sufferers. That is the lowest percentage prescribed by any European Union country. What recommendation has the Minister given to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to ensure that MS sufferers are not deprived of drugs that their counterparts in the EU are receiving?
    Mr. Denham rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the Minister, I appeal to hon. Members to be brief. We shall get through more questions if the questions—and possibly the answers—are more crisp.
    Mr. Denham: I apologise for citing statistics, Mr. Speaker, but I was asked how many patients were receiving the drug and that seemed the best way of answering the question.
    The question is a serious one. The answer is that we established the National Institute for Clinical Excellence because, with a number of drugs and procedures, there were problems of postcode prescribing and different patterns of treatment, which, in the case of beta interferon, directly reflected the policy, still in place, established by the previous Government. NICE is considering beta interferon. It has not yet produced its advice. The matter is, I believe, at the appeal stage within NICE. As I and other Ministers have said throughout the procedure, we will not comment publicly on NICE's deliberations until it has completed them.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Healey.
    Mr. Healey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and congratulations.
    Is my hon. Friend aware that seven organisations, including the MS Society, the Association of British Neurologists and the Royal College of Nursing have appealed against NICE's assessment of beta interferon? Is he aware that no Member on either side of the House who has seen the benefits that that drug can bring to some of our constituents with MS has any doubt about its cost-effectiveness? Therefore, I urge him to consider carefully the decision that he and the Secretary of State must take on the final recommendations that NICE will publish shortly.
    Mr. Denham: I acknowledge the considerable efforts that my hon. Friend has made on this topic. I know that he has close links with the MS Society and others. Of course we will consider properly and carefully the recommendations from NICE when we receive them, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, an appeals procedure is under way. Many organisations will have contributed to that appeals process. It is essential for the integrity of NICE that that is allowed to take its course without Ministers' commenting or speculating on what the final outcome might be.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: I know that the Minister is aware of the concern on both sides of the House about the beta interferon issue, but does he agree that any decision by NICE to deny beta interferon to patients for whom it is demonstrably clinically effective would bluntly undermine the guarantee that was given by the Secretary of State, who said:
    no one will be denied the drugs that they need.—[Official Report, 30 June 1998; Vol. 315, c. 143.]?
    Will the Minister give an undertaking to place in the Library after the NICE decision is announced the submission that was made to the NICE appraisal by the Department of Health, so that hon. Members can see what the Department was really recommending to NICE?
    Mr. Denham: On that point—it is important—I have always worked on the assumption that such submissions would be placed in the public domain, so I am happy to give a positive response. For reassurance, however,
    118
    may I say that such responses as have been made to provisional determinations have invariably been of a technical nature, or have suggested that the wording may need to be clarified in the interests of wider understanding. However, the hon. Gentleman has made a fair point and I will respond positively to it in that way.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Miss Anne Begg.
    Miss Anne Begg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I add my congratulations.
    Although I, too, hope that NICE will soon report on beta interferon, and that anyone with MS who beta interferon will help will get the drug on the national health service, I believe that beta interferon is not necessarily suitable for all MS sufferers. I wonder whether the Minister shares my concern that a number of MS sufferers are pinning their hopes on getting beta interferon when in their case it may not be the most suitable drug. I am wondering what the Government are doing to ensure that there is an educative process to inform MS sufferers that other regimes may be more suitable, so that they are not always waiting around for a wonder drug which, for them, may not be a wonder drug.
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Even the most enthusiastic proponents of beta interferon have not suggested that it works in all cases and circumstances. Beta interferon has never been suggested as a cure for that very distressing condition, so there is a wider set of issues surrounding the appropriate care and support for MS sufferers. Discussions have been taking place between the Department, the MS Society and NICE on the possible preparation of clinical guidelines on wider MS treatment and support.

    Clinical Priorities
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement about the Government's policy on clinical priorities in relation to the reduction of NHS waiting lists. [131855]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The very clear guidance that we have issued states that
    clinical priority must be the main determinant of when patients are seen as out-patients or admitted as in-patients.
    As waiting lists fall, so waiting times, too, will fall. The NHS plan sets out how waiting times will be cut, from a maximum 18 months for in-patient treatment today, to six months by 2005, and from six months for out-patient treatment today, to three months by 2005. Our eventual aim is that there should be waits of weeks rather than months.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that information. Will he confirm that, in 80 per cent. of health authority areas, the number of patients waiting more than 12 months for operations has increased since his party took office, and that for the first time in 25 years, the number of heart bypass operations has decreased? Does not that underline the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has managed to get his in-patient

    119
    waiting lists down only by postponing complex surgical procedures and pushing through the simpler operations as well as keeping people off the waiting lists for longer?
    Mr. Milburn: No, that is not true. The hon. Gentleman has heard me say before that the allegation from Tory Back-Bench Members that the number of coronary artery bypass grafts and of heart operations in general has fallen is not true. The number of operations is rising. Of course, we need to do more. That is why I have already made the extra earmarked cash available to ensure that we can carry out an extra 3,000 more heart operations this year and next year. I expect to be able to exceed that, largely because of the hard work done by NHS trusts, hospitals, cardiothoracic surgeons, theatre nurses and others up and down the country who have used the money to good effect.
    Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of one thing before he starts raising some legitimate concerns that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) raised earlier about access to heart surgery. It is important to remember that, under the Government whom he supported and of whom he was a member, there was no earmarked cash available for heart operations. It was only when this Government took office that we earmarked cash for cancer and heart disease, which are what many hon. Members, and people throughout the country, would regard as the top clinical priorities.
    Mr. Clive Efford: My right hon. Friend will be aware that increased demand can put pressure on waiting lists during the winter, particularly as a result of people suffering from flu. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of his advertising campaign in increasing the number of people taking advantage of the flu vaccine. [Interruption.] There is some evidence in my area that demand is outstripping supply.
    What is the Department doing to increase awareness of the disease in terms of what precautions can be taken in the household and the workplace to minimise the number of people who contract the disease? There is a myth about how the disease is contracted which the Department could do something to dispel.
    Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend is aware, there is a TV advertising campaign and other types of advertisement precisely to inform the public about what they can do. It is most important to ensure that those at the highest risk of serious illness if they contract the flu take advantage of the facilities that the Government have made available to them, which is to get a free flu jab. [Interruption.] I hear Tory Members alleging that the flu vaccine is not available. That is not true. This year we have ordered 11 million doses of flu vaccine, compared with under 8 million last year. We have also extended the range of people who are able to get access to the free flu jab. It is important that, in every part of the country, the free flu jab is offered to pensioners and others, and that people who want to take advantage of it do so as soon as possible by visiting their GP's surgery for their free jab on the national health service.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: On the issue of clinical priorities, is the Secretary of State aware that Addenbrooke's hospital has now had to cancel the prostate operation on one of my elderly constituents for
    120
    the fourth time? That is not because of a shortage of surgeons or nurses but because two and a half wards are blocked with elderly patients who cannot be discharged home and because there is a shortage of some 300 private sector nursing home beds in the Cambridgeshire area. Will the right hon. Gentleman liaise with the Secretary of State for social services to get the Government to help solve that problem?
    Mr. Milburn: I am the Secretary of State for social services, so I shall do my best, depending on what sort of day I am having, of course—so far, so good. The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises an extremely important point, which is that, as we now know, what happens in a hospital is directly affected by and directly affects what happens in social services, primary care, community care and, as we heard earlier, ambulance services. That is why we have to encourage much greater co-operation in the local health service. That is also the precise reason why the Government got rid of the internal market, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman supported.

    GPs (East Lancashire)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: If he will give additional incentives to GPs to locate in East Lancashire. [131856]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): East Lancashire health authority is aware of the problem with GP recruitment in its area and is developing a recruitment package that covers all four contractor professions. As part of that process, the health authority is proposing three new applications for personal medical service schemes; exploring the opportunities offered by salaried GPs and nurse practitioners; and reviewing its primary care investment plan to determine what other incentives can be made available through additional investments in GP premises.
    Mr. Prentice: That is a good answer, but is the Minister aware that 5.5 per cent. of all the GPs in my area are due to retire in the next five years? That is the highest such percentage of any area in England outside Greater London. Perhaps the way to get younger GPs into areas where there is an acute shortage of qualified GPs is to pay them more. Will the Government apply themselves to that point?
    Mr. Hutton: I am very glad that I have said something with which my hon. Friend is happy. As I am sure he is aware, however, we are paying general practitioners more. I am also absolutely sure that, if my hon. Friend wants to develop his concerns about the issue and express them to the health authority, it would be very willing to discuss them with him, as would I. My hon. Friend's area has a particular historical problem with which we have to deal. I am aware of the concerns that he and others have expressed about it, and we look forward to working with him to find a sensible way forward.

    Nurses
    Mr. Peter Bradley: What action he is taking to increase the number of nurses working in the NHS. [131857]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): The NHS plan sets out proposals to increase the number of nurses, midwives and health visitors in the NHS by 20,000 in the next four years. That is why we are expanding training commissions; improving pay; supporting international recruitment; encouraging family-friendly working practices; and encouraging more staff to return to the NHS.
    Mr. Bradley: I welcome that response, which will be welcomed also in The Wrekin and in constituencies across the country. However, can the Minister explain what action she and her colleagues are taking to recruit—and, crucially, to retain—other professional and technical staff? Would not such action help, and is it not time that such staff were included in the pay review body arrangements?
    Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend will be aware that discussions on the future of the pay system are under way. We believe that, across the board, the pay system needs to be modernised to provide fair and affordable settlement across the NHS and to support expansion of the NHS. There were already 10,000 more nurses in place in September 1999 than there were in September 1997, and there have been other increases in the work force, too.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I should be pleased if the Minister could tell us what conversations on recruitment and retention she has had with the Royal College of Nursing since July, and what tangible progress has been made. Although some of us were interested to hear the Secretary of State say—rightly—that under-capacity is holding back development of the NHS, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons recently said that it would take 10 years before those problems were properly and adequately dealt with. Will it take 10 years before we get the recruitment and retention of nurses right?
    Yvette Cooper: Christine Hancock of the Royal College of Nursing is on the NHS modernisation board, and continuing conversations are being held on recruitment and retention. There has also been much progress on nurses, such as the fact that, in the first two years of this Parliament, we have put in place 10,000 additional nurses. Considerable progress still needs to be made, but it will take time. One of the reasons why it will take time is that the previous Government cut the number of nurse training places: that is what has made it so difficult to get in place the additional nurses that we need.
    Judy Mallaber: May I, too, offer my congratulations on your election, Mr. Speaker?
    Will my hon. Friend put further pressure on health authorities and trusts actively to examine their working patterns and shift rotas so that nurses who want to return to work are if possible offered the flexibility that they need to combine their work and family responsibilities?
    Yvette Cooper: I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that we are very keen to increase family-friendly working practices across the NHS. That is why we have a £30 million child care initiative to support staff across the NHS. The Government strongly value the important contribution that people, especially women, can make
    122
    when combining careers in the NHS with family responsibilities—unlike the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who recently said:
    It is a fact that you will get less work out of females
    than out of males.
    Dr. Liam Fox: When Christine Hancock, the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, said that
    We now have the evidence that the key nursing posts are being downgraded to save money,
    was she telling the truth?
    Yvette Cooper: Given that the previous Government cut the number of acute beds in the NHS by 43,000 between 1979 and 1997, it would hardly be surprising if the number of specialist nurses had fallen during that period. We are committed to increasing the number of nurses in the NHS, not just by 20,000 across the board, but by expanding the number of senior nurses, including nurse consultants. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that an extra 141 nurse consultants will be appointed.
    Dr. Fox: I take that rather second-rate evasion to mean that, yes, Christine Hancock was telling the truth. I wonder when Ministers will start to take responsibility for the health service, more than four years into their term of office. [How. MEMBERS: "Four?."] They are well into their fourth year, and were they to be in office for 40 years, they would still be harking back to the Conservative Government. Is it not true that the 15,000 nursing vacancies and the 12,000 nurses who leave each year are a testament to the Government's failure in office? Is not that compounded by the lack of morale generated by the Government's endless political interference; the lack of authority for ward sisters; the lack of vaccine for patients; the return of TB to our cities; and a winter crisis that now goes on all year—all of it under a Prime Minister who says that Labour never understood the size of the problem? How can nurses, or anyone else, have any faith in a health policy that is such a complete shambles?
    Yvette Cooper: Given that the hon. Gentleman is clearly so sensitive about looking back at the previous Government's record—for example, the cut in nurse training places from 15,000 to 11,000 in two years and the failure to restore the figure to the previous levels under the previous Government—perhaps we should look to the future. The Government are already increasing the number of nurses in the NHS. We have a commitment to expand the NHS and to invest additional money, year on year, in increasing the NHS—[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot have the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) shouting across at the Minister. He asked a question; the hon. Lady is answering it.[Interruption.] She may not be answering it to his satisfaction, but she is answering it.
    Yvette Cooper: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    The hon. Gentleman has said that he wants to spend more than £500 million on subsidising private health insurance and more than £300 million cutting the tobacco tax against which his party voted. We have set out where

    123
    we would find the extra investment needed to expand the NHS. I should like to know where the hon. Gentleman would find the resources to make that cut.

    NHS National Plan
    Ms Joan Ryan: If he will make a statement regarding the representations he has received on his national plan for the NHS relating to hospitals. [131858]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The, NHS plan was formulated with the help of doctors, nurses and managers from hospitals and other parts of the service. It is now being implemented with their help. I have received many representations about the expansion in hospital services set out in the NHS plan. There will be more new hospitals, providing more care to more patients.
    Ms Ryan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. However, I want to raise the question of diagnostic and treatment centres for out-patients. Most people who have contact with hospitals are admitted through out-patient departments, and the throughflow of patients causes those departments a lot of wear and tear. The diagnostic and treatment centres represent an important way to keep waiting lists down, but many out-patient departments would benefit from refurbishment.
    The Government have rightly concentrated on accident and emergency services, but will my right hon. Friend say how he intends to ensure that out-patient departments reach the standards that out-patients deserve?
    Mr. Milburn: That is a very important question. Public and media attention focuses, understandably and inevitably, on in-patient services. There is a very good reason for that, but my hon. Friend is right to say that most people who go to hospital are seen in an out-patient department or in an accident and emergency department.
    We have made a start on the problem, in part by investing new resources in out-patient departments. Those new resources were announced some months ago by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), but we must also change the way in which out-patient services work. We are not talking about rocket science: many leading out-patient departments in the country have been able to reduce waiting times by making better and more flexible use of staff—for example, by ensuring that nurses carry out more roles, and by using physiotherapists rather than orthopaedic consultants to conduct orthopaedic out-patient appointments.
    Much can be done in that regard, but the NHS plan contains proposals to reform and expand the national health service, and we must ensure that the good practice of some becomes the best practice of all. We have made a start on that and, although there is a long way to go, I am confident that the commitment of NHS staff to change the way they work and the services they deliver will cause waiting times to fall in every hospital and out-patient department, not just in some.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: The Secretary of State belongs to a Government who talk a great deal about devolution, but is he aware of the
    124
    growing dissatisfaction among many members of health trust boards, who feel that the amount of discretion that they have is daily being whittled away by increased centralisation when it comes to setting targets, rules and so on? Is the Secretary State not worried about that?
    Mr. Milburn: I would be worried if that was what was happening. However, although I have a great deal of time and respect for the hon. Gentleman, it is clear that he has not read the NHS plan. I shall send him a copy, so that he can ask me a more relevant question next time we have Health questions. The plan sets out the Government's proposals to devolve greater authority and autonomy not only to managers and trust boards in hospitals and elsewhere but, most important of all, to the front-line clinicians—the doctors, nurses and physiotherapists—who, day in and day out, do such brilliant work treating patients.
    Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: I, too, welcome you to your post, Mr. Speaker.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the role of the patient—the user of the national health service—lies at the heart of the NHS plan? Patients pay their taxes for the service, and are the best judge of its performance. Will he reassure those who have been active in developing the community health council movement that the plan's proposals will strengthen and give teeth to the concept that patients and users should be right at the heart of the NHS?
    Mr. Milburn: That is very much the case. I understand the concerns expressed by hon. Members of all parties about the plan's proposal to abolish community health councils, but many people—in this House and outside it—have long argued that there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the NHS. They have said that we should strengthen rather than weaken the ways in which we monitor what the local health service, which services local communities, is up to.
    I support the argument that monitoring and scrutiny arrangements should be put in place. I believe that it is therefore right and proper that we should lodge that power, authority and influence with those who have been directly elected by the local communities. In the end, it must be acknowledged that members of community health councils are not so elected, but that members of local councils are.

    Mental Health Services
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the resources allocated by the NHS to mental health. [131861]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): In 1999–2000, nearly £3.5 billion was spent on mental ealth services in the NHS. The NHS plan set out further proposals for investment in mental health services, including new teams for crisis support and primary care, and for young people.
    Dr. Cable: Is the Minister aware of the report that was published over the recess by the Zito Trust, which

    125
    documented the enormous obstacles facing the severely mentally ill in getting access to the new generation of anti-psychotic drugs which limit the side effects of their treatment? Can he explain why only 12 per cent. of the country's 250,000 schizophrenics have access to these drugs? Is the reason clinical or financial?
    Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman, who takes a great interest in these matters, and rightly so, will be aware that
    126
    when we published the national health service framework for mental health, we made it clear that our first priority was to improve services for people with severe and enduring mental illness. That is exactly the right clinical, ethical and moral priority for us to have reached. The use of the atypical anti-psychotics has, as the hon. Gentleman will know, been referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and we are awaiting its guidance on the wider use of those drugs.

Hunter-killer Submarines
3.30 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the Government's decision to withdraw the Royal Navy's nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines from active service.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): First, Mr. Speaker, may I say that it is a real pleasure to address you as such for the first time?
I am replying on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence, who regrets that he is unable to be in the House today.
The Government's decision to withdraw the Royal Navy's nuclear-powered Trafalgar and Swiftsure class hunter-killer submarines from operational service was taken when it became apparent that a flaw in the pipework forming part of the reactor cooling system of HMS Tireless may be generic. As responsible nuclear operators, we decided to carry out a full inspection of all submarines of the strategic submarine nuclear—SSN—flotilla to determine whether this was in fact the case. Some of these submarines were already alongside in refit or undergoing maintenance or repair, and two deployed submarines were recalled.
Initial indications are that the defect may have arisen from the original construction of the submarine and that it is present in other submarines, albeit at an early stage. Let me stress that Vanguard class Trident submarines, which are of a different design, have not been affected.
Until the inspection programme is completed, it is not possible to finalise the repair programme or to quantify the operational implications. The repair is not complex in engineering terms, but, because of the exacting tolerances required for nuclear engineering, it may take some months for submarines to be repaired where this is necessary. The inspection regime and subsequent repair programme will clearly have an impact on our operational programme, although every effort will be made to mitigate this by using other assets and by building on the already close links that exist between the United Kingdom and United States submarine services. Appropriate measures will be taken to protect the deterrent.
I wish to make it clear that at no time has there been any risk to the crew or general public. Safety must take precedence over operational requirements in peacetime, and no submarine will go to sea unless it is safe to do so. Every effort is being made to bring the submarines back into operational service as soon as possible.
Mr. Duncan Smith: It is quite remarkable that a matter of hours after your welcome elevation to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, the Government, for all the crocodile tears shed about bypassing Parliament, chose, on this prime issue of the defence of the realm, not to come anywhere near the House to make a statement about it. After all, this announcement represents the loss of a quarter of our front-line fleet in one fell move. The Government chose simply to try and slide the news away on a quiet Saturday, without any comment.
Some answers to questions need further clarification. The Minister said that he could not give any exact times or be specific. Is the problem that our dockyard facilities
128
are insufficient at the two places about which we have heard? If that were the case, would it be possible to use facilities in other NATO nations, and have the Government made such a request? The Minister will recognise that it is a priority to get those submarines back into service immediately.
The hon. Gentleman talked about using other assets, but what specific arrangements are there to cover this gap in capability? For example, he talked about securing the patrol of Trident, our new deterrent, but as it is clearly not possible to use surface ships to glide around indicating where Trident is, how does he intend to do that? Is there a chance that we may be able to fill some of that capability by bringing some of the Upholder class back into service by arrangement with the Canadians, to whom they are about to be leased? Would that assist, and has any arrangement been made for it?
The third question relates to the Swiftsure class, which the Minister discussed. We have two classes of hunter-killer submarines: Trafalgar and Swiftsure. Swiftsure has been in service since the 1970s, and for much longer than Trafalgar. Are the Government saying that they have discovered a problem on Swiftsure, or that Swiftsure vessels have proved pretty reliable during their time in service and that they will be the first boats to be put back into service as there is literally nothing wrong with them? Is the Minister going to withhold all boats from service simply because there may be a possible defect that has not materialised in any other vessel? Finally, what will happen to the crews during this period? Will skeleton crews be left on the boats, and will they lose some of their skills? How will the Minister cover the gap in capability for individual crew members?
Such questions ought to have been raised in the House earlier and answered immediately. The Government should not avoid their responsibilities in this way and it is essentially a damning position for them to be brought to the Dispatch Box by the Opposition on this matter.
Mr. Spellar: I thought that I had had my fill of pompous speeches yesterday, but the speech of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) follows that great tradition. In reply to his fairly inadequate response, there is a defence debate on Thursday and Defence questions on Monday, and on both occasions he could easily raise such matters without any difficulty.
I shall, however, deal with the hon. Gentleman's questions now, starting with those relating to the Upholder class of submarines, which the Conservative Government scrapped in 1993. When the Labour party came to power, that decision had already been taken and the programme was well advanced. [Interruption.] As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we followed on from the previous Government's failure to dispose of the Upholder submarines which, however, we managed to sell to our ally Canada. One submarine has already gone to the Canadians and of course I have made inquiries about the availability of the others. The first one will not be available until next March, so that does not seem to be a suitable alternative.
The hon. Gentleman discussed the shortage of facilities. The critical difficulty relates not to facilities, but to the time scale of the repair. The repair itself is fairly basic and, in engineering terms, uncomplicated. However, the

129
time for repair is increased by the need to run down the reactor, let its nuclear material cool off, and drain the coolant. The repair is undertaken, tested ultrasonically and by other means, and then the coolant is refilled, which is a time-consuming operation, given the need to prevent airlocks and so on in the system—as anyone who has dealt with radiators at home will understand, although this operation is undertaken at a much higher level of tolerance. The reactor is then started up. Frankly, repair facilities are not the bottleneck, and we are looking at making sure that we have enough teams available to undertake this work. Indeed, the Navy is working on that at the moment.
On other assets, as the hon. Gentleman rightly identified, we have surface vessels with towed arrays. We also have Nimrod aircraft, and shall examine using them more intensively, but that is satisfactory only in the short to medium term. We are already having discussions on other possible facilities with our ally the United States.
On the question of examining for the defect on the Swiftsure class, it is simply a case of looking at the cooling system and ascertaining whether individual vessels have the generic defect. If they have, we shall, of course, include them in the programme of repair and maintenance.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raised another question about crews, the answer to which will partly depend on the nature of the repairs and where the vessels are tied up. As I understand the situation, if the vessels are in a tidal berth, they require more crew on board for watch and engineering functions, and engineers will also be required. If the vessels are in a non-tidal berth, fewer crew will be required.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raised a question about maintaining skills through training. Surprisingly enough, the Navy is already looking at that, as I am sure he would have expected it to. Some sailors may not be required for those watch and engineering functions—if so, the Navy intends to allow them more shore leave to spend time with their families, because there will inevitably be some disruption.
Let me answer the question that the hon. Gentleman did not pose, either, in effect, in his letter or in his questions today, about the length of time involved. Until we have a full report from Navy engineers, we shall not be able to identify the length of time required. Had the hon. Gentleman waited a few days, I might have been in a better position to give him an answer.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. Does he appreciate that the people who live in communities adjacent to the relevant facilities—such as the Royal Naval Devonport dockyard in Plymouth, which will carry out the work—need to have confidence in their safety and that of their families? Will he join me in expressing confidence in the highly skilled work force and their ability to carry out the work swiftly and effectively? Will he also give me an assurance that his door, and those of his ministerial colleagues, will be open to Members and our constituents, because the spotlight will no doubt remain on this issue?
Mr. Spellar: With regard to Tireless and any of the other submarines, I reassure my hon. Friend that the safety
130
of the crews or the general public has at no time been at risk in any way. We operate under an extremely tight and strict safety regime, and independent bodies overlook our work. We want to assure Members of Parliament and local representatives and communities of our on-going commitment to safety in this programme. I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the skilled work force who will undertake the work.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: From one Glasgow boy to another, Mr. Speaker, I add my warm congratulations on your elevation. On this occasion, Kelvinbridge salutes Springburn.
Does not the Minister's answer punch a substantial hole in Britain's defence capability for the foreseeable future? That capability was substantially weakened by the decision to sell the Upholder class of submarines. That decision was taken purely for financial reasons by the previous Government. This would have been embarrassing at the time of the cold war. Would it not also have been embarrassing during the Kosovo campaign, when one of those submarines was responsible for using the Tomahawk cruise missile system? Is not that an argument for fitting Tomahawk cruise missiles to the new type 45 destroyers?
Finally, does not this occasion provide an opportunity to put some flesh on the bones of a European security and defence policy? Should not the Government seek co-operation with our European allies and, in particular, co-ordinate patrols with the French with regard to the nuclear deterrent that France deploys alongside the United Kingdom?
Mr. Spellar: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for dividing the Opposition on this matter. I assure him that we have long-standing and close relations with the United States Navy in such matters and that we are already undertaking discussions with it. That welcome move should provide a degree of confidence and reassurance.
On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point about Upholder submarines, he knows that that decision was taken in 1993. Several Conservative Defence Ministers have since been through the MOD but none of them saw fit to change that decision. There is an argument that having a wider variety of vessels and types of class is an advantage. Of course, huge costs are associated with that—not only in terms of training and operational experience but in terms of support systems and maintenance facilities. That is always a required balance.
The decision to scrap the Upholder class was taken by the previous Administration. That decision has gone by and, therefore, we have to work as effectively as we can with the constraints and the vessels that we have.
Mr. John McFall: I add my happy congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker on this, your first day.
The Minister said that the decision would have no effect on the Trident programme. However, he also said that it would affect the operational programme. What effect will it have on the Clyde submarine base at Faslane? As my hon. Friend knows from a recent meeting with me, we have a very committed work force there. Will

131
he ca'canny on the proposals for possible privatisation so that we ensure the maintenance of that base and that good work force long into the future?
Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend knows that discussions are taking place with the private sector on ship support and that those discussions also involve public sector yards. Indeed, even the work that will be undertaken on the submarines will involve both private contractors and the existing work force. He is right to identify the enormous reservoir of skills at Faslane. Obviously, its work force will be playing a significant role—along with those at Devonport, mentioned in a previous intervention—in getting the submarines operational again as soon as possible.
Mr. David Curry: Given the immense cost of the infrastructure that is needed to maintain a nuclear fleet because of the safety implications, does the Minister think that it is time to reconsider the option of a new generation of diesel boats rather than the proposed Astute class? Will he re-examine the option for diesel-powered submarines, which are cheaper and quieter than nuclear submarines? They have been given increased capability through air-independent propulsion, are ideally suited for coastal warfare, are easier to repair and potentially have a much better export market. Is it not time to go back to basics? Surely we should not go back to Upholder, but consider the future generation of nuclear boats.
Mr. Spellar: That is an interesting proposition and one that I do not recall spokesmen on either Front Bench raising during consideration of our submarine capability under the strategic defence review. Essentially, we and a few other countries have a blue-water international capability. We would not be able to achieve that with diesel submarines, which would also not be appropriate to maintain the nuclear deterrent—unless the right hon. Gentleman is proposing that we should review that policy too.
Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend may know that I have sailed on one of these boats—with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), the Opposition Whip—and I was particularly impressed by the high level of consideration for safety. In trying to help public understanding of the issue, will my hon. Friend stress that this was a coolant leak, not a radiation leak, and that the processes he described in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) are the normal processes engaged in when cooling down a reactor prior to such work?
Mr. Spellar: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the professionalism of our submarine fleet. I also echo his call to put the problem into perspective. Yes, it was a leak, but it was an extremely minor leak of coolant that was probably less radioactive than the surrounding Mediterranean. However, we have to be mindful of the need to maintain very high safety standards. That is why we inspected Tireless and that is why, when it appeared that there was a possibility of a generic fault, we undertook further investigations. It is also why we are looking at the whole fleet. I am sure that the House and
132
the country would expect us to do no less than to follow those standards. Equally, we want to ensure that the fleet is back in operational service as soon as possible.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.
Are there not some internal inconsistencies in what the Minister is telling the House? Is he saying that all 12 of the submarines are unsafe and unseaworthy? If so, why did it take from May until October to take them out of service? If so, how can he tell the House that there was no question of crew safety being an issue? Why do Ministers appear to have taken what would seem to have been an operational decision?
Mr. Spellar: That question sounds like one that was prepared earlier; I thought that I had actually dealt with a number of those points during my contribution, but I will reiterate them.
Once we started to inspect the fault and examine it more closely, what we originally thought was a fairly small crack turned out to be larger and, quite frankly, the external investigation techniques would not have enabled us to ascertain that. Our experts then assessed that it was possibly a design/manufacture fault and could therefore have been generic across the fleet. That is why we undertook the further investigation.
As I said before, we are looking at the faults, but they are at an earlier stage in some of the other vessels. At the same time, however—as I pointed out in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller)—we are talking about a very minor leak on the vessel. That does not mean that we did not take it seriously, but it also does not mean that there was any risk either to the crew or indeed to the general public. However, we did take the necessary prudent steps and will continue to take them. There is no inconsistency in those statements.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: May I add my warm congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker? I cannot begin to tell you how pleased and proud I am for you and your family that you were elected yesterday.
I welcome the information that the Minister gave the House that we are due to have a defence debate—rightly so. I see that the Leader of the House is in her place. Will the Minister have a word with my right hon. Friend about holding defence debates a wee bit earlier in the week, in prime time, when more Members are able to be in the Chamber to debate such important issues? All too often, such debates are held at the fag-end of the week and not in prime time.
Will the Minister give us a status position for the Tireless submarine in Gibraltar? That is where we heard that the fault was first detected. Could we be told about the status of the repair to the Tireless?
What is the status of repairs to the diplomatic relationships with the Gibraltar Government? Some diplomatic mistakes were certainly made by either the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office or by both.
Mr. Spellar: I certainly hope that my hon. Friend is not implying that Thursday is not a normal parliamentary day. That might give rise to unfavourable comment elsewhere.

133
We have been working with the Government of Gibraltar. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Chief Minister, having taken advice from an independent group of nuclear experts, indicated that the Government would not oppose the repair of Tireless. Of course, we have kept them informed of subsequent developments, and will continue to do so.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I accept that the Government experienced difficulties that were not of their own making in their dealings with Gibraltar over HMS Tireless but, given that there was known to be a problem with the vessel that prevented it from being inspected properly for five months, what steps did the Government take to look at other submarines of the same class, which we could have inspected during that long time to see whether there was a generic fault? What steps were taken?
Mr. Spellar: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the situation. Initially, it was thought that there was a fault within Tireless. It was only on subsequent examination—not external examination but after having opened up the system—that it appeared that it was a different fault from that originally perceived, and that, therefore, because of its nature, there was the possibility that it was a design/manufacture fault, which was more likely to be a fault across the fleet, rather than an accident. As a result of that information, it was appropriate to conduct inspections, starting with stripped vessels that were already in refit or repair, to see whether they also suffered from that fault. I believe that that is a fairly straightforward, and fairly common, engineering procedure.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: If it is not an engineering problem, might it not be—heaven help us—a metallurgical, metal fatigue problem? If so, what is the
134
likely time scale of the repair, what is the unit cost, and are we sure that it is worth doing at all if it has to do with metal fatigue?
Mr. Spellar: I am tempted to reply to my hon. Friend in the way that I had to reply to his fellow countryman, Mr. James Naughtie, on Saturday and to say that, not being an engineer, I really need to wait on the engineers' report to have a better idea of the nature and cause of the fault and, of course, the suggested recovery programme.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: May I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, not only on the scale of your victory yesterday, but on your positive endorsement by a clear majority of the House? I express my gratitude for this early opportunity to catch your eye.
The Minister will now be aware of the importance of this weapons system, given the problems with it. Can he say anything about the capacity for emergency deployment while the repairs are taking place? Can he say anything about the policy, announced in the strategic defence review, to reduce the fleet from 12 to 10 boats in the next few years, and whether that will be put on hold for this period or reviewed altogether?
Mr. Spellar: Mr. Speaker may be a good Catholic, but I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's confession will necessarily redeem him so readily.
On the strategic defence review, the decision was taken to have a balanced fleet, leading to a considerable increase in certain parts of the Navy—not least the introduction of much larger carriers and the introduction of the type 45. I do not believe that the faults that we are experiencing with the current hunter-killer submarines invalidate that underlying philosophy of the SDR, which provides constraints in some areas of our operation because we are expanding in others. It was a case of striking that balance. I do not believe that this issue really addresses that.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Which countries is the deterrent now deterring?
Mr. Spellar: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be fully aware from previous answers that we do not comment on the operation of the deterrent.

Business of the House
3.58 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): May I join others in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and seek the permission of the House to make a short business statement?
At the conclusion of the Opposition day tomorrow there will be a motion on the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000.
Mrs. Angela Browning: May I, too, publicly welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker?
I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement, with which we concur. We shall be happy to debate the Regulations at 10 pm tomorrow.
On the subject of debate, I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, are aware that, during the summer recess, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had cause to call for the return of Parliament, owing to the national crisis caused by the fuel protests. You will know that tomorrow's Order Paper states that we intend, in Opposition time, to debate that subject, but may I, through you, ask the right hon. Lady if she would use her good offices to persuade the Deputy Prime Minister to attend the House for that debate? We understand that he is devolving that responsibility to a Minister of State and, given the importance of the subject, we feel that a member of the Cabinet should reply to the debate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady will know that that is a separate matter from the business which has been announced.
Mrs. Beckett: You are entirely right, Mr. Speaker; it is a different matter. The hon. Lady will know that the Deputy Prime Minister has heard her words and she will also know that, in common with all Ministers, he has to balance the many demands on his time.

Hatfield Derailment
4 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to welcome you as our new Speaker and I should like to add my congratulations to those of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the train derailment at Hatfield and the developments since. My noble Friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston made a statement on this matter in another place on Thursday 19 October.
Last Tuesday, a Great North Eastern Railway train from King's Cross to Leeds was derailed near Hatfield. Four passengers died and 34 were injured. I am sure that all Members of the House will wish to join me in expressing their deepest sympathy to the families and friends of those who lost their lives. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that all but one of those who were injured have now left hospital, and the whole House will join me in wishing them a speedy recovery.
As ever, our emergency services excelled themselves in the speed and efficiency with which they responded. I know that both my noble Friend Lord Macdonald and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), who is responsible for the railways, witnessed this at first hand when they visited the scene in the aftermath of the accident.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson)—the constituency where the accident occurred—is sitting beside me, and she also visited the scene. I know that she and, indeed, the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the tremendous efforts of the emergency services, the staff of the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City and of the Lister hospital in Stevenage, not to mention the voluntary organisations who are always there to help and to give comfort. Let me make clear my admiration for the many local people who, in the wake of the accident, instinctively came to help in any way that they could. They are among the unsung heroes whom the House will wish to recognise today.
In my view, it is unwise to jump to conclusions on the causes of the crash before the Health and Safety Executive's inspectors have considered all the evidence. Last Friday, the Health and Safety Executive issued its preliminary findings on the accident. Copies of its report are available in the Vote Office. It found obvious and significant evidence of a rail failure and no evidence so far of a prior failure of rolling stock. Early indications supported the suggestion that a broken rail was the likely cause. The safety inspectors, who are working closely with British Transport police, expect to have cleared the crash site before the end of the week. They will make public any further significant findings.
Further to its preliminary report, the Health and Safety Executive is undertaking a formal investigation into the crash, overseen by a board that includes independent experts. The conclusions will be made public and the Health and Safety Executive hopes to reach those conclusions as soon as possible. I have agreed with the

137
Health and Safety Executive that the investigation must look beyond the immediate causes of the crash, to any root causes, including structural and organisational factors that could have contributed to the accident.
The House is aware that Lord Cullen's public inquiry is considering the whole rail safety regime—the management, culture and regulation of safety on the railways. Any material considered to be of use to Lord Cullen will be available to his inquiry team. I am sure that the House will share my view that we should avoid delay either to the investigation or to Lord Cullen's inquiry.
As I said earlier, the Health and Safety Executive's preliminary investigation indicated that a broken rail was the likely cause of the accident. The large number of broken rails on the rail network has been a matter of continuing concern for some time to the Government, the Health and Safety Executive and the Rail Regulator. As recently as 30 June this year, both the Health and Safety Executive and the regulator wrote to Railtrack expressing their concern about this matter and requiring remedial action. They also commissioned an independent technical assessment about the management of broken rails, which will be published shortly.
The House will be aware that, in the wake of the Hatfield accident, speed restrictions were immediately placed on more than 80 sites. I understand that speed restrictions are currently in place on more than 150 sites. I have asked the Health and Safety Executive to look urgently at the immediate actions taken by Railtrack to deal with other sites where broken rails might be a potential danger, and to assure me that Railtrack's procedures are adequate and sufficiently robust to ensure safe operation.
Last night I met the Health and Safety Executive to review progress. Its inspectors are today meeting senior managers from all the Railtrack zones to ensure that the necessary safety measures are in place. Furthermore, I have asked the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority urgently to meet Railtrack and the train operators to consider any further action that needs to be taken following the accident. Sir Alastair Morton has already held two meetings with the industry and will hold a further meeting tomorrow. On Thursday I shall meet Sir Alastair, together with the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission and the Rail Regulator, to review progress and see precisely what can be done. I shall of course keep the House informed of progress.
The Health and Safety Executive investigation is well under way and we must now focus on the way ahead. There is universal acknowledgement that the rail industry has suffered from fragmentation, a lack of leadership and decades of under-investment. We have created the Strategic Rail Authority to give leadership and direction, and published the 10-year plan—the biggest investment in our transport system for generations.
Yesterday, the Rail Regulator announced support for £15 billion-worth of expenditure by Railtrack—focusing on signalling, track maintenance and renewal—including money specifically targeted at reducing broken rails. It is the regulator's judgment that everything is now in place to equip and incentivise Railtrack to improve performance and safety on the network, with new accountability.
138
Today, the Strategic Rail Authority has shown by its announcement about the South Central franchise its clear sense of purpose in improving rail standards. Lord Cullen is undertaking a thorough-going examination of the safety management, culture and regulation of the railways. I stand ready to implement whatever is required as a result of Lord Cullen's proposals.
All that promises a new era for British railways. We all want a safe and well-performing railway, but the tragic event at Hatfield reminds us that, in the future as in the past, there must be no priority higher than safety. That is my guiding principle.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I extend to you, Mr. Speaker, my congratulations on your election and appointment?
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement and join him in extending our deepest sympathy to the injured and bereaved. I also pay tribute to the emergency services and all those who responded so calmly and effectively.
First, will the Secretary of State join me in commending the Minister for Transport, Lord Macdonald, for the calm and responsible way in which he conducted the Government's response to the tragedy? Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to express support for the industry in the same way as the Minister? The Minister gave his personal endorsement to the Railtrack chief executive, Gerald Corbett. Will the Deputy Prime Minister take this opportunity to express his support for Gerald Corbett, whom the right hon. Gentleman's Minister rightly identified as part of the solution to a better railway?
Secondly, I agree with many of the comments in the Minister's statement last week. Does the Secretary of State share the sentiment
that credit must be given to the railway industry for the advances made in safety management in recent times?
Thirdly, I commend the Government for resisting the temptation to go for another protracted and inevitably adversarial public inquiry, though I press the Secretary of State, as we did last week, for a special technical inquiry into the question of track management and broken rails.
The Deputy Prime Minister was determined to make the Paddington disaster a watershed for the industry. Then, he called for an end to the adversarial blame culture that has existed on the railways for years. I invite him to accept that the most recent disaster has sparked a genuinely new mood of partnership and co-operation in the industry. The crucial question is this: will the Secretary of State and his appointed regulator join the new spirit of partnership, or will the show trial summits and the blaming continue?
Privatisation has doubled Railtrack investment and billions are being invested in new trains and improving safety. None the less, we have said that changes are needed; is the Secretary of State ready to change, too? Lord Macdonald has set out the doctrine:
of course, punctuality is important, but there is nothing more important than safety.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2000; Vol. 617, c. 1201–02.]
Why do the right hon. Gentleman and his Rail Regulator continue to insist that there is no conflict between safety and train performance, when everyone in the industry knows so well that there is?

139
The Secretary of State accuses the industry of failing to meet its commitments, but when, on the Channel 4 news last Friday, he said of safety,
but I don't want it to be used as an excuse,
what did he mean? When he is in an aeroplane sitting on the tarmac and the captain says that there will be a 10-minute delay for some safety checks, does he think that that is just an excuse and that the airline should be sacked?
Does the Secretary of State not understand that early indications suggest that it was Railtrack's failure to apply a speed restriction on the faulty track at Hatfield that led to the fatal derailment? Does he not realise that the conflict between the fines for late trains and safety contributed to the failure of judgment on the part of Railtrack and the contractor? Does he acknowledge that, by supporting the regulator's review published yesterday, he is agreeing that those fines should be doubled, which will intensify the conflict between train performance and safety? Do the right hon. Gentleman and the regulator understand that that is what Gerald Corbett means when he calls for a change in the way the railway is run?
I do not doubt the Secretary of State's sincerity. He has campaigned for better safety in transport all his life, but is it not time that the Government provided the regulation that the industry truly needs, which works sympathetically with the safety objectives of the railway and does not conflict with those objectives? I put these points to the right hon. Gentleman as positively as I can. I hope that he will feel able to respond in the same positive spirit.
Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the emergency services, and I am sure that the whole House extends its sympathy to those who have suffered from the tragedy. I have no wish to make political capital out of these events, but I must confess that, having said that he believes that privatisation was wrong—
Mr. Jenkin indicated dissent.
Mr. Prescott: Well, the hon. Gentleman conveyed the impression that he thought that the organisation of the railway system that he and others helped to create is wrong, so I should have thought a little more humility today would have been suitable. I know that I cannot expect that.
On safety, my answer is the same as that voiced by the Tory spokesman in the House of Lords: that

no objective commentator believes for a moment that our railways have become more dangerous during the lifetime of this Government or, indeed, over recent years.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2000; Vol. 617. c. 1198.]
Mr. Jenkin: Privatisation.
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman claims the achievement for privatisation. I do not want to argue the public-or-private case; I could do so, but this is not the right moment.
We should take the facts into account. The hon. Gentleman refers to the rail summits as "show trials", which I find totally offensive. All the industry came together and said that something must be done about
140
safety, especially after the recent railway tragedies. We now have the fewest train collisions on record, train derailments are at an all-time low and the number of significant train accidents has substantially decreased. All these things have come—[HoN. MEMBERS: "From privatisation."] I prefer to thank the management in the industry for co-operating with the Government on those matters.
I do not want to get into the argument about privatisation. All I will say is that we are agreed that there is a fundamental flaw in the way in which the privatisation of the industry was presented to the House. We have tried to change that. We have established the Strategic Rail Authority, despite the Opposition voting against the Second Reading of the relevant Bill. We have introduced a 10-year transport plan setting out investment on a scale not seen in this country for decades, and we have provided the necessary resources and powers. In addition, we now have a powerful regulator. The hon. Gentleman should read the regulator's words. The regulator has said that there is no conflict between targets and safety.
Mr. Jenkin indicated dissent.
Mr. Prescott: The regulator is the one who has examined the matter. I am just telling the hon. Gentleman what the regulator said, which contradicts what the hon. Gentleman appears to believe.
When Lord Macdonald, in the House of Lords, spoke of the continuity of the industry, he was referring to continuity of command. He was not making a particular reference to Mr. Corbett. If the argument is about whether Mr. Corbett has done his job rightly or wrongly, I shall wait for the inquiry to make a judgment.
A matter of concern to the inquiry will be why, although Railtrack knew about the rail break in April and had been supposed to deal with it in June, it had not done so by October. That seems to constitute a management failure. There was an offer of resignation, and I assume that that meant something had gone wrong because of the management.
If the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether I will or will not give an endorsement, let me tell him that I will not. I deal with Railtrack, not with personalities. I have regulators to deal with such matters. I have a Strategic Rail Authority. I have told the House how the investigation will be carried out, and I will wait for the results. I will not take the view that, because a regulator says that something is wrong, it is wrong; I will listen carefully to the arguments.
There are issues, and I do not close my mind to them. If anything in any way interferes with the delivery of safety in our railway system, I am prepared to consider any form of change. That should be the job of anyone who has the responsibility that I have today.
Inquiries are being made, and we have taken action. Paddington was a watershed. Lord Cullen was appointed not to inquire into the circumstances in which these tragedies took place, but to examine the whole culture of safety management. I have made fundamental changes in regard to safety management: I have provided resources for safety on a scale never equalled before. I have toughened up the regulator, and reduced the organisation through franchises. Those are decisions that I made three

141
years ago; I am not making them now. They are the right decisions, which is why we shall have a safer railway system.
I hoped that we might see co-operation from those on the Opposition Front Bench. No chance. We should not expect it: we should get on with the job.
Barbara Follett: May I join others in congratulating you on your appointment, Mr. Speaker, and also in welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement?
Some of my constituents were on last Tuesday's 12.10 train to Leeds, and some were injured. They, like me, will welcome the news of improvements in rail safety. Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that more communication takes place between Railtrack and its subcontractors, so that people know who is responsible for which section of the line, and when?
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support, and share her sympathy and concern for her constituents.
Concern has been expressed about the difficulties involving rail contracts and Railtrack, which are a matter for investigation. Mr. Corbett has complained that the maintenance contracts he inherited were fixed-price, determined by the last Government and not by him. I pass no comment on that—I am merely repeating what Mr. Corbett has said—but it is part of what will be dealt with by the inquiry. Let us wait for the results of that.
Mr. Don Foster: I join many others in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker.
May I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement, and join him in offering our sympathy to those who were injured in the accident—and, of course, the friends and relations of those who lost their lives? May I also join him in congratulating the emergency services, and the many local people who came to assist?
Does the Deputy Prime Minister, like me, welcome a repenting sinner? Does he welcome a recent statement by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) in which the hon. Gentleman at least admitted that the Conservatives had made mistakes during the privatisation of the railways? One aspect of that privatisation led to a development that is of great concern to many people. Notwithstanding the advice that he has been given by the Rail Regulator, does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that, in many people's minds, a perverse incentive scheme is operating? Railtrack is fined if it delays trains, and it is fined if it does not delay them so that it can carry out necessary safety work.
Finally, does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that a further complication is where the money is to come from to improve safety? The Rail Regulator yesterday announced more money for Railtrack for safety measures, but that money will come from the Government. It will be given to the Strategic Rail Authority, which will give it to the train operating companies, which in turn will give it to Railtrack. Why cannot the money go directly from the Government to Railtrack? Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that it is new money?
Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the emergency services. His concerns are shared by a number of other hon. Members.
142
On the question whether we should welcome a repentant sinner, I am not sure that the hon. Member for North Essex is repentant. He simply uttered a few political words of convenience. If anything makes that clear, it is his statement at the Dispatch Box today. He said nothing about being wrong. He was already trying to correct the statement that most people outside thought he had made. However, it is not my job to get into an ideological argument about the hon. Gentleman.
My job is to produce a safe, modern railway. The measures that I have put in place will help us to do that. As to whether there is a conflict between incentives, the regulator says that there is not. I am prepared to listen to the argument, but the regulator says, and he has a fair point, that all he is doing in setting targets is referring to the targets set by Railtrack itself. Railtrack set the targets and it failed to achieve them.
The regulator's main concern about the breaks in the rail is that, although there was a large number of such breaks—more than 1,000 in 1980—there has been a reduction, but now the number is starting to rise. The concern of the regulator and the Health and Safety Executive is that, despite Railtrack's promises, it has not taken appropriate action to reduce the number of breaks. That is a matter for investigation. Let us await the outcome. I am keeping an open mind about whether there is a conflict in these matters. The regulator is looking into it and an inspection is under way.
I particularly asked the Health and Safety Executive to consider, in the course of its investigation, the matter of contracts and whether it causes any problems. It is the subject of complaint by the contractors as well as Railtrack.
On the question of resources, the money is extra money. That is clear to everyone from the 10-year transport plan. Also, different forms of finance, which do not have to go through the operators, can be arranged with Railtrack and the Strategic Rail Authority. There are various ways of financing the railways and we are experimenting with one or two different ways.
Mr. Hilary Benn: May I begin by congratulating you, Mr. Speaker?
Will my right hon. Friend join me in offering thanks also to the staff at Leeds station for the efficient way in which they responded to the tragedy by making sure that any relatives arriving at the station to meet people who were on the train were cared for and provided with information?
Given that it is very likely that a broken rail caused the accident, will my right hon. Friend ask the safety inspectorate to offer advice now on the frequency with which the track should be inspected in future?
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his words of support. I join him in commending the Leeds staff, who had to deal with some of the terrible circumstances arising from the tragedy. Everyone in the railway industry, at all ranks, feels deeply when such a tragedy occurs, and they all do everything they can to assist.
With regard to the frequency of inspections, I have asked the Health and Safety Executive to consider the matter. I know that the regulator is also looking into it and has arranged an independent assessment jointly with the HSE. That report is due in the first week of November

143
and will give us a chance to see how robust the management of Railtrack is in dealing with broken rails. It is a matter of dispute between Railtrack, the HSE and the regulator, and we shall hear more about it in due course.
I want the best possible system of safety. I have been concerned that, in the meantime, trains continue to run in places where there is evidence of broken rails or such a possibility in the future. I have asked the HSE to look at whether the inspection system and the management system are robust enough to work properly now.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: May I, too, add my personal congratulations to you on your election, Mr. Speaker?
Does the Secretary of State understand that, to the extent that he focuses the Government's energy on the problem of broken rails, he will carry the House with him? Will he confirm that Railtrack knew last December that there was something wrong with the stretch of track that we are considering? Given that, what action does the Secretary of State believe those responsible for Railtrack should take to ensure the restoration of public confidence, especially in safety under that organisation?
Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. However, I should prefer it if people reserved judgment until the results of the inquiry are known. Parties to the tragedy have given far too many statements about their views on why something happened or did not happen. It is best to await the inquiry report. In the meantime, there has been publicity about the correspondence between the rail inspectorate and Railtrack, and between the regulator and Railtrack. It clearly shows that the reasons for Railtrack's failure to implement what it recommended and agreed with its contractor are well known to the organisation. That is at the heart of the inquiry, and I do not wish to say more than that.
Mr. Peter Snape: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in a show trial culture, the Conservative party would be in the dock for what happened at the time of privatisation? Does he accept that the Hatfield derailment would never have happened when the railways were publicly owned because local knowledge plays an enormous part in finding weak spots, especially on high-speed tracks? As long as there is a system in which Railtrack lacks the basic skills to maintain the track and has to buy them in, the problems will continue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Opposition Members say "Rubbish", but every hon. Member knows that, from one end of the country to the other, main lines in Britain look like long-abandoned gasworks, covered with weeds, rubbish and grass. That would never have happened when specific gangs of men were responsible for individual stretches of track. The fault for the shambles of Hatfield and similar disasters lies entirely with the Conservative party.
Mr. Prescott: I do not want to follow my hon. Friend down some of that road. While I understand his points, he gives me a chance to stress that I must concern myself with the facts of the case. Let us consider broken rails. I do not know whether Hatfield would have been prevented before privatisation, but when considering the
144
number of broken rails in different periods, hon. Members must realise that in, for example, 1981–82, there was an average of approximately 1,000 broken rails. That figure was down to about 600 in 1990 and it has now climbed to nearly 1,000 again. Throughout that time there have been different forms of management, yet there has been a high rate of broken rails. I do not want to suggest that all broken rails lead to train derailments; no more than 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. do that. However, broken rails are a serious matter.
If we consider the facts and figures for fatal train accidents in the past 25 years, the number of deaths have decreased by approximately 50 per cent. since 1975.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.
Many trains are now moving slowly through my constituency. It is startling to my constituents that, the day before the crash, trains were hurtling through Shenfield, whereas a couple of days afterwards, everything ground to a halt. That suggests that Railtrack knew about the specific problems there.
We must come to terms with the fact that, because more people and freight are travelling by rail, demands and strains on the track are much greater. What is considered reasonable for inspections in the context of declining stock is not reasonable in the context of growing demand, especially for heavy trucks, on our system. Does that not emphasise the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) made about the need for a clear inquiry into rail safety maintenance?
Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He made a strong point. Indeed, it is one of the reasons for the terms of reference that I gave to the Cullen inquiry. I wanted the inquiry to examine not only a particular incident, but the management and safety cultures within our railway system. That is happening now.
I am sure that many people have realised that trains which were travelling at full pelt are now moving at only 20 mph. Railtrack has a responsibility to implement such policies and to maintain safe track, whether the speeds are 70 or 20 mph. I am concerned about the management procedures. Why are trains that were travelling at full pelt—presumably drivers were not told to travel at a slower speed at Hatfield—now travelling so slowly in areas where there are concerns about safety? It is about management. I think that the Rail Regulator's complaint is that the management was not adequate. I do not know—it is a matter of public comment by the regulator, and Railtrack has entered into the debate. I prefer to wait for the inquiry to give these matters full consideration and to report.
The hon. Gentleman has made a fundamental point for the Health and Safety Executive to consider when examining the Hatfield tragedy. It also involves the entire management of the railway, which Lord Cullen is addressing.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I add my congratulations, Mr. Speaker—it is lovely to see you in the Chair.
As my right hon. Friend knows, my constituents and many Members use the line in question and GNER trains. I am pleased that he has announced that the inquiry will be wide ranging and will feed into Cullen.

145
After the disastrous privatisation of the railways—everybody agrees that it was disastrous—and the 18 years of Tory neglect, will former Tory Ministers be giving evidence to the Cullen inquiry? Will they be brought to account for the mess that they undoubtedly made of both the railways and privatisation?
Mr. Prescott: It is not for me to answer for the Opposition. Lord Cullen is taking advice from all parties. Indeed, the Opposition have given advice, but I do not know whether that was before their change in policy. Everyone should give advice to Lord Cullen on these fundamental matters. I believe that he is about to make the sort of changes necessary to improve safety on the railways that he brought about in North sea oil operations.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I add my congratulations, Mr. Speaker. All Scots will take immense pride in your elevation to the speakership.
I think that this is the first disaster that GNER has suffered. It has had an outstanding record of carrying passengers on the east coast main line through York and the Vale of York. I understand that there have been reports that the Eurostar carriages that have been added to the operation may have contributed to the higher incidence of broken rails. Will the Cullen inquiry have an opportunity to look into that?
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain why railway disasters are treated differently from aviation and maritime accidents? Would this be a good opportunity to invoke the same procedure for rail disasters as for aviation and maritime disasters?
Mr. Prescott: On the latter point, the hon. Lady makes a sound suggestion, and one that I hope Lord Cullen will consider.
The Government and the Opposition will be giving evidence on how we might implement a more comprehensive and consistent method of dealing with safety between the different transport modes. The Select Committee has made strong recommendations on this matter recently.
As for Eurostar, any train going on to the track must go through a safety procedure. As I understand it, the Eurostar carriages have not made any difference. However, the inquiry will be considering these matters, and it is proper that it should do so.
As I waited for my train on Sunday night, I read GNER's punctuality figures. The tragedy occurred on its rail network but punctuality was about 80 per cent. There does not seem to be much of a conflict there.
Ms Rosie Winterton: Many congratulations on your election, Mr. Speaker.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but it is of major concern that Railtrack appeared to know that there were problems along the Hatfield stretch of line but seemed unable to force its contractors to carry out remedial work. Although my right hon. Friend will want to see the outcome of the various inquiries, will he seek some immediate assurances from Railtrack that it will put in place management systems to follow up identification
146
of a problem where work is not being carried out and where it knows that if it does not take action there will be serious safety implications?
Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend. As to whether Railtrack knew about the safety implications and whether contractors failed to carry out the work, that is for the investigation to determine. However, as I have said, it is clear from the correspondence that has been published by both the Rail Regulator and the rail inspectorate that there was conflict of some kind and that they were constantly pressuring Railtrack to carry out improvements in those areas. Nevertheless, the issue is best left to the Health and Safety Executive.
What I have to assure myself is that between now and that inquiry, everything is done to make every part of that railway as safe as possible and to prevent the sort of tragedy that happened at Hatfield. Of course, if there is a breach of safety regulations, there are penalties. Indeed, the ultimate penalty lies with me. If there is a serious breach by Railtrack and it fails to carry out its responsibility under its licence, I can remove that licence.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Congratulations and best wishes, Mr. Speaker, from another in the league of unsuccessful candidates.
In the short term, how quickly does the Deputy Prime Minister think money will feed through in repairs and improvements to the affected sections of the east coast main line track, bearing in mind the impact of the necessary delays and many train cancellations on the business and working lives of the north-east and the Borders, which have become used to an extremely good train service?
Mr. Prescott: Extra resources are immediately available in those areas. However, now that the Rail Regulator has given his report, the Strategic Rail Authority has to produce its strategic plan showing the order of priorities. That involves discussion with Railtrack, which is now under way. I hope that we will be able to get the report shortly from the SRA. The right hon. Gentleman will then clearly see the programme of implementation.
Mr. George Stevenson: I add my congratulations on your election, Mr. Speaker.
Does my right hon. Friend recall the Transport Committee report on rail safety that expressed serious concern about the management, control and monitoring of subcontractors employed by Railtrack? We all welcome the Strategic Rail Authority withdrawing the franchise from Connex, but, given that Railtrack is a monopoly controller of our infrastructure, and given the Government's decision to put £5 billion into Railtrack, how does my right hon. Friend envisage the public interest, safety and public accountability being ensured by Railtrack and its operation?
Mr. Prescott: With regard to the amounts of money that are being made available out of our 10-year transport plan—£15 billion is being made available, with £5 billion going into the track itself—the Rail Regulator has made it clear that he would like the money to be spent in that particular way as part of the licence, and intends to have

147
an accountability and monitoring system to ensure that it is. The Select Committee was critical about contracts. I assure my hon. Friend that that is one way in which we are thinking of toughening up the whole operation to ensure that there is accountability in that area. After all, Railtrack has an obligation to maintain a safe railway. My job is to ensure that it does, and 1 intend to toughen up very much in that area.
Mr. John Greenway: I add my congratulations on your election, Mr. Speaker.
I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) that many thousands of constituents who use the railway are generally very satisfied with the services that they receive from GNER. Were they to be asked, they would give it a strong vote of confidence, but clearly they no longer have confidence in the state of the rail track. They want to know how it can be that Railtrack knew that the track was damaged in some way and substandard, yet the train was allowed to travel at speeds in excess of 100 mph.
The Deputy Prime Minister has made many reassuring statements to the House, which I am sure will be helpful, but can he unequivocally state that there will be no question of any train operator being penalised and fined for delays on the railway if those delays are caused by having to reduce speeds over defective rail lines?
Mr. Prescott: Certainly, the concern must be to ensure that we have a safe railway system. I am a regular user of the company to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is usually considered that 50 per cent. of the reasons for delay are the fault of Railtrack and that 50 per cent. are the fault of the operators. That varies from line to line and the regulator takes that into account when considering any fines for companies that have failed to meet their targets. We must ensure that the track is safe, that it cannot be used as an excuse for delay and that there is no threat to safety.
I must confess some surprise that, under Railtrack—it was the same with British Rail—there is no register of assets for our railway system. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) will know that from his time on the Railtrack board. It is curious that there is no register, and we have been pressing Railtrack about that for some time. We do not know how many stations there are, how long they are or the state of the track. That makes it difficult now as we talk about areas of concern. We are discussing that with Railtrack, and the Strategic Rail Authority has that as a central consideration.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Congratulations, Mr. Speaker. I should also like to congratulate the men and women who, day in and day out, operate the trains on the east coast main line on behalf of GNER. On the day in question—last Tuesday—I should have been on the 12.10 ex King's Cross to Leeds. Fortunately, I changed my plans and decided to catch the next train that stopped at Stevenage. I was actually on a train leaving Stevenage less than an hour late. That is great testimony to the men and women who operate the railway on that line.
However, I am a little worried about the existing structures. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is prepared to comment on whether he believes that the
148
existing structures for Railtrack and the operating companies are capable, as they stand, of halting the growing list of tragic accidents on our railways.
Mr. Prescott: The House will support the comments about the railway employees and management who deal with tragedies so quickly. I travelled by train on Sunday—there was a regular one-hour service, even into King's Cross. To deal with the challenge in that way shows tremendous adjustment to change. We all want to thank those people for their efforts. However, like all of us, their greatest concern is to maintain a safe railway system. The fundamental question is whether the system that we have inherited is adequate to maintain a modern and safe railway. In my judgment, the answer is no. That is why I introduced the Strategic Rail Authority and toughened up the regulatory procedures. It is why I introduced the resources to enable investment in modern signalling for a modern railway system and to ensure that we have safe and modern rolling stock. That is what we are doing. I believe that that will make a difference—if I did not, I would not be carrying out that policy.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: May I add my warm congratulations to you on your election, Mr. Speaker?
Given the recent increasing number of serious incidents—Hatfield, Stafford last Thursday evening and a fatality in north Wales yesterday—involving the clear failure of infrastructure, is it not blatantly obvious to everyone that, with the 150 speed restrictions, Railtrack is letting us down badly? Have the Government given any recent serious consideration to renationalising Railtrack?
Mr. Prescott: The first point is whether I am satisfied that there is a robust management system in place to deal with the difficulties on the rail track. The current evidence, particularly after Hatfield, suggests that it is not as good as it should be. That is what the inquiry will determine. The hon. Gentleman talked about the terrible tragedy on the traffic crossing yesterday. We must have a greater safety culture than there is at present. I have told the House that there has been a reduction in accidents and deaths, but they are always matters of great concern and we should strive to reduce them, and we will.
The hon. Gentleman talked about renationalising Railtrack. We should consider whether renationalising Railtrack would make the railways safer. I gave the figures earlier. Whether public or private, ownership does not necessarily determine whether the rail system will be safer. The facts are there for me to see and I have to make a judgment. The reality is that the culture is not right and has become worse, so we have to make some changes. Lord Cullen is examining those issues, which I have referred to him, and we should allow him to make his judgment on them.
Mr. Tony McWaiter: I add my congratulations on your election, Mr. Speaker—words that hon. Members from the 1997 intake have never used before. We also had no idea that those clothes fitted a man.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that that track in Hertfordshire is the most densely used fast-speed track in Europe? Does he also agree that it should be inspected

149
more often than track in more outlying areas? Will he ensure that arrangements are made to inspect that track more regularly than it has been heretofore?
Mr. Prescott: I do not want to enter into dispute with my hon. Friend, but most railway people say that Clapham Junction is the busiest part of our railway system. However, his question about whether regular track inspections are being conducted to reduce the number of rail breaks goes to the heart of the investigation. Although I am sure that Railtrack would say that it was conducting such inspections, and although I should hope that the Health and Safety Executive will assure me that Railtrack's current procedures are adequate, that question will go to the heart of the investigation and the inquiries that I mentioned.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that last week, in the other place, Lord Bradshaw, who is a member of the Strategic Rail Authority, argued that there was an obvious tension between a system of penalty payments for delays and investment in track, and which obviously increases delays in the short term? In his statement, the right hon. Gentleman said that the regulator is now convinced that everything is in place to incentivise Railtrack to improve safety. Why does Railtrack need incentives to improve safety? Is it because it is a private company?
Mr. Prescott: Incentives were used by the state operation in awarding contracts, and Governments and others who award contracts offer incentives for jobs to be completed more quickly. Many reasons are given for offering incentives. However, I concede that the argument has been put into the public arena that there may be a conflict between some of the incentives and targets. I am sure that Lord Cullen will examine exactly that issue. I have also specifically asked the Health and Safety Executive to give us its judgment and conclusions on that aspect of contract work.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are reaching the point at which we are pouring money into those millionaire directors' pockets, but they seem to be ignoring faulty lines and all the rest of it? Does he recall the days when we voted against this Tory hybrid monster of a privatised railway? Does he also understand that there is a growing demand among the general public for taking rail back into public ownership? Hon. Members are also getting a bit fed up of handing over money to friends of the Tory party—it has to come to an end. Will my right hon. Friend agree not to rule out the possibility of taking British Rail back into public ownership, as we demanded when we were in opposition?
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend will know—I agreed with him at the time; it is a matter of record—that I thought that privatisation of the railways was wrong. In votes, in Committees and in all sorts of circumstances, we opposed the model that the then Government proposed to the House, and we were right to oppose it. I now find myself as the Secretary of State with responsibility for these matters—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members
150
will always think that I take a considered view on these matters and seek to justify my view. I have done that in this case.
As my hon. Friend will know, it is Labour party policy not to renationalise the rail system. Why is that our policy? As I argued in conference, we cannot avoid putting money into the pockets of those people. If we renationalised the railway, we would probably have to give them compensation. Although I assume that my hon. Friend would not want to do that, we would have to consider doing it. As the Euro rules and human rights legislation deal with the need to pay compensation, I cannot be free from a requirement to put money into the pockets of people who I do not want to receive it. Additionally, on top of paying perhaps £6 billion in compensation, we would have to wait two or three years to pass the necessary legislation. I would sooner be putting that money into track safety and ensuring that the system works.
As I told the House, the new Strategic Rail Authority, a 10-year investment plan, a new approach to safety and a renegotiation of the franchises will give us a different model. That model will be so successful that the Tories will have to ditch the old model and support the one that we are delivering.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to the right hon. Gentleman's helpful reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), does he favour the establishment of a permanent and independent rail accident investigation branch of his Department? Would he be good enough to tell the House what, if any, discussions he has had with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the scope for a full debate on the Floor of the House on the final report of the Health and Safety Executive?
Mr. Prescott: Matters of time and debate are, of course, for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I am constantly available to discuss such matters either in statements or in debates. [Interruption.] There are many matters that I am prepared to debate, and I commonly come to the House.
On the serious question about the safety structure, I genuinely have an open mind: I have not reached a conclusion about it. I certainly want to wait to find out what Cullen has to say about it. I hear what the Select Committee tells us about how we should reorganise safety, but it is a fundamental question.
I admit that, when in opposition, I complained that the railway inspectorate, which was created under a Labour Government, should never had gone back to the then Department of Transport. I held that view then and I see no reason to change it, but I shall await what Lord Cullen has to say about it, and then come forward with recommendations to the House.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I am member of the Public Accounts Committee. Last year, we considered a report by the National Audit Office on the flotation of Railtrack. The report clearly shows that the flotation was an absolute disaster for the taxpayer, track maintenance and the infrastructure of Railtrack. Even the report states that the increasingly favourable perception of investors towards Railtrack since July 1996 has been

151
attributed, by the various parties to whom we spoke, to a combination of factors. I shall not list all the factors, but one of the main ones was that the value of shares increased simply because people knew that Railtrack would not invest in the maintenance and structure of the lines, and Railtrack admitted that it did not know what the state of the track was.
We recently met Mr. Gerald Corbett, who suggested that one way forward could be a public-private partnership between the industry and the Government. Has my right hon. Friend considered whether that is a possibility? While not necessarily renationalising the industry, it would at least put it partly under Government control.
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes several important points about the way in which public assets were sold off at a disgraceful rate. That concern has been looked at by the National Audit Office and various Select Committees. That sell-off meant an awful lot of money for a few people. The irony for myself and for those who opposed Railtrack was that the greater our determination to get the then Government to drop their privatisation proposal—it was at the time of the 1992 election—the more it was said that we were forcing down the price, and that as a consequence when we were elected the price shot up and many people made an awful lot of money. In fact, our argument was that the then Government waited to sell British Telecom until after the election, so they could have done the same with Railtrack—but so be it; that is a matter of history.
With regard to whether we should hold shares in Railtrack or use a public-private partnership, as my hon. Friend may know we still hold 1 million shares in Railtrack, or about 0.2 per cent. of it. The Opposition always thought that we would use the Strategic Rail Authority to renationalise the rail industry by buying shares. There is a difficult balance between the Government owning shares in Railtrack and accepting responsibility without any control. Such matters are constantly being put to me, and my mind is not totally closed to all those issues.
Mr. James Clappison: May I join the congratulations that have been extended to you, Mr. Speaker?
May I also join the Deputy Prime Minister in paying tribute to the role of the emergency services and the two hospitals in Hertfordshire—the Lister hospital and the Queen Elizabeth II hospital—and to the response of local people?
Although the terrible tragedy happened on the fast line of that stretch of track, there is also a slow line, which serves commuters and others from Hatfield and Potters Bar. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that safety checks should be every bit as stringent on that section of the track as on the fast section?
Mr. Prescott: Absolutely.

MEMBER TAKING THE OATH
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
Rev. Robert Thomas William McCrea, for South Antrim.

Points of Order
Mr. Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a question regarding a breach of the courtesies of the House. It reached my attention only a little while ago, so I was not able to give you advance notice of the matter in writing.
At 12 o'clock today, the Select Committee on Defence presented a substantial report on Kosovo. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the rule of the House is that the Government are required to respond in writing to the Defence Committee within 60 days. However, by 2.30 this afternoon, the Government had held a press conference to reply to the report. Is that a breach of courtesy, or is it merely the greatest possible accolade for a damning report?
Mr. Speaker: There has been no discourtesy in the way in which the matter has been conducted.
Mr. David Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that during the summer my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition called on the Prime Minister to recall Parliament, so that hon. Members could discuss the grave crisis that the nation faced as a result of the fuel protests. The Government admitted that the protests almost brought the country to its knees, and they are now taking emergency measures to combat any future crisis.
Tomorrow, the House will have its first opportunity to debate the crisis. A few moments ago, the Deputy Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that he was always ready to come to the House to discuss important issues. However, he has decided that he will not reply to tomorrow's debate, and that a junior Minister will do so instead.
In view of what was said yesterday by all the candidates for the speakership, and of the Government's acknowledgement—
Mr. David Winnick: This is a speech, not a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is only one Chairman in this establishment. If the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is making a point about which Minister is to deal with a debate, I can tell him that that has absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.
Mr. Maclean: I appreciate that point, Mr. Speaker, but in your normal discussions with the representatives of the usual channels will you, as a new and respected Speaker, point out that the fact that neither the Prime Minister nor the Deputy Prime Minister will be present to answer a debate on the gravest crisis facing the country is a slight injustice—not to say a grave insult—to the House? However able the junior Minister involved may be, does not putting him or her forward to respond to the debate mean that justice is not being done to this important matter?
Mr. Speaker: I will be present for the debate, and it is possible that the right hon. Gentleman may be too. That is all that he has to worry about, so that will be all right.
Mr. James Gray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Member for

153
Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made a fine speech yesterday about re-establishing the primacy of the House, in which particular reference was made to the fuel crisis. We welcome you to your post, Mr. Speaker, but surely, if you are to take steps to re-establish the primacy of this place, you must allow Back-Bench Members to have the ear of the Deputy Prime Minister when we raise our constituents' very real concerns arising from the fuel crisis?
Mr. Speaker: These are not matters for the Chair.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I urge you to look at the innumerable pronouncements made by your predecessor, in which she made clear her concern about the House's loss of authority in our national life? You, Mr. Speaker, were among the many candidates in yesterday's election who shared her concern. Your predecessor frequently deprecated the behaviour of Ministers in the treatment of the House.
May I therefore invite you, Mr. Speaker, to set out to the House, and for the benefit of the Government Front Bench, what your feelings are on this matter? How do you believe Ministers should treat this House in terms of making statements here rather than on the Radio 4 "Today" programme, and in appearing here to be answerable to us on important occasions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has pointed out?
Mr. Speaker: I would not want to make comments on these matters.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Penrith and
154
The Border (Mr. Maclean), Mr. Speaker, do you share my concern that on a simple issue such as that of who speaks from the Government Front Bench it appears that many Opposition Members, including senior figures such as the right hon. Gentleman, are not aware of the simple rule that this is not a matter for the Chair but for the respective Government and Opposition? Could you arrange for a crash course in procedure for Members who do not understand that?
Mr. Speaker: I am always willing to give guidance on procedure, but perhaps on another occasion as I am quite busy these days.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you come to give that guidance, perhaps you could advise the Prime Minister's parliamentary private secretary that we do not expect to be lectured by No. 10 Downing street through the Back Benches of the Chamber.
Mr. John Bercow rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that this is definitely a point of order.
Mr. Bercow: It most assuredly is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm, with the full authority of your office, that public support for this institution is dependent upon an understanding of its procedures? Is it not the case that right across the country, large numbers of people of all political persuasions and of none fail to understand the sudden afflictions of shyness and reticence that occur when Secretaries of State are called upon to answer Opposition-day debates?
Mr. Speaker: There is one thing for sure—the hon. Gentleman is not shy, so I would not worry about that.

Employment (Religious Beliefs)
5.2 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow certain employers to have regard to the religious beliefs of those whom they employ; to make provision with respect to the application of European Community law to those employers; and for connected purposes.
It is, I am sure, a matter of agreement among all Members of the House that we have a very fine tradition of tolerance in our society. Indeed, it could be argued that long before the American melting pot was consolidated or even dreamt of, we were creating our own melting pot among the English, the Scots and the Welsh. Sadly, our record with the Irish was not so successful. Therefore, during the 19th century, we came to the conclusion that above all we had to be tolerant towards all religious organisations. We recognised that they should be allowed to conduct their affairs in their centres of worship and schools in their own way. That is the system of tolerance that we have built up so successfully in our nation over the past 100 years.
People may ask how all that is relevant to a European Union employment directive. It is very relevant. None of us can argue with the sentiments of the EU directive to ban intolerance on the grounds of race, sexual orientation or religious belief. That is absolutely fine and none of us disagrees with any of it. The problem arises—this is where that happy phrase about the road to hell being paved with good intentions comes in—when we set the overall western secular ethic against the ethic of particular religious organisations. They may have their own ethics and beliefs; they may want to do things in their own way.
If Members were honest with themselves, they would recognise that there are many aspects of some religions—perhaps all religions—and perhaps even of their own with which they fundamentally disagree. Some westerners may have difficulties with the Hindu caste system or with Muslim dietary laws. However, surely we have the sense to accept that other religions should run their religious schools, organisations and bodies in the way they want. My Bill is very simple indeed, as it tells the Government that they should step in and exempt religious bodies from the EU employment directive. To give them credit, the Government have been negotiating those points in Europe, and the Irish Government have worked hard on such matters.
There is now a view that we can take into account the ethos of religious organisations. So far, so good, but does it go far enough? I think we have solved a problem that arose in Holland, where somebody who applied to a theological college for a position was turned down on the basis that he was an atheist and immediately appealed to the courts on the grounds that he had been discriminated against. I think we have dealt with that. Nobody now doubts that Jewish organisations should be able to insist that a Jew should be appointed as a rabbi, or that bishops should believe in God—[Interruption]—in any event, if that is the wish of the Church in question—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Church of England?"] Steady!
We have made some progress in these matters but problems arise with other jobs. We have solved the problem in Church schools to the extent that a Church school can insist that a teacher of religion should subscribe to that religion, but what about the other
156
teachers, who are not engaged in teaching religious studies? What about the people employed in a Church social organisation? Surely the very raison d'etre of many religious organisations—what drives them and gives them impetus—is that they are made up of believers. Their belief may not be our belief—nor are we talking just about an abstract belief or a vision of God, since some people—and it may seem a quaint idea—beleive that one should not only subscribe to a point of view but should live one's life according to it. Living in such a way can be difficult. All the great religions of the world make severe demands on their followers. None of us can follow all the demands of our religion—we would be saints or gurus if we did. Surely, religious organisations have the right to insist that people behave in a certain way, even if that goes to the heart of their private life, runs contrary to our general secular ethic in the west and attacks the position of certain people and minorities.
Yesterday, we elected as Speaker a man whose faith, for four centuries, meant that he would not have been allowed to pass through the door, let alone take the high office that he now occupies. We have done away with that kind of uniformity, and the House no longer insists on a uniformity of belief or religion. However, are we not in danger of allowing one minority to start attacking and persecuting another and allowing some people to set their conscience, will and view of society over others?
I am not asking anyone in the House to accept the point of view of any religious organisation or the sorts of demands that they make on their members in the conduct of their lives. All that I ask is that the House respect the position of religious organisations, which should be allowed to insist that their members conduct their lives in a certain way, if that is their wish. The Labour party insists that those who work for it are card-carrying Labour members. That is its right and is fair enough. However, if the Labour party can insist that only card-carrying members work for it, cannot a Church school, a Catholic social club, an Anglican youth organisation or a Muslim organisation insist that people who work for them subscribe to all their beliefs?
Mr. John Bercow: The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), is giggling.
Mr. Leigh: I believe that my point is fair.
One of my first speeches was based on Franklin Roosevelt's four freedoms, which include freedom from want and fear, freedom to engage in one's own form of expression, as well as freedom from religious persecution. Nobody is suggesting that anyone in Europe wants to persecute others—that is not my argument. There has, however, been a flood of correspondence on the subject, and much debate in the Council of Ministers. The Government should make the position clear and get it right by introducing a Bill similar to this Bill to exempt religious organisations. That would allow us to proclaim Franklin Roosevelt's freedom and allow people to conduct their religion and their religious organisations in the way they want. That is all that my Bill seeks to do.
5.10 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for setting out so lucidly the reason why he believes the Bill is necessary.

157
The hon. Gentleman discussed the fact that the European directive does not give sufficient exemption. He and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), whom I am pleased to see in her place, will know that many hon. Members feel that exemptions in the European directive already go too far in allowing discrimination against groups of people by religious organisations. It is important to recognise, as I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts, that a balance can be achieved. The right to religious freedom should extend only to the point at which the rights of other people are not infringed. We do not allow the religious freedom to carry out fatwas against inhabitants of this country because, to put it mildly, that would damage the rights and interests of other people.
I want to explain why the Bill and its approach must be opposed. I do not oppose the Bill because it represents an attack on religion—in fact, one of its welcome features is that it would provide some protection for individuals with a religious belief from discrimination in employment. However, a balance has to be struck between the rights of religious organisations to express or act on their views and the rights of other people not to have their rights curtailed.
It is important to clarify the definitions used in this debate. The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill would protect people from being discriminated against on the grounds of sex, but that is not the case. The equal treatment directive already does that. Interestingly, he omitted the right that the directive will give of protection against being discriminated against at work on the grounds of sexual orientation, although he said that he supported all the rights that the directive conferred. I am delighted that he applauds the introduction of the right, which does not presently exist in this country, not to be dismissed or discriminated against at work on the basis of sexual orientation. When the legislation is implemented, it will have that effect.

There is concern that too wide an exemption for religious bodies to discriminate on the basis of religious ethos or views would mean that anyone employed, regardless of his or her role, by a private religious organisation or a public organisation with a religious input is likely to be discriminated against—not employed or sacked—because of private sexual behaviour. The hon. Gentleman said that we should expect people's private religious beliefs to be respected. He said that we should not expect people to be able to carry out in their private lives all of the wishes of religion, but we should respect what they are able to do. Many people who are employed by a religious organisation but who do not comply with its rather narrow view of what is right in terms of sexual orientation would be fearful if religious organisations were able to discriminate in that way.
The hon. Gentleman discussed the salutary example of this House. For many years, ours has been a Christian country, and many people still describe it in that way. That does not mean that we should limit membership of the House, which represents that so-called Christian country, to members of the Christian faith. The hon. Gentleman would, I am sure, be among the first to deplore that if it were proposed. Similarly, there is no reason why
158
a religious charity or a public organisation with a religious impetus should insist that all its employees should be active believers of that faith.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the interesting subject of religious schools, suggesting that the schools belonged to the relevant religion. We must recognise, however, that Church schools, for example, belong not to the Church but to the nation—they are maintained schools. Fifteen per cent. of capital funding and 15 per cent. of running costs comes from the relevant Church, and 85 per cent. comes from the taxpayer and the state. There is no reason why those schools should be seen as entirely religious entities that have full control over their staffing.
I am prepared to concede some of the hon. Gentleman's examples. A rabbi—he or she—needs to be Jewish to be employed as a rabbi. A religious education teacher in a school of a particular religious ethos is required to be a believer in name and practice, although that is a controversial view. Some people argue that what matters is whether one can teach religious education according to that ethos, not whether one goes to church 49 or 30 Sundays out of 52. I am also prepared to accept that if the Labour party decides that membership is necessary to carry out a political function in that party, it is also a genuine occupational qualification. I suspect that, in terms of one's beliefs, in today's Labour party the requirement goes further than merely carrying a card, but that is as may be.
What I am not prepared to accept—and I urge the House not to accept—is that caretakers in so-called Roman Catholic schools need to be Catholic to do their job, and the same is true for Church of England schools. I am also not prepared to accept that nurses in palliative care centres need to be Catholics if those centres are partly or totally funded by that Church.
We are talking about a genuine occupational qualification. If the exemption goes any further we will give carte blanche for the infringement of other people's rights—the rights of Protestants to work as maths teachers in Catholic schools, of Roman Catholics to work as geography teachers in Jewish schools, and of Catholics to work as French teachers in Church of England schools.
There are 100,000 teachers in so-called religious schools, which provide 15 per cent. in terms of funding. That is a lot of people whose rights might be threatened—and that is just the teaching staff—by the introduction of too wide an exemption. On the basis of too wide an exemption, a range of members of staff of organisations that are partly funded or entirely owned by religious organisations could be sacked or might not be employed.
Nothing that I have said is intended to decry the huge amount of wonderful work that religious organisations do in the charitable, voluntary and educational fields. The message to those organisations must be that the state welcomes that involvement and the practice of those beliefs and, within reason, their promulgation, but not to the point of infringing other people's rights to employment and its benefits, unless a genuine occupational qualification is required, such as that for vicars, rabbis and RE teachers.
On that basis, in the spirit of tolerance that the hon. Gentleman cited in his opening remarks, I urge the House to reject the Bill and the idea behind it, although I will not press it to a vote.
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), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Bowen Wells, Mr. Stephen Pound, Mr. Colin Breed, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Mr. Christopher Chope and Mr. Nigel Waterson.

Employment (Religious Beliefs)
  EMPLOYMENT (RELIGIOUS BELIEFS)
  Mr. Edward Leigh accordingly presented a Bill to allow certain employers to have regard to the religious beliefs of those whom they employ; to make provision with respect to the application of European Community law to those employers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 November, and to be printed [Bill 175].
Orders of the Day

  Insolvency Bill [Lords]
  [Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 1999–2000, HC 112, on the draft Insolvency Bill and the Government's response thereto, HC 237.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.19 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dr. Kim Howells): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Given the way in which this debate has been trailed in speeches and interviews during the past 24 hours by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), perhaps I should be a little more muted as to the virtues of the Bill than I might otherwise have been. After all, it is easy for a humble Trade and Industry Minister such as myself to get excited about a modest Bill such as this one, designed as it is to help enterprises and small businesses to make a success on behalf of the nation.
  I freely admit that I do not have the vast experience and visionary perspectives of my right hon. Friend. It was my right hon. Friend who used parliamentary time to introduce legislation to allow, for example, the construction of a fleet of Concorde jet aircraft and the administrative triumph of the advanced gas-cooled reactor programme. I have to settle for something that will not cost the nation billions of pounds. Nor, I am afraid, will the Bill allow the likes of Sir David Frost, Andrew Neil or Dame Joan Collins to hurtle back and forth across the Atlantic—suitably refreshed—promoting peace between nations. Such ministerial triumphs are reserved—quite properly—for our political giants.
  I, on the other hand, will state only simple pleasure at being able to bring this now famous Bill, which I even heard trumpeted on the "Today" programme this morning, before the House. The measure will make important changes in insolvency law. The broad purpose of those changes is clear: to support the Government's determination to make our country one that encourages enterprise and is a good place to do business.
  That determination needs to be supported by appropriate measures to increase business confidence. One of the things of which we need to be sure is that those entering and operating in the marketplace can have certainty as to what will happen if a business gets into financial difficulties, or if—ultimately—it fails. We need appropriate and effective procedures to deal with such eventualities.
  Inevitably, there will be cases where businesses get into short-term financial difficulties for one reason or another, but that should not mean that the only—or even the usual—way out of those difficulties is to bring the business to an end. That cannot be in the best interests either of those who have a stake in the business—its suppliers, customers, creditors, employees and so on—or of the wider economy. If the underlying business is fundamentally sound, we need procedures that will make a rescue possible.
  Of course, there will be many cases where there is no realistic prospect of rescue or rehabilitation. Within the procedures for handling those cases when a business does

  161
  come to an end there is a particular need to be able to deal appropriately with those people whose misconduct brings about the failure. If we do not do that, confidence will be undermined and enterprise will not be encouraged—in fact, quite the contrary.
  Both the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 already go a long way towards providing such a regime. The measure will build on that by introducing important amendments and improvements to existing procedures.
  In a market economy, it is inevitable that some businesses will fail. The reasons for that are many and varied. When that happens, those failures have consequences—not only for the creditors or the employees but for the wider community. If at least some of those companies could be rescued, it is probable that creditors would receive a better return than on a winding up; jobs would be saved and the companies would continue to make a positive contribution to the economy.
  The Insolvency Act, which came into force more than 13 years ago, brought the company voluntary arrangement procedure into our law as a means of rescuing companies. Since then, the number of such arrangements has risen, from 21 in 1987 to 475 in 1999. The introduction of that procedure, which allows a financially troubled company to reach a binding agreement with its creditors, was a fairly radical development, because it focused on rescue rather than on winding up. However, the recession of the early 1990s showed that it was not particularly appropriate for small companies in financial difficulty. As there is no stay on creditors' actions, before an arrangement is agreed, creditors are able to take individual recovery action—such as levying execution on the company's goods. That is the real problem. As a result, the company may, for instance, lose its stock-in-trade and so simply be unable to continue in business, and that renders a voluntary arrangement unworkable and dooms any rescue attempt to almost certain failure. What is clearly needed is a stay—but a relatively short stay—on creditors' rights, so that the company's management can have the opportunity to put a rescue plan to the creditors.
  Of course, there is always the administration order procedure, which does now provide for a moratorium; but the problem for the small company is that, generally, the procedure is too costly for it. There is also an understandable reluctance on the part of management—especially owner managers—to use the procedure because they know that they will be displaced by a court-appointed administrator. So the Bill will give a company's management the option of obtaining a short breathing space within which to put a rescue plan to creditors, and it will stop creditors enforcing their rights, initially for a period of up to 28 days. The provision of that moratorium in the Bill will honour our commitment to
  act quickly to introduce a legal right for a small company in financial difficulty to a moratorium on its debts for a limited period in order…to put together a rescue package.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am much obliged to the Minister for giving way at this point. I agree that the Bill has many useful parts, but will the hon. Gentleman look at one subject in particular—the situation where an insolvency practitioner is brought in? I know from personal experience of the law that there
  162
  have been many cases where the exceedingly high fees that insolvency practitioners charge tip the business into the red and that ruins the whole situation from day one. Will the Minister or his Department examine the question of those scale charges, which are, to put it mildly, exorbitant?
  Mr. Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman; he has made a very important point. Later in my speech, I shall address the subject of what we are terming, for now at least, nominees, who may well be able to offer services that at the moment can be provided by insolvency practitioners only.
  Some people have questioned whether now is the right time to be acting as we are, when we are reviewing and consulting on what more might be done to improve the prospects for company rescues generally. We see no inconsistency in this. We think that there is little doubt that a stay of creditor actions is an essential part of any rescue procedure. The review of company rescue and business reconstruction mechanisms is looking at potential barriers to rescues, including, but not limited to, those that might be achieved by way of a company voluntary arrangement. What we are doing here is putting in place the first building block in our work on company rescues. The measure is needed now, and it should not have to await the outcome of a wider review. To delay it now would mean that more businesses might be put at risk and unnecessarily lost.
  In summary, we propose that directors should remain in control of the company and its business during the period of the moratorium. To obtain that moratorium, the directors will first have to obtain, and file at court, a statement from the proposed nominee to the effect that the proposed voluntary arrangement stands a reasonable prospect of being agreed and implemented. Subject to the agreement of the creditors, the nominee will become the supervisor, and therefore oversee the implementation of the voluntary agreement once it is agreed.
  The moratorium would last for up to 28 days, but it will be extendable by up to a further two months with the agreement of the creditors—so it could last for a maximum of three months. It will also be binding on all parties. During the moratorium, the nominee will have the task of monitoring the company's activities. If it appears at any stage that the proposal is no longer likely to be accepted by the creditors, he will have to withdraw his consent to act as a nominee. That will have the effect of bringing the moratorium to an immediate end. There will be penalties for directors who seek to abuse the process by making false representations to obtain a moratorium or by seeking to spirit away assets or business records under the cover of the stay. There will also be restrictions regarding the disposal of assets during the moratorium.
  The issue involves balancing many competing interests—those of the company, shareholders, suppliers and creditors, employees and others. However, we think that the proposals in the Bill represent the best fit for all concerned.
  Mr. David Heath: The Minister referred to misconduct by directors, but I have at least one constituent who is extremely concerned about misconduct

  163
  by an insolvency practitioner. Will this narrowly drawn Bill do anything about the regulation of practitioners, or can we expect further legislation in the near future?
  Dr. Howells: That issue is being considered by the independent company law review that is under way at the moment, and I understand that it is being examined from several directions. It is an important point, because if the insolvency practitioner is considered to be guilty of misdemeanours, the whole process is put in jeopardy. That certainly will do nothing to help a company that is desperately seeking a means of rescue. However, when I come to this point later, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to draw comfort from what I shall say about the way in which the behaviour of insolvency practitioners and, subsequently, nominees and company directors will be monitored and reviewed.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially as I unavoidably missed his opening remarks. Will he tell the House whether the regulations that flow from clause 13, and that relate to the model law on cross-border insolvency, will be subject to the negative or to the affirmative resolution procedure?
  Dr. Howells: I shall certainly come to that point, because it is important and we should deal with it properly.
  Mr. Bercow: The Parliamentary Private Secretary is seeking guidance.
  Dr. Howells: I do not need the notes actually, but it was a good gag.
  In the past few days, we have received several representations about possible difficulties that the introduction of the option of a moratorium might pose for what are known as special purpose vehicles—SPVs. They are ordinary Companies Acts companies, but they are often used in quite complex structures, particularly in relation to large-scale financing operations. Because the proposal to introduce a moratorium has been widely known about for some time, it is unfortunate that the potential problems appear only just to have been identified. However, from the discussions that my officials have had with those who have raised the matter, it is fair to say that the problem seems to arise from what we are told will be an assumption made by those institutions that are involved in such large-scale financing.
  Overall, the sums of money involved are large and those institutions are worried that the proposal that small companies should be able to obtain a moratorium risks upsetting agreed arrangements. If that risk is perceived to be real, financing the arrangements will become more expensive and, we are told, the United Kingdom will become a less attractive place within which to base such arrangements. Clearly, we do not intend the Bill to have such a consequence, so we are urgently considering ways in which the problem might be addressed for the future and for existing arrangements.
  However, in view of the complexities involved and the time likely to be needed to resolve them, our view is that it would not be sensible to address that matter in the Bill. Instead, we are considering whether the appropriate approach would be by way of modification of the
  164
  eligibility criteria for obtaining a moratorium. Therefore, the Bill proposes a power for the Secretary of State to modify the eligibility criteria by regulations. That may be the best way to deal with the issue once we have determined the real extent of the problem. In case anyone should think that in that way the House might be deprived of the opportunity to debate the issue, let me say that the proposed regulation-making power will be capable of being exercised only by way of the affirmative procedure.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend has just said something that worries me greatly. He is effectively saying that we should give a Second Reading to a Bill which—admittedly rather belatedly—vested interests have said might damage them and might not be workable, and that he will take account of those representations in regulations. That is an alarming mess to put before the House. Rather than a special procedure for small companies, would it not be more sensible, even at this stage, to apply to all companies the more simple option of a chapter 11 provision, as in the United States, which protects for a period companies such as Chrysler, which is facing going bust?
  Dr. Howells: No, I do not think that a chapter 11 route is the right one. Chapter 11 is really a licence for lawyers to print money. The previous Government and this Government steered away from that because it is not the best method of addressing the problem. My hon. Friend's point about the lateness of the objections is important, but it would be wrong to pretend that we ought not to take the problem seriously. It needs to be raised before the House. I have explained one way in which we can address it, and I hope that that will be a good way of doing so.
  I should like to take a little further the question of chapter 11 in the United States of America and why we have not adopted a procedure based on it. It is notoriously complex, time-consuming and very expensive. Unlike our procedure, it entails extensive court involvement. Virtually all major steps in chapter 11 require court approval and result in high lawyers' fees. Moreover, there would be serious practical problems in adopting a system that has its roots in a very different business and legislative culture.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: Did my hon. Friend take into account the fact that chapter 11 is no panacea in the United States? It is bandied about, but closer examination of the statistics suggests that it is not used in every instance. Indeed, it is used quite selectively, often owing to the difficulties that he has just described. The cases in which it is used and works tend to be those in which such arrangements would work anyway.
  Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Perhaps when my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) contributes to the debate he can explain to us the virtues of bringing chapter 11 to the United Kingdom, because I cannot see them.
  The Bill will also make other modifications to the company and voluntary arrangement procedures in the Insolvency Act 1986 to improve their efficiency and effectiveness. One difficulty with the present schemes is that they do not bind creditors who are not notified at the meeting called to consider the proposal for a voluntary arrangement. That is an important point because the

  165
  phenomenon is pretty wide ranging. It means that, if a previously unknown creditor suddenly comes to light—perhaps for a substantial and unexpected claim for, say, faulty goods—that creditor can pursue the company for the full amount of its claim. The result might be that the voluntary arrangement collapses, with disastrous consequences for all concerned. The Bill therefore provides that across the piece—in company or individual arrangements, with or without a moratorium—unknown creditors will be bound by a voluntary arrangement. Of course, appropriate safeguards will also have to be provided to prevent unfair prejudice.
  Another problem is that both creditors and shareholders must agree to a company voluntary arrangement before it can be implemented, and that can sometimes be extremely difficult. In the majority of cases, the company's financial position is such that, if it were to be liquidated, only creditors would receive any payment. The Bill recognises that fact and provides that, in the event of disagreement, decisions of creditors' meetings will prevail over those of shareholders. That will obviate the risk of losing what might otherwise be a workable rescue simply because shareholders cannot or will not agree to all or part of it. However, there will be appropriate safeguards for shareholders' interests.
  On the question raised by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), we consider that, in addition to insolvency practitioners, there may be others who have the skills needed to turn around ailing companies. In recognition of that fact, we have included in the Bill a provision that will allow the Secretary of State to recognise a body whose members could act as nominees or supervisors of voluntary arrangements. We want greater use to be made of voluntary arrangements and to ensure that those who have the skills needed to make rescues work are able to contribute.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned disqualification undertakings. The power to disqualify rogue directors is an important safeguard for business and public alike. In the past two years, we have disqualified more than 2,800 unfit directors. If confidence in the market is to be maintained, it is essential that those who abuse the protection of limited liability and use companies to cheat creditors are disqualified. We believe that, when the Secretary of State and the director are agreed that disqualification is appropriate, it is in everybody's best interests to achieve it as quickly and as cheaply as possible, and the Bill provides for that.
  Currently, only the courts can disqualify. The vast majority of disqualification orders are made on the application of the Secretary of State under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act. They are based on evidence of unfit conduct in relation to insolvent companies. However, the process can and does take a long time and it can be expensive for all those involved. The courts have been helpful in devising a procedure, known as the carecraft procedure, whereby an individual can consent to a period of disqualification, but a disqualification achieved in that way still requires court proceedings to be instituted, with delay and cost frequently being the result.
  The Bill provides that, when there is agreement between the Secretary of State and the director, disqualification can be achieved administratively, without
  166
  the involvement of the courts. When the Secretary of State considers that an individual should be disqualified in the public interest, he will be able to accept from that individual an undertaking not to act as a director for a mutually agreed period of between two and 15 years. The Bill also provides that breach of the terms of such an undertaking will carry the same criminal and civil consequences as breach of a disqualification order, so there will be no diminution in protection for business and public. Concluding matters by way of an undertaking will be possible in the circumstances set out in clause 6, and those in clause 8 following a Companies Acts investigation. Undertakings will also be a matter of public record.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful to the public to know the basis on which undertakings were given? Should there not be a statement of the facts, so that there can be no subsequent dispute about facts that were agreed by the director who gave the undertaking?
  Dr. Howells: I have a great deal of sympathy with that approach, but it is the subject of careful review in several quarters. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, as soon as I receive some constructive advice on this important issue, I shall let him know about it. I hope that that is a sufficiently diplomatic response.
  Only 10 per cent. of disqualification proceedings are contested and go to a full hearing; of the remainder, 60 per cent. are unopposed and directors consent to the making of the order in the other 30 per cent. of cases. That suggests that there is a need for such undertakings. This measure should result in earlier protection at reduced cost by cutting the number of cases that go to the courts.
  Of course, not all directors will agree that they should be disqualified, so the existing procedure will remain in place. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) nods: I know that he faces serious specific problems, and I hope that the Bill goes some way towards addressing some of them.
  As happens now, the Secretary of State will apply to the court for a disqualification order when he considers that appropriate and in the public interest. The director will remain free to defend the proceedings in court. Nothing has been taken away from his right to defend himself in court if he decides to do so. This could be described as a supplementary vehicle, which can help to cut costs and save time.
  The Company Directors Disqualification Act has been in operation for nearly 14 years, and experience has shown that it could benefit from a little attention. We are taking this opportunity to make some technical amendments to improve its clarity, effectiveness and efficiency. Among other things, the Bill will make it clear that disqualification represents an absolute bar on a person acting as an insolvency practitioner. I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome heard that, because I know that he is deeply involved in researching the subject, but in case he did not, I shall read it out again. Among other things, the Bill will make it clear that disqualification represents an absolute bar on a person acting as an insolvency practitioner.
  Mr. David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister—although he did not need to read that passage twice,

  167
  because I heard it the first time. It does not, however, address the issue that concerns me—the difficulty caused by malpractice on the part of a practitioner in insolvency. It stops someone who has previously been disqualified becoming an insolvency practitioner, but it does not deal with the specific case of which I am thinking. It sounds to me as if the Bill does not cover the area involved, and I look forward to legislation that does.
  Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman should contact the regulatory body governing the insolvency practitioner concerned, with a view to its investigating. There are numerous means whereby practitioners can be disciplined, as they should be if they are guilty of misdemeanours. We are not entirely the prey of practitioners who may be involved in such activities; means of redress already exist.
  Mr. Bercow: Given that there were 270 more disqualification orders in 1999 than there were in 1997, can the Minister give us some indication of how many of those 270 were contested, and how many of the 1,489 in 1999 were contested, so that we can have an idea of the extent of the disputation and of the delay before the granting of the orders?
  Dr. Howells: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures, but I shall certainly procure them for him.
  The bar that will be placed on a person acting as an insolvency practitioner redefines the court to which an application for a disqualification order should be made. It also redefines the court to which an application for permission to act as a director while disqualified should be made. Disqualification orders made in Northern Ireland will be given the same effect in Great Britain as those made here. That will increase the protection provided by disqualification orders.
  Let me now deal with the question of reporting offences. When reporting suspicions of criminal misconduct by company directors and members under section 218 of the Insolvency Act, the liquidator in a voluntary winding-up in England and Wales does so to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP can then refer such reports to the Secretary of State for investigation. We think that it would be far more sensible for those reports to be made to the Secretary of State in the first place, and that is what we provide for in the Bill. That will streamline the process and ensure that misconduct is dealt with sooner rather than later.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: The Minister will know that, in certain circumstances, it is difficult to get an accurate fix on true accounting by accountants in order to establish what misconduct the directors have committed. Has he any proposals to enforce the production of accurate accounts within a specified time limit so that the case can be proved?
  Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman's point is one of the central themes of the decision to institute an independent company law review. It is important that such transparency is at the heart of any changes made to company law. I know very well the grief and difficulty of some of his constituents resulting from apparently creative accounting in a current case. We are looking at the matter carefully.
  168
  I do not want to pre-empt the publication of the independent review. That is a major piece of work and will be an important quarry from which we can take material to ensure that such problems are properly addressed in company law.
  I return to the reporting of offences. When investigating reports, the Secretary of State can use Companies Acts investigation powers, and section 219 of the Insolvency Act purports to allow answers obtained by use of compulsory powers to be used in evidence. That is clearly contrary to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Saunders v. the United Kingdom, and we are taking the opportunity to put the situation right.
  The Administration of Insolvent Estates of Deceased Persons Order came into force at the end of 1986. Broadly, the intention was that all the assets that a debtor owned immediately before his death should be available to satisfy the claims of his creditors in insolvency proceedings started after his death. It was thought that this would include his interest in any jointly owned assets. In this way, the situation in all insolvencies would be the same.
  However, a decision in the Court of Appeal in 1994 in the case re Palmer (Deceased) established that the order-making power contained in section 421 of the Insolvency Act did not bring about that result. I need not trouble the House with the details of that case. Suffice it to say that its result is that property of which the debtor was a joint owner passes on his death to the remaining joint owner or owners under supervisorship rules and is not available to his creditors.
  Of course, substantial assets may be involved. We do not think it right that creditors' rights can be dependent on the mere chance of whether the debtor is alive or dead when they need to have recourse to him. We are therefore taking the opportunity to address the issue and by doing so, we will, so far as is possible, restore a level playing field and create legal certainty in this area. However, we will introduce amendments to the relevant provision in the Bill because difficulties with the current text need to be addressed.

  We propose that clause 11 should be amended so that the trustee of a deceased insolvent's estate should be able to apply to court for an order against the surviving joint owner for the purpose of securing that the debts and liabilities of the estate are met. The court will have discretion to make an order for a sum not exceeding the value lost to the estate.
  In England and Wales, it is a requirement that liquidators of companies and trustees in bankruptcy pay funds from the realisation of assets into the insolvency services account—the ISA—at the Bank of England. For many years, the law has allowed funds held in that account on behalf of insolvent companies to be invested in Government securities for the benefit of the estate. In addition, funds of £2,000 or more remaining in the company's account attract interest at the rate of 3.5 per cent. a year. In that way, the company and its creditors and shareholders can receive a benefit from the use of the funds until they are ready to be distributed.
  For reasons that are now shrouded in the mists of history, similar provisions have never applied in relation to bankruptcy estate funds. There is clearly an anomaly, which the Bill allows us to remove.

  169
  On cross-border insolvency—the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who raised the matter, seems to have left the Chamber—
  Mr. Graham Brady: Briefly.
  Dr. Howells: Indeed.
  Many businesses operate across national boundaries. That phenomenon is likely to expand considerably in the future, and can give rise to problems when a business fails, because some countries are not always willing to recognise foreign insolvency proceedings. That can make the recovery of assets difficult, and sometimes impossible. The absence of any internationally accepted measures to deal with cross-border insolvencies can make the handling of such cases uncertain, inefficient and often very costly. Clearly, that cannot be in the best interests of the creditors.
  In 1997, the United Nations adopted a model law on cross-border insolvency. The United Kingdom played a part in developing that model law, and there is now a concerted push to implement the law in countries such as the United States, South Africa, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but there is a degree of reluctance to act until the intentions of other countries become clear.
  The order-making powers contained in the Bill will enable us to implement the model law in this country. We think that that is the best way to proceed. It will give a clear indication of our intentions, and it will mean that that can be done at a more measured pace than would be possible if the detailed measures were included in the Bill. Importantly, it will allow for detailed consideration of what should be done, and for appropriate consultation to take place before the measure is brought back to Parliament for consideration.
  We have given careful consideration to the measures in the Bill. The over-arching purpose of them all is to improve confidence in the marketplace. We believe that improved confidence will contribute to the creation of an environment that will encourage enterprise. I am therefore pleased to commend the Bill to the House.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: I know that you have occasionally shown an interest in the equine world, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you have ever gone to a horse sale and seen the yearlings going round the sale ring. Occasionally, one can look at a yearling and immediately identify the sire. There are some stallions that have the ability to imprint their characteristics on their foals.
  The Bill has all the imprint of a Department of Trade and Industry Bill—the best of intentions out of muddle and confusion. [Interruption.] I have sympathy with the Minister, and he may well laugh nervously, but is it sensible for the Bill to be before the House at the same time as the Government are conducting a review of the Insolvency Service, the very service with which the Bill deals?
  I know that the Minister tried to explain that away, as he recognises it as a weak point in his argument. Why did not the review start in 1997, so that the Bill could be up
  170
  to date and deal with the matters arising from that review? One or two questions have already probed the Minister's defence, and we were told that those matters will be dealt with by amendments. The Minister said that amendments would be introduced, and pointed out possible problems with the international scene. The Bill may make the United Kingdom less attractive for business.
  Before we even start, the Bill is in trouble. I do not blame the Government for trying to implement a manifesto commitment—all credit to them for doing so.
  I remember that when we returned after the general election, and many hon. Members, who are now in opposition, were given more time with our families, the Government rushed forward with a Statutory Right of Interest Bill. It was supposed to solve all small businesses' problems with cash flow and money. However, nothing has happened since. The Bill simply disappeared. There were plans for volunteers and aid for sub-post offices throughout the country. That money remains locked in the toils of the European Union.
  You would rightly take me to task, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I went through all the Department of Trade and Industry Bills that failed, and I shall not do that. However, the DTI often provides more spin than substance. How much more spin can we get than that provided by the Government's Small Business Service website, which states:
  Government continues to reduce the burdens on business caused by regulation.
  Last year, the Government introduced more regulations than had been introduced in any year of this country's history. They are on track for breaking that record this year.
  Flawed and ineffective as the Bill currently is, let us try to make it work. There is only a short time in the spill-over session to try to sort it out. What greater condemnation is there of the Government's legislative programme than that we have to deal with such an important Bill in the spill-over, in a rush to the line to get it done before Parliament is opened for another Session? Ministers should seriously consider their position; the proceedings have been managed appallingly. However, Conservative Members want to attack the problem by trying to be helpful, to make the Bill work and to help our businesses.
  We all want businesses that can be saved to be duly rescued. I have some experience of the small business world. I do not know how many DTI Ministers have run a business and had to worry about making it succeed from day to day. I know that it is exceedingly hard to start a business; it takes a year or so to break even, and a further year or so to build up a customer base and start to make money. I also know how easy it is to close down a business at a flick.
  I agree with the Minister about the inappropriateness of attempting to introduce a chapter 11 solution in this country at the moment. There is a series of differences between the United Kingdom and the United States, and some are cultural. In the United States, much more equity sharing occurs, and there are many more share options. That is the norm; the process is considered standard. In the United Kingdom, the owner wants to keep everything to himself, and banks have a loan rather than an equity culture. In this country, one can borrow as much money from the bank as one likes as long as one has the assets to back the loan.

  171
  The current system for a struggling business is a nightmare. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who has now left the Chamber, made a point about the cost of insolvency practitioners. That is part of the problem. Business men and women are reluctant to go to the bank because there is a fair chance of the manager starting insolvency proceedings. The main source of insolvency proceedings is the actions of a bank.
  There is another problem. When a creditor calls in an insolvency practitioner, more often than not there is more meat on the bones than there would be if it was simply a matter of keeping the patient alive. For that reason—I say this with all due modesty—I presented a ten-minute Bill in February last year. It tried to divide responsibilities on insolvency, and provided that an insolvency practitioner who recommended that a company be placed in liquidation would not handle the insolvency. That would hopefully lead to a more relaxed, if not independent, view on the matter.
  Several instances have been drawn to my attention of companies that could have been saved if their cases had been properly handled. However, it was more profitable and easier to put those companies into insolvency. With such insolvency comes the death of dreams for many business men and women. The Minister should read my ten-minute Bill before we go into Committee, probably next Tuesday. He will then be able to appreciate the realities that face some businesses when they deal with insolvency.
  Mr. Bercow: I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend for his confirmation that more than mere bones are required to sustain life in the human body. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the light of his comments on the dramatically increased regulatory burden under the Government, that it would be helpful—especially if it came from the lips of a typically helpful Minister—if the Government gave an undertaking at this juncture to publish a statement of the annual costs of regulation on British business and of their plans in the ensuing year to reduce that cost?
  Mr. Page: My hon. Friend tempts me down a path that I would dearly love to follow. The various bodies that represent businesses in this country show escalating evidence of the price of regulation and the burdens on business. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you give me a warning glance, and if I were to go into the Government's appalling record in any detail on the regulations that have been heaped on business, you would take me to task. I must therefore pass up my hon. Friend's kind invitation to outline once more the burdens that the Government have placed on our businesses.
  I can give my hon. Friend one small crumb of comfort. After the next election, when we introduce our policies, there will be a definite reduction in the number of burdens that have been placed on business. When I made those remarks a year ago, there was a great guffaw of laughter from Labour Members; today there is only a muted titter. It is muted because Labour Members realise that this party is coming back and that we have the policies that this country wants implemented after the general election.
  I hope that I shall get unanimous support for my next point. Every hon. Member has experienced constituency cases in which the cost of insolvency practitioners has left
  172
  little or no money for the creditors. The insolvency practice has changed its name to R3—the Association of Business Recovery Practitioners. I regard that change with some hope that the emphasis in the organisation is starting to be on the recovery of businesses rather than simply on that of creditors' money.
  I welcome the main point of the Bill. However, I must register some anxiety about whether it will work in practice. It will mean extra legislation in a year or so. As the Minister has already admitted, the Bill is only a step down the path. I doubt whether the Bill is constructed in such a way as to succeed in returning the wounded to health while not dragging out the lives of the terminally ill, with the consequent reduction of payment to the creditors. We should make no mistake: whoever deals with the case—new-fangled authorised agents or insolvency practitioners—will get their cut first. We must ensure that the system will create real benefit and not simply mean more time, more bureaucracy and more cost.
  I have given a general outline of the conditions and problems that face small businesses. Let us consider the specifics of the Bill. The Bill contains several controversial provisions, such as creating a new type of insolvency practitioner who can act as a nominee or supervisor of a voluntary arrangement. It envisages that such a person being authorised by a body, and recognised in turn by the Secretary of State, will satisfy certain security arrangements and requirements and will not be ineligible on certain specified grounds. Those persons need not be licensed insolvency practitioners. There is no need for that to happen because an authorised person would be automatically approved if he was already a licensed insolvency practitioner.
  To what extent does a knowledge of insolvency have to be present in order that an individual can qualify to become an authorised person? The Minister started down that route and talked about aspects of the moratorium, both present and future. The new procedure for a moratorium cuts out the role of the court. Under existing law, the company can obtain a moratorium if it petitions the court for an administration order. That is normally heard within four or five days. The court can then continue the moratorium by making an administration order. An individual can obtain a moratorium if an interim order is granted by the court. Again, the court is closely involved at that early stage.
  At present, we have an important safeguard. The moratorium imposes extreme restrictions on the creditors, and the court can carefully place the moratoriums. The new proposals dispense with that safeguard. The company or individual will be able to obtain a moratorium without any involvement of a court. Will that be an acceptable safeguard? It is essential that there is public confidence in the integrity and competence of those who will exercise such powers to impose a moratorium on the creditors. I have no doubt that that will be a subject of considerable discussion in Committee.
  A further problem arises when a debtor, be it a company or an individual, in financial difficulties seeks the advice of a professional person. In many instances, he may seek the advice of an authorised person. That advice will probably be given free, just as any similar advice is given free by a licensed insolvency practitioner now. It is given free—very few things are free—in the hope and expectation that the person giving the advice will be appointed a nominee, a supervisor, administrator or

  173
  liquidator in due course, and will be remunerated for doing so. That remuneration will more than make up for the free advice given earlier.
  That is how the system works now with licensed insolvency practitioners. I can think of no reason why that should not be how the system will work with authorised persons in future if the relevant provisions are enacted.
  A number of authorised persons will be tempted by the hope and expectation of earning remuneration as a nominee or supervisor in due course. They will want to recommend a moratorium and a voluntary arrangement because that is when they will be paid. If they recommend other procedures such as insolvency, bankruptcy, administration or liquidation, they probably will not be paid. The temptation is therefore a real one, and I believe a great one. It is a temptation that is in direct conflict with the one that faces insolvency practitioners now. Will some of the authorised persons succumb to the temptation? That could be an inevitable consequence of human nature. Is there a real risk that in many instances an authorised person will wrongly advise the debtor to propose a voluntary arrangement because that is the only way in which he will be paid?
  Licensed insolvency practitioners may recommend one sort of insolvency procedure instead of another because they are more likely to be appointed as the insolvency holder in due course. That is likely to happen also with authorised practitioners, who will not be paid at all if they recommend insolvency procedures for which they are not qualified. I do not say that that will happen in every case; it may happen in only a few. However, we must not forget that in these instances debtors are particularly vulnerable. When a man or a woman sees his or her company much at risk and likely to go down after perhaps many years of dedication and hard work, it is human nature that he or she is liable to clutch at any straw.
  There is the other side of the coin. Am I being unduly cynical to suggest that companies in financial difficulties may well hunt about from authorised person to authorised person until they land on someone who will recommend a moratorium?
  The one part of the Bill with which we entirely agree—the Minister will be delighted to hear this—is the amending of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. That will confer a power to accept undertakings of the Secretary of State. We believe that this will be of benefit and of help. We look forward to seeing that part of the Bill pass through Committee sweetly and smoothly.
  There is a curiosity in the Bill which I believe will make it difficult to operate. My understanding of the conditions for granting a moratorium is that the nominee of a company should be satisfied by the directors that it is likely to have sufficient funds during the moratorium to carry out its business. I must challenge the Minister to explain why it is envisaged in the Bill that a company that secures a moratorium might need to borrow money to finance operations, and must be in a position to offer security to potential lenders to the benefit of the company with the sanction of the nominee and the supervisor.
  There is a difficulty in envisaging a situation in which a corporate lender will make loans available when the directors of the borrowing company must act honestly in the interests of their own company and under the
  174
  supervision of a nominee, who may not be a qualified insolvency practitioner even though he or she may have the dubious advantage of being anointed by the Secretary of State.
  If the lending institution makes an erroneous judgment, a security may be unenforceable. I wonder how many of the creditors, and the banks in particular, will be tempted down that route.
  Like the curate's egg, the Bill is good in parts. It will bring modest benefits and they will be welcome. The fundamental issue in insolvency law is being addressed in the consultation process following on from the publication last year of the Insolvency Service review of company rescue and business reconstruction mechanisms. The Bill is only one step down that path. It would have been much better if it had been tied in to the conclusion of that review rather than being part of a piecemeal operation.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I welcome the Bill. I realise that it is modest in content and that a review is taking place. I think that we would have complained had we had a modest Bill and no review. We would have complained even more had we had no Bill.
  When we look to the United States, we see the success of its economy and its ability to sustain new business growth and to encourage new businesses to be established. In large part, the business community is self-confident enough to support new enterprise. The culture in this country is more concerned about chasing assets than about preserving businesses. It is equally concerned about punishing short-term business failure, rather than seeking to recognise potential entrepreneurial acumen. It is in that light that we should recognise that the Bill is welcome.
  We are not talking about changing the fundamental legal structure in one fell swoop. We cannot with one axe hack away the centuries of prejudice which had people being sent to the debtors' prison for business failure. Although there has been an increase in the recognition or identification of criminal elements and directors, the overwhelming majority of businesses go bust through incompetence or bad luck, not through criminal activities. The law should, in its way, take account of that.
  We no longer live in Dickensian times, where a Micawberish style of expenditure would result in being sent to prison. Although people, are thankfully, no longer sent to prison for bankruptcies brought about through bad luck or incompetence, they are nevertheless punished in such a way that they are denied the opportunity to start again.
  When I talk to people in the United States who are engaged in supporting new businesses, and discuss with venture capitalists how they look at the matter and what they are prepared to do to support new businesses, the conversation quickly moves towards a line that I heard repeatedly on visits to the United States. They often say that they would rather support someone whose business has failed once, although perhaps not two or three times. They do not want serial failures, but they recognise that, if people have had one or two spats, more often than not those spats will result in them being more aware, better educated and better able to address the challenges.
  We know that, in the first year, businesses are not just undercapitalised and underfinanced. In most instances, they are frightened of the day they never saw because of

  175
  the draconian punishments that are meted out to those who are deemed to have failed or to be near to failure. We could change the law and have innumerable inquiries, but we must try to change the culture in this country and the way in which it inhibits enterprise and holds back not just enterprise but the willingness of people with money to support those who need that resource to get their businesses going.
  Last year, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which I have the honour of chairing, was invited to comment on some of the draft clauses. A rather grudging consultative process was entered into. We had only a few weeks to do it. It was a highly inconvenient time. It had a wee bit of the token about it; the response to some of the points that we made suggested that, but I will not labour that point. However, I will happily wait until after the general election for some thorough reform of insolvency procedures. I hope that it will be within the general company legislation that the next Labour Government are committed to introducing. Like so many of the Government's policies for enterprise and competitiveness, it will be welcomed by the business community.
  The ritual ranting about regulation is different from the complaints that we used to hear about the uncertainties of the business cycle, the problems of inflation or the vagaries of interest rate changes. In the past two or three years, we have had exactly the stability that small businesses need to flourish, but they need other things as well.
  I take the point about the insolvency profession: it is reminiscent of the Boilermakers Society of days of old. It alone had the means and skills whereby the job could be carried out. It is strange that, when Baroness Thatcher and her colleagues tried to end restrictive practices, they seemed to have a certain blindness when it came to organisations in the business sector. They did not seem to have the same 20:20 vision that they had with the trade union and labour movement, but the fact that we recognise the position of the insolvency profession is welcome. That should be widened, and more suitably qualified individuals should be capable of being involved.
  I take the point—it is interesting—that several hon. Members have made about rogue elements within the insolvency profession. There are means whereby they can be dealt with, but it is difficult, in the middle of insolvency, for individuals who are not fulfilling their duties in a proper and fit way to be stopped. I suspect that we shall have to wait for subsequent legislation to deal with that. Nevertheless, we must be helpful.
  Some of us were a wee bit surprised that section 218 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has achieved a place in the legislation. Nevertheless, we could look at it. It might have been possible to consider the matter further if we had more time—or if my hon. Friends had more time, because I do not think that I will be able to participate in the Standing Committee, and I am giving no indication of a willingness so to do. I hope that the Whips Office takes due note of that in the weeks that lie ahead. I am pleased that no Whips are in the Chamber at the moment.
  Quite early in the life of the Government, the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), said that he hoped that legislation would be introduced. Two years ago, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, now the Secretary of State
  176
  for Northern Ireland, indicated in his important White Paper that legislation would be forthcoming. Some 14 months later, the Bill saw the light of day.
  The Bill started in late February in the House of Lords. It is not that bad that it reached this House by July, but it is unfortunate that there will probably be insufficient time to deal with all its inadequacies. Given the desire for change in the House, it would probably get out of control if we had too much time.
  I imagine that, as the Bill will not be unduly controversial, it will be possible for it to be dealt with, but I hope that the Minister will look at the financing of a company voluntary administration. My colleagues on the Select Committee raised concerns about the company and its landlord, its utility suppliers and those who lease it the tools of its trade. We were not satisfied that the Bill, modest though it is, was too narrow to deal with those issues. An opportunity has been lost. I would be doing my colleagues an injustice if I did not raise those matters with the Minister. They should be dealt with with greater urgency.
  Let me deal with one small point that came up: the question of deceased debtors. There is a human dimension to the process: matters relating, for example, to the matrimonial home of a deceased debtor and the risk that the title to such homes may be put in doubt by the Bill. We would like clarification. Often, when a business person dies, the spouse imagines that he or she still has the assets of a home but, for whatever reasons, those can be arrested. We could have dealt with that in advance of some wide-ranging inquiry.
  As I said earlier, legislation will not resolve the big questions. That will involve a cultural change in our country's business community. However, on some specific issues, where personal and familial problems could be avoided, my hon. Friend the Minister could take the opportunity afforded in Committee to look again. I realise that there are time problems, which are always part of the difficulty.
  This is not the single most important piece of company legislation that the House will face in the next few years. It is a modest but important step because it shows the business community that the Government and the Department of Trade and Industry are on the job and are continuing to pursue the wretched business of insolvency in the United Kingdom, the suffering that it causes to families and individual business people and the way it affects the confidence of those who, with a wee bit better luck and a little chance, might have been able to turn their businesses round or keep them going a bit longer—perhaps the extra three months afforded by the moratorium. It might offer them the opportunity to obtain slightly better advice than they have had in the past. Those things will make a difference in a number of instances, and if that can help to remove the stigma of short-term failure from so many of our potential entrepreneurs, it will have gone a long way to helping the business community and enterprise in this country.
  6.32 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I thank the Minister for guiding us through some esoteric issues in this extremely specialised area of commercial law. As the Minister rapidly read through his highly technical brief, as a non-lawyer and non-accountant I felt a little like the swimmer from Equatorial Guinea in the Olympic games, struggling desperately to keep afloat.

  177
  As this is a Second Reading, the appropriate approach, as the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) has already suggested, is to look at the big picture and the big messages that emerge from this specialised and limited piece of legislation. It is essentially about trying to restore the balance between lenders and borrowers and between rentier and entrepreneur. The hon. Member for Ochil referred to the situation in the United States. An interesting study in a recent edition of Accountancy Age showed that, of all the major western countries, Britain has the most creditor-friendly regime. By contrast, the United States has the most creditor-unfriendly regime, which is most friendly to equity and shareholders. The United States has stay-on assets for companies in extreme cash-flow difficulties and it is possible for management to remain in decision-making positions and to manage a crisis in a way that is not possible here.
  It was clear from his speech just over a year ago that the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were endeavouring to push British legislation in a north Atlantic direction. This Bill is a small step on the way.
  I have not had many cases in my constituency, but they all illustrate the big imbalance between lender and borrower in personal and corporate insolvencies and bankruptcies. The lenders are often commercial banks, which have a powerful position in such a situation. They will have a charge on the assets and there will often be a personal guarantee. Their business is highly profitable and secure, which is why the Government have referred their small lending business to the Office of Fair Trading following the Cruickshank report. We often see cases in which the commercial banks are trigger happy and will precipitate an insolvency in a way that a creditor who has much more self-interest with a company will not. We might have a trigger-happy precipitation of a crisis at one end of the chain, leading to thorough, often vindictive, pursuit of assets at the other. If the legislation, through the three-month moratorium, redresses that balance even a little by reducing costs by removing the need for court proceedings, it will have made a useful contribution.
  The legislation seems broadly satisfactory, but I want to put a few questions to the Minister. My first question follows a point made by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) on why this limited measure is being introduced in isolation from other inquiries. He mentioned one, which is relevant—the insolvency working party. It is not clear why the findings of that working party are not being assimilated into the legislation and why the legislation cannot wait for that. In addition, an inquiry into bankruptcy law has the important task of determining the difference between crooks and honest business failures. That important distinction is germane to the issue of business disqualification. I am not entirely clear why that inquiry cannot complete its business before the whole of insolvency and bankruptcy law is brought up to date in a consistent way. I agree with the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire that there is a process question to answer.
  I want to ask about the international ramifications. The legislation tries to deal with the problem of globalisation of business, such as cross-border lending and cross-border ownership, through encouragement of the model
  178
  agreements under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. That seems to be a sensible approach. I do not fully understand the relationship between the global approach to the harmonisation or reconciliation of different insolvency procedures with the European directive—it is taking place in parallel—that comes into force at the end of 2002. Are the two approaches consistent? Which supersedes which and what is the relationship between them? I do not know the answer. That is an important question if we are talking about the compatibility of regulation.
  On the specifics of the Bill, my colleagues in the other place, who are much more knowledgeable about this than I am, have made some particular points, which I shall rehearse for the record. Lord Sharman, who has a good deal of experience as a practitioner, has drawn attention to problems that arise from the issue of nominees. He says that, although it may be desirable to have nominees who are not qualified insolvency practitioners on grounds of cost—that issue has been raised already—there are powerful arguments for involving qualified people. One of their roles is to advise an insolvent company on the variety of business options and it is important that those concerned are properly qualified. There is a pro and a con there.
  Lord Razzall made the point that, when we are talking about the disqualification of directors, we are talking about proceedings that are often as much criminal as civil. There is usually a combination of the two. If people are to be disqualified on the grounds of possible criminal activity, the principles of the European convention on human rights begin to apply and a more onerous standard of proof is required. As it was not mentioned in the Minister's introductory remarks, it is important to have clarification from him as to how far that issue has been thought through.
  The legislation seems uncontentious and desirable and has our support in principle, but technical issues and possible issues of procedure regarding parallel inquiries need to be answered.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: This is a fairly small and simple measure—which makes it even more surprising that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) has made such heavy weather of it. I could not understand what he was getting at. We can welcome this legislation in its own right because it makes some small improvement in the current situation, and that is to be welcomed.
  It has to be pointed out, however, that that improvement is only a minuscule nibble at a major problem that the Government should be tackling. There is a pressing need for proper and effective regulation of accountancy practitioners and for redressing the current odds that favour those who have the money and those who put up the money—particularly the banks—against small businesses which are struggling to survive. The current odds are very unfair and very unreasonable. We need to regulate the affairs of the insolvency practitioners and control their activities so that small businesses are protected rather than used as fee-generating material.
  The 1992 Labour party manifesto dealt with the need to redress those odds, and our 1997 business manifesto dealt with the need for independent regulation of

  179
  insolvency. Since then, however, we have become very friendly with the business community and those issues have been shelved. We are being presented not with proposals for independent regulation, but with a series of miniature, partial measures—such as this Bill and the shabby Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000, which we debated some months ago in an equally excitable and crowded House.
  Vested interests have played the dominant role in the passage of this type of legislation. The consultations on this Bill have been dominated by the vested interests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) said, the consultations of the Trade and Industry Committee on the Bill were conducted at break-neck speed—so that there could not be proper consultation. The consultations were also dominated again by the vested interests, such as insolvency practitioners and banks, which earn the fees and at whose mercy small businesses lie.
  In reading the report of the debate on the Bill in the other place, I see that those with great names such as Kingsland and Sharman—valiant defenders of the working class and the poor in these matters—made the running and won concessions from the Government. However, the debate is dominated already by vested interests to which a Labour Government should not be making concessions. Now, the Minister tells us that there have been last-minute representations from those vested interests to change the legislation's proposed regulations.
  Although small businesses are struggling, and some of them are dying, we seem to want to consult the vultures that are hovering overhead. We seem to prefer a society for the defence of vultures to a society that protects small businesses or stakeholders, such as employees, unions, consumers and suppliers. Stakeholders want to load the odds in favour of the survival of small companies, but they are not being involved in the consultation.
  The victims of the vested interests—the small businesses closed down by big money—also were not included in the consultations. Mr. Barry Chapman, managing director of J. S. Bass, of Manchester, provides the classic example of a business being closed down by the insolvency practitioners and the banks working in collusion and using force majeure. Voices such as Mr. Chapman's have not been heard in any of the consultations.
  The Bankruptcy Association of Great Britain and Ireland, which is based in Hull, was not consulted in the proceedings. Such consultation was neglected in favour of gimmicks. Although issues such as establishing a rescue culture and tackling rogue directors need to be addressed, they should be addressed within an over-arching regulatory framework and not in minimal measures such as this Bill.
  The safeguards that have been provided so far in our minimalist legislation safeguard only vested interests, which we are anxious not to offend greatly. We are particularly anxious not to offend the banks, which have the monstrous advantage of being able to impose a floating charge. Such a charge is unknown in most other systems; it is certainly unknown in the United States. It allows banks to crucify small businesses and to grab back money that they loan for development. Even a change in bank manager can produce an entirely different climate for small businesses. Here we are, however, loading the odds in favour of those types of large institutions, instead of doing something about the major scandals.
  180
  Banks have a habit of installing an accountancy firm in a small business, asking it to report on the state of that business, and, subsequently—after the accountancy firm recommends liquidation—giving the insolvency work to the insolvency arm of that same accountancy firm. That is a crying scandal that should have been dealt with. The Royal Bank of Scotland has dealt with it by refusing to give both types of business to one firm, resulting in a reduction not only in the number of liquidations, but in the costs of the overall operation. We should be making that type of provision in this legislation.
  We are consulting the vultures and giving them more power, rather than safeguarding the interests of the victim in the desert who is crawling to shade and safety. The victim might make it to safety if the vultures were not being helped in our insolvency vulture culture. We should be helping the victims to survive, but we are only offering them a little piece of Elastoplast.
  I should like to deal with a few problems in the legislation. Hon. Members are right to praise provision of an extendable 28-day moratorium. However, why have only 28 days been provided? That is a very short time to allow businesses to put their affairs in order and to make a rescue plan. The United States chapter 11 procedure provides for 90 days, and that makes more sense. We should allow more time.
  Additionally, why is that 28-day period provided only for small businesses with fewer than 50 employees? If it is sauce for the small goose, surely it is also sauce for the big gander. Why cannot that protection be extended to medium and large-sized businesses? What is the problem? If we agree that there should be a rescue culture, and that the aim should be to keep the company going, to sustain jobs and to maintain the nexus of stakeholder connections, why is the provision made only for small businesses?
  The Minister told us that the provision is better than chapter 11. I do not think it is, for reasons that I shall explain later. However, if it is better than chapter 11, surely it should be extended to medium and large-sized enterprises, which affect many more jobs and the health of many more communities. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how many firms will be saved by the current proposal, and how many would be saved if the provision were extended to medium and large-sized businesses. If the provision is effective, it should be made available to every business.
  My preference is for a 90-day provision, as under chapter 11 in the United States, which gives companies such as Chrysler a chance to reorganise and restructure their finances, to get a grip on things and to come through. That is what we should do. We should put the onus on bringing the company through. We have a grabbing insolvency culture, in which people say, "Let's get our hands on the assets and flog them off as much as we can. Let's keep things going as long as we can to get the fees as high as we can." The fees are usually exorbitant. The culture should be entirely the opposite; it should be one of keeping firms going, and chapter 11 provides for that.
  As we heard earlier, lawyers have to be paid and chapter 11 is subject to all kinds of constraint, but so is the procedure under the Bill. The new practitioners will have to be paid considerable sums to get the procedure going. Either way, professional assistance and support must be financed, but chapter 11 seems to be more fundamental and better because it changes the whole culture.

  181
  The Bill will provide minimal protection, which will neither change attitudes much nor provide generous help to small companies. Chapter 11 changes the culture and places the onus on survival, so why not use chapter 11 provisions for medium and large businesses?
  We promised before we came to power to promote a stakeholder culture. We should indeed promote a stakeholder culture, but the employees of small businesses are crucial to such a culture. The employees may or may not be organised in unions, but they should be part of the consultative process to institute the new procedures. Why are they excluded from them? Why is the only interest considered, especially by the banks involved, that of taking the decision for a creditor's voluntary arrangement? That is a matter of vital concern to the employees, both part-time and full-time. Their jobs are affected; they have a vital stake; so why cannot they be consulted?
  Employees will be taken into account in the insolvency proceedings because they will become creditors if things do not work out, even if they were not notified of the arrangements. Why cannot they be included in the consultative procedure? The creditors, part-time employees, pieceworkers and subcontractors working from home all need to participate and be specifically recognised in the process. They need specific protection, but the Bill will not give it to them. That is a serious flaw.
  The vested interests in the procedure are still too strong. If a company runs into difficulty and its directors think that it is trading while insolvent, they are personally liable for its debts. Therefore, at the first sign of a problem, they will rush to an insolvency practitioner, saying, "What are we going to do?" The practitioner will charge them a fee, thus compounding the problem. He may refer the directors to the new supervisor or nominee provided for in the Bill, who will charge another fee.
  The insolvency practitioner who the directors approach is unlikely to be anxious to avoid the opportunity to make money by advising them to use a voluntary arrangement and, subsequently, turning it into an administration, from which he will receive fees. Such scams have been going on for 20 years or more, and I have constantly notified the Department about them, but no action results.
  Let us imagine that a company finds itself in difficulty. Significant creditors will come together and the banks will dominate the proceedings. It is likely that the banks will not agree to a voluntary arrangement unless they first receive a report from an accountant. As now, they will want to see an accountant's report. Therefore, rather than giving a clean bill of health, the accountant will have a vested interest to get subsequent work for his firm. He will suggest that if a company has problems, it should consider a voluntary arrangement, which involves fees, or that it should be put into liquidation, which will provide more fees for his firm. Vested interests are still involved.
  We have not dealt with the problem of restraining the vested interests and requiring that those people in a firm who provide accountancy advice should not deal with the voluntary arrangement or the insolvency if a company goes into liquidation. There is a definite pressure on those people to recommend a certain course of action and that their firm should carry out the work.
  182
  I have corresponded for a long period with the hapless, pathetic regulators in insolvency and with the DTI about the J.S. Bass case in Manchester. In that case, there was clearly a ramp between Barclays bank and Ernst and Whinney—subsequently Ernst and Young—which was put in to write the report, recommend liquidation, grab the fees and liquidate the company, even though its assets were substantially greater than its debts, so putting it out of business. That firm was bigger than one with 50 employees as referred to in the Bill, so it would not benefit from such arrangements. However, pressures to do what was done in that case still exist and remain unregulated, which will affect the voluntary arrangements, too. We shall not provide effective protection unless we regulate and remove that anomaly so that those who carry out the investigation should not be involved in the other arrangements.
  Will the nominee or supervisor—the man who will handle the turning around of a company—have a duty of care and, if so, to whom will it be owed? Will it be owed to the individual creditors or a creditor, perhaps the bank, or to the creditors collectively? Will it be owed to individual shareholders, to shareholders collectively, or to other stakeholders?
  The Minister made an important point. I had better call him my hon. Friend; I have every confidence in him as a Minister and he makes the points very well. However, he is effectively expanding a state guaranteed market. The insolvency practitioners will have a monopoly; they will have a state guarantee.
  An answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled states that there are only 1,800 licensed practitioners, of whom 1,270 are currently taking appointments. That is a very small number of insolvency practitioners. There is a pressing need to regulate them, as well as adding to their number under the Bill. Regulation should ensure that practitioners publish meaningful information about their affairs, as should the new nominees. What is their record on saving businesses and rescuing jobs? What fees do they charge? Such information should be in the public domain so that a company in difficulty, which is considering bringing in a nominee and submitting itself to a voluntary arrangement, knows who to turn to for help, what support is available and what the fees will be. What information will be published? The public must be aware of such matters.
  If the advice and support service is to be restricted to small firms only, why cannot the DTI provide it? Why must it be provided by another group of practitioners? Why cannot there be fair competition from the public sector? Those involved will be subject to professional regulation, but it will not extend to fees. The Association for Accountancy and Business Affairs has published a series of examples of that. I recommend to the Minister our exciting publication entitled, "Insolvent Abuse: Regulating the Insolvency Industry", which shows that the fees charged go as high as £500 an hour. That is not peanuts. When will such huge charges be regulated? They have a crucial effect on a small firm's ability to survive.
  When will the insolvency profession be regulated effectively? My hon. Friend has said that a new regulator will be appointed. At present, 1,800 practitioners are regulated by eight professional bodies, and the Department of Trade and Industry. I argue that that structure should be simplified to one independent regulator, but the Government propose to add another,

  183
  non-independent, regulator at the apex of the structure. That regulator will not have the power to deal with individual cases and complaint investigation procedures, and there will not be the ombudsman necessary for effective appeals. The need for an effective appeals machinery, for effective redress and the control of fees, is even more acute for small businesses. The Bill gives small businesses additional help towards survival, but we should regulate the insolvency profession at the same time. The culture in that profession is to grab the fees, and to make them as high as possible.
  It is important to regulate insolvency practitioners. Voluntary arrangements have been in place since 1986. My hon. Friend gave the House figures that show that such arrangements are rarely invoked. In 1998, 11,771 companies were wound up, of which only 470 went into a voluntary arrangement. That shows, tellingly, that the provision made in 1986 is not much used.
  My hon. Friend hopes that the Bill will cause that provision to be used more widely, and so do I, but is the provision little used because people are scared of the insolvency profession and the fees that are charged? Are they worried that they will not receive reasonable and fair treatment? There is no right of appeal about the treatment that they receive and no way to contest the fees that are imposed. Is it not possible that people are put off entering voluntary arrangements more by such factors than by the difficulties that the Bill is designed to ease? I believe that the central problems are the scale of fees and the lack of regulation.
  In conclusion, I am worried that the Bill and its fast-track disqualification procedures will conflict with the human rights legislation to which we now are subject.
  Dr. Howells: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the vexed question of human rights. However, I can assure him that the Department has studied the matter in depth, and we believe that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights.
  Mr. Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I hope that that is the case, but the new procedure makes the Department of Trade and Industry investigator, judge, jury and deal maker in the agreements under which wealthy directors will disqualify themselves. The Bill does not say that the Secretary of State will have to publish a full transcript of any deal struck with such directors. In fact, the convictions in this country of the directors involved in the Guinness affair have been overturned recently by the European Court on the ground that they contravened the convention on human rights in ways similar to those I have described this evening. I am worried about passing a Bill that could be stymied and rendered unenforceable by the appeals that could be generated.
  The Bill is a little mouse of a measure. It is welcome—I love small animals. It will bring about an incremental change, but it will not change the insolvency industry's culture, which is loaded far too heavily against small firms and small entrepreneurs, and against survival and in favour of safeguarding the banks and grabbing company assets.
  The Bill misses an opportunity in that respect. My hon. Friend accused me, in connection with the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill, of trying to regulate through
  184
  legislation. However, that would not be necessary if the Department of Trade and Industry were to do its job and impose a proper framework of regulation on this benighted industry.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). When I worked for Ernst and Young, partners in that firm made it clear that the hon. Gentleman was held in great esteem. There was respect, if not reverence, for his views and for his ability to get publicity for them in the accountancy press.
  I hope that the Minister will respond to one of the questions that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby asked. Why is the Bill not being extended to cover medium-sized and large businesses? One of the rationales for introducing the Bill is that it will save jobs. Only 0.5 per cent. of all businesses have more than 100 employees, but the businesses excluded from the terms of the Bill account for about 55.7 per cent. of business turnover in the United Kingdom, and employ 48.8 per cent. of those employed in this country.
  Extending the provisions of the Bill to larger companies would have a very considerable impact. As the hon. Gentleman has outlined, it might be more realistic to apply them to larger businesses than to very small ones. I am grateful to the Federation of Small Businesses for the data on the proportion of people employed in businesses that are much larger than those specified in the Bill as small businesses.
  I support what my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) said about the Bill being considered so late in the parliamentary Session. It need not have happened that way. In appendix 7 on page 58 of the second report from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the evidence given on 20 October 1999 by the permanent secretary at the Department is printed. Trying to justify the fact that there had been a minimum period of consultation and a very small number of consultees, he said:
  You will know from the copy consultation letter sent to the Committee that it is Ministers' hope to be able to introduce an Insolvency Bill at a relatively early stage in the 1999–2000 session of Parliament.
  The Bill was included in the Queen's Speech of 17 November 1999, but it was not introduced into the other place until 3 February this year. The Bill received its Second Reading on 4 April, and was considered by a Committee of the whole House for one day on 15 June. The Report stage took place on 3 July, and Third Reading on 26 July.
  The Minister was right to be rather defensive when he began his remarks by referring to the pertinent observations of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in yesterday's debate. The right hon. Gentleman memorably said that perhaps this should be called the Bankruptcy Bill [Commons] rather than the Insolvency Bill [Lords]. His point was that we should be more inclined to hold the Executive to account for the waste of legislative time, which is precious indeed.
  This is an example of the Government saying that they will legislate at speed but instead legislating very slowly and delaying the consultation process. Then, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, after a 12-week recess, the

  185
  first full day's debate must be given over to this Bill which, although everyone accepts it is important, is not the most important issue facing the country. Yet we have to spend Tuesday debating it because the Committee of Selection meets on Wednesday, and if the Bill is not given a Second Reading before then, the Committee will not be able to decide on the membership of the Standing Committee to meet next week. For the Government to have created a situation in which this House has to debate the least important legislation at the very beginning of the spill-over Session is an indictment of the Executive. We should not allow it to happen again and it should certainly not go unremarked by the House. I therefore agree with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  The Minister has told us that the legislation is proceeding ahead of decisions on two broader reviews, initiated by the Government, on company rescue and personal bankruptcy. It is a pity that the Government seem to be the author of the delay that has resulted in this piecemeal legislation. Let me illustrate my point.
  In December 1998, when the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he launched the competitiveness White Paper. He announced reviews into company rescue and the stigma of bankruptcy. Under that White Paper implementation plan, the idea was that the company rescue review would be completed by July 1999. If it had been, the results could have been fed in to the legislation. Needless to say, it was not completed by July 1999, and the resulting delays mean that the results of the review are not available.
  On the reform of bankruptcy law, the same White Paper in December 1998 announced by the Secretary of State was re-announced on 2 February 1999. He said that the review would report to him by the end of April 1999. Officials did, indeed, report to Ministers by the end of April 1999. The Secretary of State took rather a long time to consider their views—he did not make an announcement until 2 July. In other words, it took him the whole of May and June to decide what to do in the light of a review which had itself taken only two months.
  The right hon. Gentleman then announced that there would be further consultation. The announcement was made at a big event at which the right hon. Gentleman was obviously short of other things to say. He was giving a speech to a joint United States embassy, Department of Trade and Industry and Treasury conference on "Fostering Enterprise—the American Experience". He said:
  I now plan to consult on this proposal and on the possibility of differentiating between bankrupts who have been simply unfortunate and those who are guilty of unacceptable behaviour.
  Fine—but then what happened? We had to wait until 7 April 2000 before he actually issued his consultation document—a further nine-month delay.
  The consultation paper was then issued, setting out five options. Consultees were required to respond by 30 June, which they did, yet their responses are apparently still being analysed—or, if they have now been analysed by the Insolvency Service and the information has been given to the current Secretary of State, he has not yet thought fit to divulge the results to the House.
  It is vital that we have the benefit of the outcome of that much-delayed consultation to inform the Committee's proceedings on the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be
  186
  able to tell us that the information and documentation will be made available to members of the Committee so that they can use it to inform their detailed scrutiny of the Bill in Committee.
  I fear that the whole exercise has been designed to ensure that the results of the consultation are not available until after the legislation has been passed so that the Government can then say that it is too late and nothing can be done. However, the Government have said that they wish to legislate—although they had the opportunity to do so in this Session and wasted it. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said, we now have this mouse of a Bill. What a way to run a Government and what a way to treat this legislature—this mother of Parliaments. The problem is that the Government are obsessed with soundbites and do not get down to the substance.
  I am concerned about a couple of elements in the Bill. In an intervention, I asked the Minister about directors who undertook to accept a disqualification for whatever period and whether there would be any basis for other people to know the facts underlying those undertakings. If a disqualification takes place, particularly if it does not happen in a court, it is important for outside and third parties to have access to the information on the basis of which the decision was reached. This will be important if a director subsequently applies to have his undertaking altered. For example, having undertaken to be disqualified for five years, he could, after two or three years, ask to be relieved of his undertaking and have the disqualification lifted straight away. The people dealing with the arrangements will need to know the basis and the facts on which the director accepted the undertaking in the first place.
  I have an acquaintance who was the subject of proceedings under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. There were implications for him from the consequences of the professional disciplinary hearings that followed. He had a big argument with his professional body because there was no basis on which to agree on the facts on which the disqualification had been based. The abbreviated procedure before the courts had been used in that instance.
  It is vital and in the public interest that there should be an agreed statement of facts, behind which the director cannot go subsequently, so that comparisons can be made between the agreed statement of facts in one case and another. We are talking about a very wide discretion being given to allow disqualifications by undertaking lasting from anything between two and 15 years. It is not as if case law can be studied, so how are people to know what the benchmark is for a disqualification for a period of two, three, five or 15 years?
  It should not be possible for a director to accept an undertaking to be disqualified for a period of as long as 15 years for a serious offence. Similarly, if people are caught speeding on our roads, they might receive a fixed penalty notice, but the police and prosecuting authorities have the discretion to bring the matter before a court if they think it is sufficiently serious. If an offence is sufficiently serious to warrant a 15-year disqualification, or even a five-year disqualification, surely it should be brought before the courts and be open to public scrutiny.
  The Select Committee made that point in its inquiry. It came up with a concise recommendation, on which the

  187
  Government then commented, saying that they were not convinced of the select committee's argument. in paragraph 41 of its report the select committee said:
  we consider that there could usefully be explicit provision for a statement of fact on which the undertaking was based to be available to the court in the event of subsequent proceedings.
  In their response the government said:
  we note the committee's views and understand its concerns. We are mindful, however, of the danger of placing too much emphasis on the form of the procedure (statement of unfitted conduct) rather than on the substance of the underlying legislation (early provision of the protection for business and for the public generally which the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 is intended to provide).
  I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in your wisdom you immediately understand the Government's reasoning. However, the members and Clerk of the Select Committee found the Government's response or justification obscure in the extreme, which relates to the obtuse reply that the Minister gave me earlier. I hope that in Committee the Minister will introduce into the Bill a provision that will permit an agreed statement of fact to underlie the acceptance of undertakings for disqualification, which will introduce a degree of transparency important to this process.
  I also wish to express solidarity with the Institute of Directors, which is concerned that undue pressure may be put on directors to accept undertakings rather than go to court, and says:

  We agree that the option of disqualification undertakings should be introduced. However, it will be very important that directors offered the option of an undertaking are not under any pressure to take it, rather than going to court. It would not be healthy for a plea-bargaining culture to develop, on the lines of "Accept a three-year disqualification undertaking, or go to court where we will press for five years".
  The institute's concern is genuine and, to avoid such danger it suggests that
  procedures governing the way in which the option of an undertaking is brought up and discussed with a director need to be developed and published.
  The institute continues:
  There may be much to be learnt here from the Inland Revenue's procedures under which people caught evading tax are offered the option of an informal financial settlement.
  The criteria that apply to whether someone should be disqualified for two, five or 15 years should be made open to all so that a director facing disqualification who is negotiating on his own behalf has access to information that otherwise might not be available. It could be oppressive for him to argue against the authorities, who could say that he might get a much higher sentence if he does not accept the position and goes to court. The Institute of Directors makes a good point, and I hope that the Minister will respond to it.
  I deal now with the financial effects of the Bill. More than once in his opening remarks, the Minister said that savings in time and money would result from the accelerated disqualification procedure. However, according to the explanatory notes to the Bill, there are no beneficial financial effects, which leads to concern about whether the savings that the Minister used to justify the procedure will take place. Indeed, the explanatory notes justify the procedures relating to directors on the basis that that will speed up the process and do not state that there will be a saving. Will the Minister explain a conundrum?
  188
  Surely, if fewer cases are referred to the court and each case takes less time, savings will result from that accelerated disqualification procedure. If there are not going to be savings, why is the House being asked to rush the Bill through?
  Finally, although some people may feel that these changes will be beneficial, a much larger body of consumers will be concerned about rogues who do not operate within the protection of a company framework. Tomorrow, the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) will ask for leave to introduce a Bill on rogue traders under the ten-minute rule motion. Our constituents are genuinely concerned about rogue traders who are not incorporated. The Government are introducing piecemeal legislation and I expect them to confirm that they will not be able to introduce legislation on consumer affairs in the coming Session, as they originally forecast. The result of misuse and waste of parliamentary time is that issues relating to rogue traders who are not incorporated will not be the subject of legislation in this Session or, indeed, during the course of this Parliament, which is to be regretted.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Page: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I began my earlier contribution to this debate by speculating on the equine parentage of the Bill. You were not in the Chair then, and did not have the privilege of hearing my introduction, but many right hon. and hon. Members know that I have an interest in the horse-racing industry. Having listened carefully to the Minister's arguments and hon. Members' comments, I have no doubt that the Bill reflects sound ideas and good intentions. However, I am not fully convinced of its chances of remedying the problems that it aims to address. It seems less of a thoroughbred than I would have hoped and more of a slightly battered carthorse.
  Dr. Howells: Is that me or the Bill?
  Mr. Page: The Minister can relax, as I shall come to him in a moment or two.
  Generally, the Opposition welcome the Bill, with the proviso that we shall try to improve it in Committee. I very much welcome the observations of the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), who said that, unavoidably, he has to go away. I took great pleasure in his railing against the closed shop of insolvency practitioners. There is great joy in heaven over a sinner who repenteth. I accept the hon. Gentleman's reservation that, if we are going to open up that closed shop, we must make sure that the authorised person is qualified to undertake the work.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) very much agreed with me that the review processes should have taken place before the Bill was introduced. I believe that the House generally is of that opinion.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) started loyally by saying that he could not understand any of my doubts about the Bill, but spent the next 20 minutes outlining his own doubts and worries about how it would work, and if it would work at all. I share many of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and he can do no harm in my eyes since he has endorsed the principle of my ten-minute Bill under which the role of the insolvency practitioner in recommending administrative receivership should be

  189
  taken away from those asked to undertake that receivership. The situation is similar to having a judge and jury who would be paid £10 for letting a defendant off but £100 for finding the accused guilty.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), having heard the rumour that there will be no Department of Trade and Industry Bills in the forthcoming Queen's Speech, outlined in his efficient and effective manner the chaos of the Government's timetable management. His every word was a hammer blow against the incompetence and inefficiency that the DTI displayed in handling its affairs this year. Normally, I would blame the Minister for that, but he is just the fall guy. The Secretary of State should have taken a grip to prevent the year of confusion that the DTI has gone through. I shall not spend the time of the House going through the various Bills that had to be curtailed or cut in half or the record number of amendments that had to be tabled, as that would take me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  My hon. Friend was right to discuss the principles involved in the process of disqualification of a director. They must be clearly understood, and we look to the Minister to expand on what is written in the Bill and to tell us exactly how it will work to prevent future problems.
  One of the Bill's basic problems is that it fails fully to reflect the realities of the business world. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby touched on much of that problem. It is all very well to place a moratorium on the shoulders of a small company facing difficulties. The merits of requiring it to seek the views of an insolvency practitioner on the practicality of proposals for a voluntary agreement with creditors have been rehearsed in the other place, and by me and others today.
  Any creditor of sense will approve arrangements that will ensure the payment of what is owed. I do not dispute that. In real life, however, the slightest hint that a small company is in trouble and may be unable to meet its obligations will almost certainly cause banks or trade creditors to act before the firm's directors can even begin to seek a moratorium. I hope that I am wrong, but I fear that the Bill may prove counter-productive. Often, only the threat that creditors will lose everything allows companies in trouble to recover, as I know from my business experience. However, banks, which are so often the instigators of proceedings, are also often in a protected position, and are therefore released from that pressure.
  I am greatly concerned about the Government's apparent belief—contained in the words of Lord McIntosh in the other place—that the directors of a small company
  should remain in control of the company and its business during the moratorium.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 April 2000; Vol. 611, c. 1249.]
  That is hardly compatible with the powers to monitor the company's activities which are to be granted to nominees during the moratorium, or with extensive restrictions on the capacity of such companies to enter into market contracts. We all know the difficulties that will be placed on a small business that is trying to operate during a moratorium and trying to gain money to buy and sell stock.
  It is not surprising that the Minister takes such a relaxed attitude towards allowing the decisions of a nominee to be challenged in the courts by the creditors, directors or
  190
  members of a company or any other persons who are affected by the moratorium. Whether we like it or not, such a provision is a standing invitation for aggrieved parties to hamstring the aims of the Bill. Nominees are unlikely to be willing to place themselves in situations in which their decisions might be subject to such challenges. Exactly what supervisors and nominees would gain from the new procedures envisaged in the Bill remains to be explained.
  These practical issues must be explored in Committee. The Conservatives will seek more convincing arguments than have come from the other place or, dare I say it, from the Minister today. We shall, however, go into Committee willingly and positively, and try to make the Bill work. We shall do what we can to help small businesses to survive and live longer in a difficult world.
  7.35 pm
  Dr. Howells: I thank the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page)—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Minister would wish to seek the leave of the House if he wants to speak a second time.
  Dr. Howells: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to some of the points raised. I am afraid that the new regime seems to have gone to my head.
  I welcome the partial support offered by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, but I am at a loss to understand why the Government are being pressed to hold off. For years, we have been urged to provide for a moratorium in the company voluntary arrangement procedure, and we have been told that that is necessary to make the procedure more effective. Yet the moment that we act to put the first building block in place, we find ourselves urged not to act, but to delay so that there can be time for further consideration. Where does that leave companies that need a breathing space now? Are they to be allowed to go under because the Bill is not sufficiently elegant to draw entirely on the two reviews mentioned by the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Page: The Minister is, if I may put it delicately, being disingenuous. He well knows that the complaint that we are making against the Government is that the reviews were not started earlier so that they could have been combined with the Bill. No one wants to hold the Bill up. Indeed, I am complaining that it was not enacted with greater expedition and much sooner.
  Dr. Howells: I accept that there has been some congestion, and that it has been caused mostly by DTI Bills: I know, because I have presented most of them. However, I am staggered to hear the Opposition react as they have. Much of what we are doing is based on a draft Bill drawn up by the Conservative Government of the mid-1990s. For whatever reason—no time or no political will—they could not get their act together to put the Bill on to the statute book. We are trying to enact, but we are hearing grudging delaying tactics from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). It was pretty rich of him to talk about delays when it was all I could do to stay awake

  191
  as he went through his catalogue of imagined delays that he presumed the Government to be applying on purpose. That is, of course, complete nonsense.
  Mr. Chope: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Howells: No.
  The consultation paper, "Bankruptcy: A Fresh Start", touches on individual voluntary arrangements under the Insolvency Act 1986. Again, however, its scope is much broader than that limited area. I admit that we are a long way from reaching conclusions on those matters, but the changes that we propose through the Bill to the individual voluntary arrangement procedure are needed now if we are to make it more efficient and effective.
  The Bill includes proposals on other important matters, all of which have received a broad measure of support both in and out of Parliament. Those issues are needed now, not at some indeterminate time in future. I hope that we shall hear no more suggestions that the Bill should be delayed.
  Unfortunately, because of lengthy speeches—by me as well as by the hon. Member for Christchurch—some prime contributors to this debate have left the Chamber, for unavoidable reasons.
  I welcome the important contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), which was the only one to set the issue in a broader context. He reminded us that we should have a different attitude towards honest business failure, which should not carry the stigma that it so often does. The Unites States has a different attitude—that that experience goes under the belt of the business man or woman who suffered it. It is often seen as an asset.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned—as did others—the time allowed for consultation. There is no question about the fact that we were pushed for time. I will not try to excuse it. We tried hard to consult as widely as we could. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who is also pressed for time, let me say that we talked to some of the "victims"—as he put it—as well as the vested interests that he also mentioned.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil was concerned, as was the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, with the important matter of how to prevent a landlord or a utility company closing in during a moratorium on a company. Paragraphs 5 to 12 of schedule 1 make consequential amendments to the Insolvency Act 1986. For example, the amendments to section 233 will not permit suppliers of gas, water and electricity to require a nominee to pay outstanding debts for supply as a condition of supply during the moratorium. I hope that that is helpful.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) is present on the Liberal Democrat Benches because his hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) made a constructive contribution. He asked about international issues, which are difficult. The UNCITRAL measures—I cannot think of another way of pronouncing that hideous acronym—cannot apply if the European Community regulation applies. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the power would impact on the EC regulation on insolvency proceedings. I hope that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will tell him that the answer is no. Where
  192
  the EC regulation applies, it will do so to the exclusion of any other provision. That EC regulation comes into force on 31 May 2002.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby, who has now left the Chamber—he was here when I looked round just now—warned us not to be lured on to the rocks by the siren voices of vested interests. He repeated some of the criticisms about the restricted nature of the consultation process. As I have said, there has been extensive consultation. Much of what my hon. Friend had to say went beyond the measures in the Bill. You were right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to let him run with that theme, which I have heard a number of times. It is a healthy route for him to follow. We sometimes need to be reminded that some powerful vested interests might be strengthened by aspects of the Bill if it were not drafted so expertly.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch seemed to do his level best to add to the delay—which may or may not have taken place—in the process of this legislation. However, his argument about introducing transparency into the disqualification undertaking is important. I told him that I would try to answer some of his questions. He seems more concerned with form than substance. The purpose of the disqualification process is to get the director out of the corporate sphere as quickly as possible. That is what concerns me most. The hon. Gentleman questioned how we can guarantee that costs will be less, which is an interesting issue. That is substantially a matter not for the Department but for the courts and defendants. However, I shall try to supply him with up-to-date figures on impact assessment before the Bill goes into Standing Committee—I hope that he will be a member of that Committee because he inevitably graces such Committees with his erudite comments and criticisms.
  The intention is that the case against each director will be prepared up to the point at which proceedings could be issued. At that juncture, the Secretary of State will contact the director concerned, who will be invited to say whether he wishes to consent to a specified period of disqualification by way of giving an undertaking. The intention is not to pressurise. If a director does not take up that opportunity, proceedings will be issued in the normal way. It will remain for the director to decide whether he wants to contest the disqualification application in the courts.
  Mr. Chope: Will the length of the disqualification period be subject to negotiation or on a take-it-or-leave-it basis?
  Dr. Howells: That gives rise to the question whether there should be a schedule of unfitted conduct. Would it be a precondition of a disqualification undertaking and how long might it be? I think that a schedule of unfitted conduct would not be a precondition, but as a matter of practice the Secretary of State would agree the unfitted conduct before accepting an undertaking in accordance with practice post the Woolf civil justice procedure reforms. However, for a variety of reasons, that might not always be possible. For the Secretary of State only to be able to accept an undertaking in cases when a schedule has been agreed would be unduly restrictive and could delay putting in place the protection that the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 is intended to provide. It might also increase costs if there is a difficulty in agreeing to a schedule.

  193
  I hope that I have answered most of the questions. I have no doubt that we can explore them further in Committee. On the basis of what I have said, I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  NON-SITTING FRIDAYS
  Resolved,
  That the House shall not sit on Friday 27th October and Friday 3rd November, and the provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4) of Standing Order No. 12 (House not to sit on certain Fridays) shall apply to those days.—[Mr. Pope.]

  Orchard Hill
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Tom Brake: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important matter and will briefly outline the services that are on offer at Orchard Hill in case the Minister is not familiar with the establishment.
  Orchard Hill is a campus-style hospital run by the South West London Community NHS trust for people with learning disabilities. It is one of two remaining sites in London for such people. It has a 47-acre site in Carshalton next to the site of the old Queen Mary's hospital for children, which closed some years ago. At present, it is home to about 110 people, most of whom have lived there for all their adult life. The people at Orchard Hill tend to have greater disabilities than most—many have mobility problems or are incontinent, some are blind and most require nursing assistance. The majority are over 30 and nearly 90 per cent. have been at Orchard Hill more than 20 years.
  As well as being a place where people live and are supported by trained staff, the hospital site has other facilities for people with learning disabilities, not all of which are managed by the trust. For instance, they include short-term, in-patient beds for the assessment, treatment and respite care of people with learning disabilities. There is a further education service, providing a wide range of courses; there is a structured curriculum, with the flexibility to meet individual needs—including communication, physical education and life skills—and specialist courses for students with sensory impairments as well as courses on the arts and sciences.
  Orchard Hill can be classed as a unique college for people with learning disabilities. Also on site, there are day services and an experience park. There is a dedicated health centre and a hydrotherapy pool. Some of those services are used by people from the wider community.
  There are, however, some difficulties. The campus is old-fashioned and, by contemporary standards, the buildings offer poor accommodation for the services provided. Residents lack both privacy and homely environments. Although some residents' families consider the care provided as adequate, others consider that the service reflects the running down of Orchard Hill. The Minister will agree that that matter needs to be addressed.
  In 1999, a consultation document was produced on services at Orchard Hill for people with a learning disability. Orchard Hill was under threat of closure. Worried parents took the matter to a judicial review and the decision on Orchard Hill was quashed by Mr. Justice Jackson. It is likely, however, that the South West London Community NHS trust will introduce similar proposals, taking into account the criticisms made by Mr. Justice Jackson. It is for that reason that I requested the debate. For the sake of residents at Orchard Hill and their relatives, it is essential that any further plans to make changes are carried out correctly and appropriately by the trust.
  I seek reassurance from the Minister that plans will proceed in the manner that will—most important—identify and meet the medical, social and sensory needs

  195
  of each individual, confirming whether, in fact, they need a medical or a non-medical model of care; assess the psychological impact of moving; minimise the anxiety of relatives; improve current standards of care; and provide a relevant service for the future. The Minister will no doubt agree that we have progressed from Victorian policies for the care and treatment of people with learning disabilities that centred on the use of large institutions.
  The most recent guidance for people with learning disabilities is contained in "Signposts for success in commissioning and providing health services for people with learning disabilities", published by the Department of Health in 1998. Orchard Hill can meet many of the recommendations set out in that document. An exception, however, is the recommendation that people with learning disabilities should ideally have experience of community services that are not institutional in style.
  Why has the South West London Community NHS trust proposed changes for Orchard Hill? In part, no doubt, it is in response to Government policy. However, many other reasons for change are put forward.
  Without a major source of capital investment, the viability of the site will increasingly be challenged; it would be unacceptable for residents to remain on a site that was in permanent decline. Change is happening anyway, because the population at Orchard Hill is an ageing one. People are discharged at the request of a relative or of health authorities and, sadly, several residents have died.
  As the cost per capita rises, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain quality. The hospital site is mostly made up of older buildings. That is not an appropriate environment in which to provide care and many professionals are reluctant to work in such settings.
  Of course, the new generation of people with learning disabilities expects that services will be more community based and less institutional in style. All national health service bodies have a duty to seek services that make the best use of limited resources.
  In 1998, a project board was set up to look at the options for change at Orchard Hill. It soon became clear that a single model would not be practical. A proposal was made to minimise the disruption to clients with the highest need by retaining some existing bungalows while offering new opportunities to the more able residents by creating some new residential services. It was proposed to use land already owned by the trust and to use the independent sector to offer places to the majority of residents. It was thought that such an approach could be more easily tailored to fit individual needs.
  The response of relatives to the proposals was generally negative. A third were opposed to the proposed changes. A third said that they might support them if the final arrangements were suitable for the individuals concerned. A third were undecided. Apparently, only one person supported the plans, while 68 per cent. of the next of kin felt that the changes presented no opportunities for residents.
  Why was the response so negative? There are several reasons. Next of kin are concerned that the plans will result in the loss of staff who have intimate knowledge of the residents. Most were concerned about the location of future homes, especially as some residents will become the responsibility of the health authority that originally placed them at Orchard Hill. Next of kin were worried
  196
  that individual placements might not meet the needs of individuals and that monitoring of the independent sector might be deficient. The consultation process carried out by the trust did not appear to address those concerns. That needs to be corrected in future reviews.
  It should not be forgotten that the people at Orchard Hill are severely disabled; the majority have a mental age of between two and five. The site benefits from its surroundings of wide open spaces—a fact that I can vouch for, having visited it on many occasions—and from the safe environment in which people who are hyperactive can release energy and walk safely. Relatives are concerned that those important benefits will be lost—to the detriment of the residents.
  At the judicial review, Mr. Justice Jackson quashed the consultation process because of a flaw in the decision-making procedures; the health authority had not taken into account the promise made to so many residents that Orchard Hill was a "home for life". Although I realise that a public authority cannot be expected to keep all the promises of its predecessors when considering actions that would take the opposite direction to such promises, they must still be taken into consideration. Furthermore, the process was deeply flawed because the trust had neglected to carry out individual assessments of need.
  Mr. Justice Jackson questioned the backbone of the plans for change when he queried whether
  institutionalisation is the real problem for these particular individuals.
  That is a worrying observation and undermines one of the trust's major reasons for undertaking the project.
  For ageing parents of residents, many of whom have contacted me, their sense of security for the future has been shaken. Any future plans must proceed sensitively and appropriately. Given that, in the past, the trust has shown a serious operational deficit, and bearing in mind the Government's calls for care in the community, there is an impression that change is being driven by a cost-cutting exercise and a top-down agenda for the future of learning disability services nationally and by the reconfiguration of all such services locally. I should like to see evidence that change is being driven by all that is in the best interests of users, patients and the general public.
  During the Orchard Hill project, one of the proposals considered was for a care village environment. The situation at Orchard Hill almost fits such criteria already. However, the team considering the proposals did not believe that Orchard Hill adhered entirely to the Government's policy of care in the community. The team was concerned that a ghetto might be created and that the services provided in the village and in other mainstream facilities raised issues of access and integration. However, I question whether the care village proposal was given sufficient consideration.
  As the Minister may be aware, Baroness Caroline Cox and Lord Malcolm Pearson recently published "Made to Care: The Case for Residential and Village Communities for People with a Mental Handicap". The paper states that the policy of integration was associated
  with the swing of another pendulum away from a "medical model" of care towards a model of "social care" based on the assumption that most mentally handicapped people are not ill, but have largely "social needs".
  That swing has obscured the fact that the health needs of people with mental handicap tend to be greater than those of the general population. Many suffer from multiple handicaps, which need medical care and clinical expertise.

  197
  Baroness Cox acknowledges that, although a move into the community has been successful for many people—because they have gained independence, autonomy, dignity and self-esteem—it does not mean that de-institutionalisation is the most appropriate or suitable option for everyone.
  Initially, those who have been discharged from long-stay institutions have been the people who have been the least disabled and the most independent. Now it is likely to be those who are severely disabled and who require a more complex pattern of care.
  Are village communities a viable option? I believe that they are. They can provide humane individualised care and offer many advantages. Continuous nursing care can be provided most appropriately in such communities. It is important to bear in mind that people who are highly dependent and vulnerable might find that living in a house in a busy suburban area is more confining than living in a village community.
  Financially, the capital costs of moving someone from a hospital to a specially adapted house in the community, without health, recreational or educational services, is about £50,000, while a hospital site can be converted to a purpose-built village, using existing facilities, for about £20,000 per resident. Those figures were provided by Rescare, the National Society for Mentally Handicapped People in Residential Care, and they should not be ignored. Will the Minister use this opportunity to confirm whether he and his Government support the concept of village communities?
  Future proposals for Orchard Hill should not be about substituting good care for possibly ill-thought-out Government policy and potentially unsound monetary gain. The aim of the Orchard Hill project should be to secure a better future for its existing residents and to ensure that the local national health service and Sutton council develop better and more flexible models of service provision for local people.
  I am seeking a guarantee from the Minister that any future changes at Orchard Hill will improve the quality of life of the residents, not just maintain it at its existing level. I should also like the Minister to provide an assurance that, whatever the future of Orchard Hill, its residents will continue to have easy access to open space, with the high level of security that they currently enjoy. Should any of the Orchard Hill residents be moved, the new neighbours who will be living close to them should be educated and prepared to welcome them. I also want an assurance that alternative services to those that are currently available on site will be in place prior to the movement of residents; that the services that are currently free will remain free; that there will be equity between people of similar needs, regardless of their location; that adequate transport arrangements will be in place; and that the resources will be available for care in the community.
  Before any action is taken, it needs to be understood how those changes might affect the resources available to a new generation of service users who might be looking for similar facilities.
  I have spoken at some length, but it is a subject that affects the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will follow the
  198
  developments at Orchard Hill very closely, and will ensure that the review process on which the trust is about to embark is transparent, and provides the best care and education for Orchard Hill residents.
  8.3 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing the debate. I am grateful to him for indicating in advance some of the issues that he intended to raise. I hope to cover most of those this evening; if I do not, I shall certainly look at the Official Report and write to the hon. Gentleman on any points that are left outstanding.
  I welcome the opportunity to discuss the provision of health and education facilities at Orchard Hill and to mention briefly some of the wider issues concerning the development of services for people with learning disabilities. This is a very important issue. First, I am well aware that, for those using Orchard Hill and their relatives, this must be a very anxious time, and I am concerned to ensure that we provide the highest quality care and support for them now and in the future.
  I shall start by covering some of the background to the services and to the situation at Orchard Hill. As the hon. Gentleman said, Orchard Hill hospital was developed next to the old Queen Mary's hospital for children. The service built up on the site when, in the early 1970s, children often could not be transferred to St. Ebba's hospital in Epsom because no beds were available. Slowly, the number of adults with learning disabilities grew, and in the late 1970s it was agreed to have a unit for adults with learning disabilities in the grounds of St. Mary's. That became Orchard Hill hospital. Moving to more recent times, Queen Mary's hospital closed in 1993, although the Orchard Hill site was retained.
  Services for people with a learning disability have obviously changed considerably over the years in which Orchard Hill has been open. In the summer of 1999, Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority issued a consultation document on the future provision of services for people who live at Orchard Hill. The consultation period ran until mid November and the health authority considered the responses in January 2000.
  The relatives of three patients challenged the decision and were granted a judicial review at the High Court in July. Relatives were concerned about the fairness of the consultation process, the health authority's decision to close Orchard Hill and the health authority's failure, as they saw it, to take account of all the relevant considerations before taking its decision.
  The judge ruled that the decision was unlawful on the third point: that the health authority had failed to take account of relevant considerations. Let me say this now: Ministers are always concerned when relatives feel compelled to have recourse to the law in such circumstances. That is particularly the case when the matter concerns vulnerable and disadvantaged members of our society, although I was pleased to hear that the health authority had provided advocacy services for the people with a learning disability and their families, to help them to make their case.
  Let me move to the heart of the case. The judge felt that there were a number of grounds on which the health authority did not have adequate information. There was

  199
  evidence from correspondence and notes of meetings of prior promises of homes for life to patients and their relatives, and previously declared policy about the site. The judge declared that the indicative assessment that had been undertaken was not capable of supporting the health authority's decision on the future provision of services and that, at the very least, a public authority must take earlier promises into account when considering a course of action. Finally, he was critical of poor financial information—the hon. Gentleman mentioned that issue.
  I am pleased, although not surprised, to hear that the hon. Gentleman is keen to ensure that the future of residents at Orchard Hill is secured and considered in a sensitive, open way and through individually discussed and negotiated care plans; so am I. He made several very important points. Let me begin to address them.
  First, the health authority clearly needs to review its actions following the judgment. I believe that the health authority received the final written judgment only a few weeks ago, at the end of September. The health authority is committed to ensuring that people with learning disabilities, their relatives, trust staff and others are kept informed of future developments concerning Orchard Hill through a news sheet, letters and meetings. The authority is committed to discussing with them the need for further consultation.
  The hon. Gentleman is keen, as are the Government, to ensure that any changes to people's services are based on thorough, high-quality assessments, and that any decisions are based on the overall best interest of the individual client. The health authority is leading a review of the assessment process, in partnership with a large number of stakeholders, including the relatives.
  First, the new process will ensure that there is detailed information on the needs of individuals in terms of their individual and collective need for continuing health care services. Secondly, it will ensure that there is detailed information on the broad range of social care services needed by the individuals and the population of people living at Orchard Hill. Thirdly, it will ensure that there is detailed information about the assessment of the psychological impact on individuals that may be caused by moving them away from Orchard Hill. I believe that those were the three points on which the hon. Gentleman sought specific assurances from me.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that these detailed assessments and the development of individual care plans will take some time. Until that process has been completed for all the residents, the health authority would not be in a position to consider again any preferred locations for future services, or the future of Orchard Hill. The health authority expects to be in a position to do so by the middle of next year. I realise that that may seem a long time, but it is obviously necessary for the assessment process to be thorough and comprehensive.
  The hon. Gentleman is also anxious that future services fully meet people's needs, are provided equitably and are planned and provided in a timely and sensitive manner. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that must be the case. Indeed, it must also be the case that the services that are provided are available and appropriate for a new generation of service users. We know from research that members of the new generation, rightly, have higher expectations and hope to live close to their families.
  200
  We also know that there are increasing numbers of people with complex disabilities, and we must ensure that these services are available and appropriate for them.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the models of care for people with a learning disability. The Government are strongly committed to ensuring that people with a learning disability have the right to choose the kinds of services and accommodation that they prefer. We issued fresh guidance to local authorities and health authorities in July 1999 to confirm that, and we wish to ensure that commissioning policies reflect the diversity of needs and the rights of individuals to make an informed choice about where they live, when their preferred choice can meet assessed need and when it is affordable.
  We also acknowledge that small-scale domestic accommodation can often provide a high quality of care. Such accommodation can offer more potential for social inclusion and enhanced rights. However, as in any society, some people choose—for a variety of reasons—to live in alternative communities. Indeed, the survey commissioned by the Association for Residential Care as part of the work on the forthcoming White Paper on learning disabilities found 73 such communities already in existence. People with a learning disability should also have that right and choice wherever possible, and we are very keen that this option should be open to them and that their preferences are, wherever possible, respected.
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that nearly £3 billion a year is spent on health and social services provision for learning-disabled adults. We are keen to ensure that the current resources are spent effectively and efficiently in a way that delivers best value to people with learning disabilities wherever they live. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State announced last week, we are also looking at ways to ensure that the resources currently used to support former old long-stay patients, such as many of the people at Orchard Hill, are retained for learning disability services. As the hon. Gentleman says, educational opportunities for people with learning disabilities are provided on the site by Orchard Hill college. Those services are for those resident in Orchard Hill and for those living in the community.
  Education services for people with a learning disability are very valuable. It is only in the past 30 years that people with a learning disability have received mainstream education. The Government have been very concerned about improving basic skills provision, and the Moser report recommended that further consideration be given to the needs of people with learning difficulties and disabilities. As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Government recently published a report entitled "Learning to Succeed" and announced £1.5 million for further developments in this sector. This, we hope, will lead to significant improvements in the teaching of basic skills for people with a learning disability. The initiative, together with the new Disability Rights Commission, will help to bring high-quality education to everyone with learning disabilities, no matter where they live.
  It is the aim of Orchard Hill college to continue to provide a wide range of educational opportunities for people living at Orchard Hill and, increasingly, for those living in the community. We support such initiatives and it is our aim that such services continue to become better integrated with mainstream adult educational services.

  201
  At a wider level, the Government attach great importance to improving services for people with learning disabilities. One of the core principles set out in the NHS plan is that services will be shaped around the needs and preferences of individual patients, their families and their carers. That must apply just as much to people with learning disabilities as to anyone else. Guidance issued to health and local authorities back in 1992 was based on principles of person-centred planning, choice and involvement of both service users and their family carers. Those principles have stood the test of time, but they have not been applied consistently. They will provide the foundation for future service development.
  In October last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that we would be developing a new national learning disability strategy. At the conference of the Association of Directors of Social Services last week, it was announced that the national learning disability strategy would be published as a White Paper in the early months of next year.
  It has been 30 years since a Government took a comprehensive look at learning disability services. The need for this new strategy is long overdue. People with learning disabilities are among the most socially excluded and vulnerable groups. It is now time to make sure that help and support are in place to foster independence, provide new opportunities and deliver quality services.
  202
  The new national learning disability strategy is intended to do just that. It will seek to eliminate the inconsistencies that we know currently exist, and it will ensure that the delivery and the quality of the services on offer improve. It will make a real difference to many thousands of people, and the strategy has been developed across Government and not just in my Department.
  The hon. Gentleman raised several questions at the end of his remarks and I hope that I have dealt with most of them. If I have not, I shall write to him. He asked about charges, and I can assure him that NHS health care will, of course, remain free at the point of delivery. He asked about the level of security available for individuals. That must be got right and it will be based on an assessment of need. It is certainly our intention—overall and in the case of individual residents—that the quality of services should be improved and not just maintained as a result of the decisions that will ultimately have to be taken.
  I have described how the health authority has responded to the outcome of the judicial review, but I hope that I have also been able to put the local issues into their wider context. I know that the health authority will welcome the hon. Gentleman's continued interest in this matter, and I will ensure that he is kept informed of future developments.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Middle East
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. McNulty.]
10 am
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Given the serious nature of what is happening in the middle east, it is appropriate that it is the subject of the first debate to be held in this Chamber after the summer recess. I shall limit my remarks because I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute to the discussion. Everyone is concerned about what has been happening and the threat not only to Palestine, but to the stability of the entire region. We are all disturbed at the loss of life and the horrific scenes that have been displayed on our television screens during the past few weeks.
One matter that needs to be made clear is that the majority of the people who have lost their lives or who have been shot or otherwise injured have been Palestinian. Such a fact is not new; the majority of those who have been injured or killed each time violence has erupted in the West Bank and Gaza have been Palestinian. That is the inevitable result of both the fire power of the Israeli army and the use of disproportionate force when dealing with demonstrators.
A report in the Israeli newspaper Ha' Aretz last week suggested that the authorisation of live fire orders in response to Palestinian stone throwers for local Israeli force commanders has become more relaxed. That implies that throwing a stone could be life threatening and that it warrants a lethal response. International guidelines for the use of force and law enforcement officials, including the Israeli forces in occupied territories, say that action should be taken that is in proportion to the seriousness of the event and that firearms should be used only in self defence or in defence against the imminent threat of death or serious injury. Such authorisation suggests that Israeli forces in flak jackets in armoured vehicles are at risk of death or serious injury from stone throwing.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend accept that among the Palestinian crowds are people with guns, although it is true that younger people—perhaps without guns—have been put in the front line?
Mr. Gerrard: There is no question but that shots have been fired, but given all the events that have occurred, I have no doubt that there has been excessive use of force. Resolution 1322 of the United Nations Security Council, which was passed a few days ago by 14 votes to zero—with only the United States of America abstaining—states that acts of violence are condemned,
especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life.
2WH
It states that Israel, as the occupying power, should abide
by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
That is the view of the United Nations Security Council.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does my hon. Friend agree that the horrifying picture, which I am sure shocked everybody, of the little 12-year-old boy cowering next to his father before he was shot, was manifestly a case of somebody being killed who was not in the front line and nowhere near a sniper.
Mr. Gerrard: In years to come, when people look back on the events of the past few weeks, the picture to which my hon. Friend referred is the image that will remain in people's minds.
Everyone wants the violence to stop, but we must look beyond what has happened in the past few weeks and the efforts that are now being made to obtain not a peace settlement but a ceasefire, and consider why we have reached this point. I have heard it suggested that the Palestinian leadership was trying to ruin the peace process and orchestrated what happened. There have even been suggestions that we were a small step from a final settlement, that Camp David would provide the solution, and that all that was required was an agreement on Jerusalem. Those suggestions are misleading, as the events that we are discussing show. Whatever the importance of Jerusalem, and irrespective of the fact that Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to the al-Aqsa mosque triggered the violence, recent events show that something was happening on a much deeper level and that many Palestinians feel a deep sense of frustration, bitterness and anger.
Mr. Stephen Twigg: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that Prime Minister Barak has gone further than any previous Israeli prime minister in agreeing certain points with the Palestinians in the Camp David talks, and that the withdrawal of Yasser Arafat from that process triggered the crisis?
Mr. Gerrard: I do not believe that the withdrawal of Yasser Arafat triggered the crisis. The Prime Minister of Israel may have gone further than his predecessors, but that begs the question whether he has gone far enough to deliver a viable and lasting solution.
In the past few years, the peace process has not given all Palestinians better economic conditions, and refugees are no nearer to returning to their homes than they were at the beginning of the process. When we consider the reports of yesterday's violence in Hebron, we must ask the obvious question: what are Israeli troops doing there? I remember from the first time I went to Hebron, some years ago, that right in the centre of that Arab city there is a tiny Israeli settlement of 200 people. At that time, there was a wall down the main road, with Israeli settlers allowed on one side and Palestinians on the other. The settlements scattered throughout the West Bank, in the middle of Arab cities like Hebron, Nablus, Ramallah and so on, mean that the Israeli army has to be present. Those settlements remain, as they always have been, illegal; they are the reason why the West Bank has been carved up,

3WH
why Palestinians cannot travel freely and why there is no Palestinian state but a series of bantustans with no free travel or connections between them. The presence of those troops reminds every Palestinian every day that they are living in an occupied land, and that the final arbiters of what they may do and where they can go are not the Palestine National Authority or Yasser Arafat but the Israeli occupying forces. That key question has not been addressed in the past few years. The issue is not simply one of land.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gerrard: If I may, I will continue as I want to leave as much time as possible for other Members to speak.
This is more than just a question of the occupied land; it is a question of the Palestinian people. I observed on a recent visit to the region that the refugees and displaced people feel most keenly that they have lost their identity as a people. This is also more than a question of land because the carving up and the lack of freedom have left the Palestinian leadership unable to have any normal political contact and involvement with its citizens. It is limited as to what it can do as an authority. That is why calls to Yasser Arafat to stop are futile; they assume mechanisms and a degree of control that simply are not there.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: I have a quote on which my hon. Friend might wish to comment. It says:
The Supreme Monitoring Committee of the National Arab and Islamic forces call upon the masses of our people to immediately assemble in the streets and public squares in order to express their rage and strong stand against the barbaric Israeli aggression and their determination to continue the intifada.
That is a direct quote from official Palestinian television. Will my hon. Friend comment on that in relation to the so-called spontaneous, unorganised acts of protest and violence?
Mr. Gerrard: Any suggestion that such a statement, made on Palestinian television, would be sufficient to bring people out on to the streets shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what is happening, of the feelings of the people in the camps and of those who have been displaced. Furthermore, the view that Yasser Arafat is now an unreliable partner also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. All Palestinians, whatever their political opinion, will say that they regard the PLO as the sole legitimate negotiating representative of the Palestinian people. However, if we want a long-term solution, we must recognise that the negotiations that have taken place over the past few years have not been negotiations between equal partners, but between an occupying power and an occupied people. They have been negotiations in which the role of the United States has not been seen by the Palestinians or the Arab countries to be that of an honest broker.
In regard to the region as a whole, the effects on other states must also be taken into account if we are to reach a solution. Other states in the region are now the host
4WH
countries to hundreds of thousands of refugees. What attempts have been made over the past few years to examine the rights of those refugees? They have rights that are recognised under international law and in UN resolutions. The most recent UN Security Council resolution, 1322, goes back to the basic questions. It reminds us of the demands of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.
We regard at our peril recent events as the product of a single happening in Jerusalem which led to an explosive reaction, and which can be dealt with simply by returning to the Camp David agenda. We need to take a step back and think about what will be needed to deliver long-term peace in the region. That would be in the interests of every country in the region, including Israel. Everyone knows what the elements of a long-term peace are. They are not new. They include Jerusalem and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, which would involve a withdrawal from occupied territories—not a percentage of occupied territories. UN resolutions have made it clear again and again that what is needed is a withdrawal from occupied territories and a recognition of refugees' rights of return.
The problem is not solely for Israel and the Palestinians. It has international dimensions. Anyone who has visited the region will have been reminded time and again of our historic responsibilities there. The problem has an international dimension. International law and UN resolutions are involved. It is not sufficient to leave international involvement almost entirely to the United States. We need to consider our role and that of the EU. The problem may be more difficult now. Although we may be seen to be going backwards at the moment, we need to step back a little to consider the medium and long term, how to deliver a settlement and how to use our influence internationally to do so, rather than relying as we have on what has been unbalanced negotiation between an occupying power and people who have experienced occupation.
10.16 am
Mr. James Clappison: I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing the debate, although I approach the matter from a slightly different point of view. He has done us a service in doing so.
I join the hon. Gentleman in his expression of sadness over the loss of life that has been occasioned in the conflict in the holy land. As is only fair, I recognise, as did he, that the majority of those who have sustained casualties were members of the Palestinian community. There have been casualties on the Israeli side, too, but the majority have been Palestinians. There have been many tragic incidents on both sides.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the events that have taken place. However, it would be a mistake to dwell too long on the mechanics of events in the conflict. I have some sympathy with the balanced approach of Amnesty International in a letter to today's newspapers, which considers Israeli methods of crowd control and the Palestinian authorities' failure to control those who participate in the uprising.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned proportionality. He must recognise the fair point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) that, if Israeli

5WH
soldiers are fired on by Palestinian gunmen, it is proportional for them to return fire. However, that recognition does not condone everything that has taken place.
The hon. Gentleman gave us his analysis. I disagree with his view that the two sides are unequal. Each side has something to offer the other that only it can give. Israel has a tremendous desire for security. That is the uppermost consideration in the minds of Israeli citizens, a fact that conditioned how they voted in recent elections. The Palestinians want fulfilment of their rights, economic improvement and autonomy leading to eventual statehood, which they have never had.
The hon. Gentleman dwelt too long on the mechanics of what has taken place. He failed to appreciate the wider political context and, especially, to acknowledge that the Government came to power in Israel in May 1999, after a period of stagnation in the peace process, with a clear mandate for peace and security for the Israeli people.
The Israeli Government have kept faith with that pledge, pushing forward the peace process at both Sharm El-Sheikh in September 1999 and Camp David earlier this year. We should not overlook the fact that they have done so in the face of severe internal difficulties. Whatever else one can say about Israeli democracy, besides the fact that it is the only democracy in the middle east—that it is a good thing as a democracy is not an especially good advertisement for proportional representation—in the face of internal difficulties, the Israeli Government have tried to push forward the peace process. There is dispute about exactly how much was offered in the Camp David agreement. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that a large number of commentators—many of them speaking from an objective position—regard Prime Minister Barak as having offered a great deal to the Palestinians in the negotiations. They have also commented on his willingness to compromise on some of the most vexed issues at stake, including the most vexed of all: Jerusalem. Those offers and concessions were made in the face of severe difficulties.
It is sad that nothing came from those offers and that the peace process could not be taken further forward at that stage. I agree that subsequent events were tragic. The hon. Member for Walthamstow said that Mr. Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount was provocative. Many members of the Jewish community in my constituency have told me that the visit was provocative and ill judged. Whatever one's view of Mr. Sharon's personality or of the place that he visited, however, one could not suggest that his visit justified the subsequent outpouring of violence. That was a mere visit to a religious site, but at least one of the holiest sites of Judaism has been desecrated—the tomb of Joseph. I do not think, therefore, that particular parties can be regarded to have demonstrated great sensitivity to religious sites.
It is hard to resist the conclusion that Mr. Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount was not the cause of what has occurred, but the occasion. It is also hard to resist the suspicion that, even if the violence was not encouraged by some members of the Palestinian leadership, it was at
6WH
least condoned. It has certainly been fuelled by the Palestinian media, including its state-controlled elements.
Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman has a constituency interest and is playing heavily to it. He appears, however, to have entirely ignored the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). He did not mention the 200,000 people who are living in settlements in what is supposed eventually to be an independent and autonomous state for the Palestinians. He did not mention any detail about the so-called offer on Jerusalem. He is dancing on the head of a pin on the issue, presumably for votes, and is ignoring the cause of the problem. The territory is occupied and Israel appears to intend to remain the occupier.
Mr. Clappison: I had hoped that I had explained sufficiently clearly for the hon. Gentleman that Israel was seeking security more than anything else. Of course, there are demands on both sides and we could consider in detail the wider background, including refugees. The hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members must be realistic about the matter and accept that there is a framework within which compromise can occur. Furthermore, they should accept that security is the Israelis' main consideration within that framework. I could go back into the past and speak about all the grievances that have arisen, such as the bus bombs in Tel Aviv, various terrorist acts, invasions of Israeli territory by overseas terrorists, the work of the Hamas, the Hezbollah and the Iraqis, and all of the other poison that keeps pouring out of the situation, but it would not do any good. There is a compromise to be made on both sides. I would certainly encourage the Israelis to compromise, but it is my view that the Israeli Government have a clear mandate for peace, have been prepared to offer concessions and compromises and have stretched forward the hand of peace, but have yet to receive an embrace in return. I hope that that will come, but things look very bleak at the moment.
What is Israeli public opinion? Israel is a democracy. At the end of the day, the Israeli Government can make concessions only in line with public opinion. Let me tell the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) that that opinion was strongly in favour of making concessions for peace. What are the Israelis supposed to make of the scenes of the intifada, the resulting violence and the attitude of the Palestinian media? I do not want to go into detail on particular instances, such as a dreadful incident involving a 12-year-old child at a crossroads in Gaza. Another terrible incident involved the lynching of members of the Israeli armed forces in a Palestinian police station. Whatever the reasons why they were there, I presume that they were under the protection of the Palestinian state.
What is Israeli opinion meant to make of all this? My conclusion—I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak in this debate—is that, if there is to be a peace process in the future, and the prospects look bleak at the moment, it can happen only on the lines that were discussed at Camp David and previously, with concessions on both sides. The basic framework for those concessions, and for that peace process, is security for Israel in return for Israel meeting the aspirations of

7WH
the Palestinian people, and making the concessions that are sought in return. Up to now, many among the Israeli electorate and leadership have been prepared to make those concessions, but that does not diminish the fact that things look extremely bleak at the moment.
In the brief time remaining, I should like to stress two things. I ask the Government to impress on the Palestinian leadership that resorting to, condoning or allowing uprisings and violence as a negotiating tactic and way of seeking further concessions will not, in fact, bring further concessions. It is a way of driving the parties away from the peace process. I would encourage our Government to use whatever offices they have to impress on them that violence will not bring returns at the negotiating table, and that if the violence continues, the aid that this country gives to Palestine, which I and my constituents, as taxpayers, are happy to give to Palestinians to improve their lamentable economic conditions, will be put in doubt. Surely we cannot justify giving such aid if the Palestinians continue to resort to violence of such proportions.
We must also be concerned that the violence and tension do not spill over into this country. People on both sides of the debate hold strong views, and should be free to express those views. They should do so without any violence or threat of violence. People should not be put in fear because they are a member of a particular religion or race. I know that there are concerns within the Jewish community about certain incidents. I do not want to overplay those, but I urge the Government to ensure that the violence does not spill over into this country, and that people and the right of free speech are protected.
Things look bleak at present, but I hope that one day the parties will be able to return to the peace process. There are other factors in favour of a peace process, and each side has something to offer the other, although a great deal lies in the way of that at present. I hope that, at some stage in the future, the obstructions to peace can be cleared.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I remind all hon. Members that this is a short debate in which many people want to take part. Hon. Members should be brief to allow as many people as possible to speak.
10.28 am
Mr. Richard Burden: In mid-September, before the current disturbances began, a festival called Palestine 2000 took place in Rubery church centre, about half a mile from where I live in Birmingham. The idea behind the festival was the promotion of a greater understanding of the Palestinian people, who they are, where they live, and the conditions under which they live. One of the main speakers was a visitor from Israel, a Melkite priest called Abuna Elias Chacour. He is a Palestinian and an Israeli citizen, and has been involved in the Mar Elias education institution for the last 30 years, in the village of Ibullin in Galilee. The objective of that institution is to promote greater
8WH
understanding between Jews, Christians and Muslims. One of the brightest students of one of the schools involved was a young man called Asel Asleh, who was 17 years old. He was involved in an organisation called Seeds of Peace, an American programme involving more than 800 Arab and Israeli teenagers and other young people who go to summer camps together. This was all designed to promote dialogue. To quote from The Washington Post, Asel was
by all accounts, a model of what a Seed should be—an immoderately prolific e-mailer and letter writer and phone caller who invested time and energy into making Jewish friends and keeping them.
Asel is now dead. The report in The Washington Post continues:
What happened with Asel—how he died—is in question. He was killed in a clash on Monday with Israeli forces on the outskirts of his village, Arabeh, in Upper Galilee. Whether he was throwing stones, helping the wounded or simply watching the action is unclear. More than a half-dozen Israeli Arabs were killed that day, and Israeli police say all died in the riots that swept the region. A spokesman said he could provide no specific information about Asel's death. Asel's family, which saw his body before burial on Tuesday, say his wounds, including extensive bruises to the back, arms and face, suggested he had been beaten with rifle butts before being shot. No autopsy was conducted
into Asel's death.
I mention the case of Asel, not because his death is any more tragic or painful to his relatives and community than any other death in the region—Jewish, Muslim or Christian—but to make the point that it took place not in Gaza or the West Bank, but inside Israel itself. That seems surprising, and, in such circumstances, we, as an overseas Parliament, should ask questions about how an Israeli citizen was denied access to the laws of the land of which he was, apparently, a citizen. It is strange that no autopsy took place, and that no investigation has taken place.
Having made this speech, I reflect on the possibility that we may see a report from the Israeli authorities saying that I have over-simplified the matter and that events were not as I have said. That may be right. I cannot comment on that. However, I can comment on the fact that I find it a little strange that the Israeli authorities reject the notion of an international investigation into what is going on there so that we can establish the truth. If this can happen to a Palestinian who is an Israeli citizen, is it surprising that they feel like second-class citizens in their own land? Is it surprising that they feel that they are, at best, tolerated in the land of Israel, and that they are not equal with other citizens of that country? Is it surprising that they feel such an affinity with Palestinians living in the occupied territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip? If that is how Palestinian citizens of Israel feel, what must the situation be like for those who live on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip?
Mr. Mike Gapes: I accept what my hon. Friend says about this horrific incident. However, although there is clearly a problem in Israel with the relationship between some Israelis and some Palestinians, does he also accept that 20 per cent. of the electorate in Israel is Arab, and that there are Arab members of the Israeli Parliament, even Ministers, including the Deputy Foreign Minister, who came to the Labour party conference, where I had a chance to

9WH
discuss these matters with him? The circumstances are not as simple as my hon. Friend suggests. They are far more complex.
Mr. Burden: The statistics that my hon. Friend quotes are absolutely right. I would not deny that. However, if one talks to Arabs who are Knesset members in Israel, including Asmi Bishara, who stood for Prime Minister of Israel, they will not say that they are treated as equal citizens alongside Jewish Israeli citizens.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Does my hon. Friend accept that, when I met the Deputy Foreign Minister, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) referred, in Israel, soon after the then Labour Government had taken power, he told us that, in his view, part of his role as an Arab member of the Labour party was to point out to fellow party members the gross discrimination against Arab Israelis? Of course, he does not say that when he is speaking on a platform at the British Labour party conference as a Deputy Foreign Minister, but he has made it clear.
Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend makes the point well.
Mr. Gapes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Stephen Twigg: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Burden: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) again, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg).
Mr. Twigg:I do not think that any hon. Members who are friends of Israel would deny discrimination against Israeli Arabs. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South pointed out, the situation is more complex than that outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). Attacks in Israel by Jewish extremists have been condemned by Prime Minister Barak and by other Israeli political figures. The problem is that Palestinian leaders do not engage in similar condemnation of attacks on Jewish people in the West Bank and other occupied territories.
Mr. Burden: I shall return to the complexities of the situation in a little while. I mentioned Asel to say something about the circumstances of Palestinians in Israel. If that is the position of Palestinians who are Israeli citizens, what is that of Palestinians who are denied citizenship and are not Israeli citizens—those who live under occupation? My hon. Friend said earlier that the present Israeli Prime Minister had offered more concessions than any previous one. That may be the case, but we must ask why an entire people feel the need to say no and to rise up in the manner that we have witnessed during recent weeks.
Often, the concessions and the peace process are discussed in an almost theoretical manner, but it is different if one visits the area and sees what the process has meant to Palestinians on the ground. I was there in June and I saw that Israeli settlement building, which was then the subject of international discussion, was
10WH
continuing. The evidence of my eyes was such that I did not perceive a great deal of difference between the circumstances that I witnessed this year and those that I saw two years ago when Likud was in power. On that visit, we were warned by a number of Palestinian academics about the road plan that was being designed for the West Bank and Gaza, splitting the area up. Two years later, I found that those roads were either built or were being built. They bypass Palestinian towns and villages and link up settlements that are illegal under international law. I saw Palestinians who felt that their lives and livelihoods were being bypassed and that they were treated as guests in their own land.
This year, I visited a small village called Issawiyya, just outside Jerusalem. I saw with my own eyes Palestinian homes that had been demolished and Palestinian farms that were denied the water that they needed to irrigate their land, when an Israeli settlement across the valley received water in much greater quantities. These are the realities of what has been happening in the area. If we want to end the problems and achieve a settlement in the middle east rather than merely comment on it, we must, sooner or later, confront the realities. Afif Safieh, the Palestinian general delegate to the United Kingdom, made a comment the other day that said a great deal. He remarked that often when the peace process is discussed, it is almost as if we want to achieve an everlasting peace process rather than everlasting peace. We must do all we can to achieve the latter.
My hon. Friends and, indeed, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), have pointed out that we must recognise the strength of feeling in Israeli public opinion, which I accept. The hon. Gentleman said that it could be tested because Israel was a democracy with an elected Government. However, I ask hon. Members also to consider Palestinian public opinion. Public opinion is not easy to express in an occupied country. What is it that makes a people do what the Palestinians have been doing during the past few weeks? What makes them say that their lives under Israeli occupation can no longer be tolerated? There is no future in the idea, which the Prime Minister of Israel appears to be considering, that the parties involved should take some time out from the peace process and establish firmer borders, possibly splitting the West Bank off on a permanent basis. Israel rightly demands security, but there can be no security in that part of the world unless the peoples there agree to live together and recognise their interdependence. That will not be achieved by fencing people off, destroying their homes and building settlements on land that is illegally occupied.
The fears of Israeli Jews are real and understandable, and the history of the Jewish community bears testament to that fact. I agree with the hon. Member for Hertsmere that those of us with a background of sympathy to the Palestinian cause have a responsibility to state clearly that the issue is not one of religion, and that it should not be allowed to degenerate into a religious issue in this country or anywhere else. However, Israelis must recognise that there is no security in the path that they are currently taking. They need to ensure, if they are to hold up their heads as a democracy in the international community, that they behave as a democracy by respecting international law no less than any other country. They should not allow a

11WH
situation to occur whereby the Palestinian community in Gaza and the West Bank is relegated to living in conditions akin to those of a bantustan.
The international community is right to call for calm and the end of the violence because while the violence continues the chances of a settlement are that much less. However, we must address the causes of the violence. We must tell Israelis that they have the right to live in peace, within secure borders, and we must stand by that, but we must also tell them that they are not above international law. If the words of United Nations resolutions in relation to the Balkans and Kuwait are precious to us, those in relation to the middle east and Palestinian rights should be equally precious to us. Palestinians say that they hear about what the west has done in Kosovo and how it cares about the United Nations, but that there are refugee peoples who lost their homes in 1948 and that United Nations resolution 194, which states that they have the right to return, has never been implemented. They know about resolutions 242 and 338, which have also never been implemented. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate is right to say that the situation is complicated. There can be no quick-fix solution, but sometimes it is important to state that there is a bottom line. We in the international community have an obligation to discuss the bottom line, which is that international law must be the basis of any just settlement, and that that involves the withdrawal from occupied territories, recognition of Palestinian rights and a just solution to the refugee problem.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Before I call the next speaker, I repeat the plea made by my predecessor in the Chair for short speeches. This is an important and current debate in which everyone is interested, so I should like to call as many Members as possible. If hon. Members keep their contributions to three minutes, we shall be able to hear a lot more speeches.
10.43 am
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I believe that it was Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian peace negotiator, who said to me a year ago that there were friends of Israel and friends of Palestine, but that today there were also friends of peace. The House must consider itself a friend of peace. The values that we are expressing today should be shared by all Members. The difficulty for those who have spoken and will no doubt speak this morning in defence of the Israeli Government is that it is becoming clear that their values and approach, methods or "mechanics", as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) described them, are not in the same frame as ours.
I come from a family whose origins were in southern Africa. We had kith and kin in what was then called Rhodesia and in South Africa. As I grew up, it became clear to me that the values that my family had imbued in me were not shared by the people we had previously regarded as our kith and kin in that part of the world. The challenge today for members of the Jewish
12WH
community in this country and in the United States is to face the prospect that people living in Israel, whom they regard as their kith and kin, may no longer share or act on the values in which they fundamentally believe.
What is at stake is not merely property. My hon. Friend is wrong. Jerusalem is not the major issue in today's debate. The issue is not property but people; it is the Palestinian people and their basic human rights. The fact that those basic human rights were not covered at Camp David sent a signal back to the region that neither side's leadership was in tune with the people whom they represent. Although Prime Minister Barak, a brave man, no doubt went further than any previous Israeli leader in his own terms, it was well known at the time that his coalition was collapsing about his ears, and that there was no certainty that he could go home and deliver even on the promises that he was prepared to make.
A presidential election is being held in the United States, which I visited last week with the Select Committee on Education and Employment. In that context, I was struck by how much more even-handedly the threat to the peace process in the middle east is being presented. There is an increasing awareness in the United States that two sides are involved in the debate, and I hope that following this morning's discussion we can take that awareness forward.
It is the duty of those who represent the Israeli cause in the debate to make it clear to their side that the basic human values to which everyone in this Chamber subscribes must prevail in the middle east, and that we are not prepared to accept even a regime with the patina of respectability and democratic government unless it conforms to international standards.
Like many others, I was horrified by not only the pitiful death of an innocent Palestinian boy but the butchering of two Israeli soldiers. I am reminded of another tragic incident in another place, the butchering of two British soldiers in Northern Ireland, and I ask myself what happened after that incident. Our troops did not go around the streets of Belfast singling out Catholic boys to have them shot and maimed with sniper bullets. The response to the butchering of those Israeli soldiers—
Mr. Ivan Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. St. Aubyn: I shall give way in a moment.
As the Israeli response was reported on the front page of all newspapers in this country, it sent a clear message that we are dealing with a regime that is becoming increasingly detached from the ethos and morals to which we subscribe.
If the Israeli Government are realigned and turn their back on the peace process, that will be as decisive a moment in our consideration of our relations with people in that region as were the Soweto riots of 1963 and 1975 to the attitude of white people in this country to the apartheid regime in South Africa.
10.48 am
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I should like wholeheartedly to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) in opening the debate, and

13WH
for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), and those of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). I shall concentrate on how the Israeli Government are flagrantly breaching the fourth Geneva convention, which clearly sets out the obligations under international law of an occupying power, which is what Israel is in Gaza and the West Bank.
I draw heavily on a press release issued in Israel by B'Tselem, the highly respected Israeli human rights organisation. Many extraordinarily courageous people in Israeli society stand up, putting themselves in great personal danger, in support of the principles of human rights and democracy that I share with most hon. Members in this Chamber. We must remember that, and we should support them because they are the correct voice of Israeli and Jewish values, not some of the acts that are being perpetrated by the Israeli Government.
B'Tselem's press release clearly sets out the need to protect civilians and to distinguish between armed and unarmed persons. It also makes it clear that the fact that the other side does not necessarily stick to the rules does not relieve the Israeli Government from sticking to their obligations under international law. It is clear from the huge number of Palestinian deaths, many of them children, that lethal firearms are being used excessively and inappropriately by the Israeli Government. Of those people who have been wounded or killed, 42 per cent. were under the age of 18 and 40 per cent. had head and eye injuries. It is clear that the Israeli forces are aiming deliberately at people's heads. Furthermore, 72 per cent. of those who have been wounded were injured by live bullets, some even by dumdum bullets that cause appalling injuries.
As for the distinction between armed and unarmed people, I shall read from the e-mail of an American charity worker that was sent to me and to his contacts throughout the United States. Describing what he saw at Netzarim junction in Gaza, he said:
As ambulances ferried the dead and wounded we spent nearly an hour in the Red Cross/Red Crescent triage center where skilled medical staff were working under the protection of the ICRC…to stop the bleeding before the casualties were taken to hospital operating rooms or morgues. Most of the wounds were from American Apache helicopter gun ships or snipers. Several people far from the onerous fortress intersection dropped to the ground from head wounds
The charity worker said that the people were shot by snipers from 1,000 m or more away, who were picking people out of the crowd from the roof tops. He wrote:
Four of the awful gunships kept flying over the residential area spraying it with machine gun fire and directing LOW antitank missiles at homes and apartment buildings.
Such action is disproportionate violence and is wholly at variance with Israel's obligations under the Geneva convention. Moreover, it is clear that snipers are being used to shoot unarmed people who are participating in demonstrations against an occupation. The right to demonstrate against occupation is recognised under international law. We are discussing people who are resisting an unlawful occupation.
I refer to other ways in which the Israeli Government have flouted the Geneva convention.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Starkey: No, I shall not give way.
14WH
The Israeli Government have not protected wounded persons, medical personnel or ambulances. I draw attention to the infamous shooting of the 12-year-old boy in Gaza. The ambulance man who was attempting to rescue him was also shot and killed. The security forces have not attempted to stop the violence that has been perpetrated by Israeli civilians, yet they are obliged under the Geneva convention to protect Palestinians. On 7 October, settlers attacked the village of Bourin and destroyed two medical clinics. They shot and killed 22-year-old Fahed Mustafa Baqer in Biddiya and besieged villages around Nablus. The recent shooting in that area was provoked by armed settlers under the protection of the Israeli army, which tried to reassert its illegal occupation of settlements around Nablus.
Mr. Stephen Twigg: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Starkey: No, I shall not give way.
There has been interference with the freedom of movement of ordinary civilians in the West Bank. There have been widespread closures in the area. Sick patients have been unable to reach medical care. A 37-year-old man died of renal failure because he was unable to reach hospital for his regular dialysis because of closures. Three journalists were shot and wounded by the military near Ramallah on 21 October, one of whom reported for Paris Match—not a journal that is usually associated with such situations. The two other journalists reported for Agence France Presse and one for Wattan Television. The day before that a photographer was shot near Khan Younis.
There has been collective punishment—again, in flagrant disregard of international law. The closures are collective punishments of the whole civilian population because of the violence of a minor fraction of that population. Water has been cut off to villages near Jenin. Buildings have been demolished.
Mrs. Ellman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Starkey: No.
If we are to have a just and viable peace in the middle east, we must have a new peace process, which is built on international law and UN resolutions. One of the few good things that came out of the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement was that the European Union and United Nations, which do believe in international law, were involved. They may be able to start injecting a correct framework into the peace process—one built on international law and UN resolutions.
I want to address my colleagues who say that they are friends of Israel. The international community must insist that Israel acts responsibly and respects the Geneva conventions. Israel has recently joined the group of western nations at the UN. However, that implies responsibility on the part of Israel to behave like a western nation and respect international law.
Mr. Stephen Twigg: Surely responsibility is a two-way process. We have heard a lot from my hon. Friend about what Israel has done. Does she have any criticisms of the Palestinian leadership's handling of these events?
Dr. Starkey: Clearly, criticisms exist on both sides—
Mr. Twigg: My hon. Friend has not aired those on the other side.
Dr. Starkey: They have been well aired by other hon. Members. I simply make the point that the Palestinian

15WH
authority is not yet a recognised state. It is not in occupation of anybody else's land. Israel is in occupation of other territories, which it took by force. It would be a dangerous precedent if the international community were to turn a blind eye to the fact that Israel has acquired territories by force, is annexing those territories, is settling them illegally with its own citizens, and has expropriated huge quantities of Arab land in order to settle Jewish Israelis. Only Jewish Israelis are settled on that land. My hon. Friend will be aware that, even within Israel, the high court has only just been able to make the point that it is illegal for public funds to be used exclusively for the benefit of Jewish Israeli citizens. However, we have yet to see that high court ruling being put into effect, and Israeli Arabs being allowed to acquire homes within areas in Israel designated for Jewish settlement alone.
Israel is rightly proud of being the only democracy in the middle east. However, democracy is based not only on the will of the majority but on the rule of law and international law. In terms of respect for the rule of international law, Israel does not qualify as a democracy as most democracies would wish to do. Israel and the occupied territories are falling into an abyss. A deep corrosion has entered Israeli society as young people in the armed forces are being encouraged to have a casual disregard for the lives of Palestinians, which is carrying over into the treatment of Israeli Arab citizens. When Israeli Arabs in Galilee demonstrated against their Government, they were met with soldiers using live bullets. When Israelis of Jewish origin demonstrate and take vigilante action, in mob form, against Arab citizens, they are met with water cannons—
Mr. Stephen Twigg: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Dr. Starkey: No.
That is the appropriate way in which democracies control demonstrators—with the minimum of force. It is not to Israel's credit that the crowd control methods that it uses against Jewish Israeli citizens are different from those that it uses against Palestinian Arab citizens. That shows a casual disregard for the lives of Palestinians, which is corroding Israeli society deeply. That is a much greater danger to Israel, as a democracy in the middle east, than the supposed threat from outside. Britain has an obligation, as the former mandate power, to be much more active in trying to make Israel live up to its obligations under international law. The situation is so grave that we should press for a UN monitoring force on the ground between occupier and occupied. Only then can we start to rebuild the bridges—such as the Seeds programme that my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield mentioned—between Israel and Palestine, and construct a peace which delivers to both communities and, therefore, has a chance of lasting.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall call one more speaker, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), and I shall ask him to speak for just two minutes because the Minister and the Opposition spokesman both need time to speak.
11 am
Mr. Ivan Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I speak in this debate with a great sense of sadness. The debate in the House in recent years has not been about the basis of the peace process but about the pace of change and progress. It is sad that we are here today debating the current outbreak of violence. As a friend of Israel—I think that I speak on behalf of all friends of Israel in the House—I want to say that we remain totally committed to the concept of a just and lasting peace in the middle east. There is no doubt about that commitment from the point of view of those who proudly say that they are friends of the state of Israel.
I also speak as someone who is proud of having a multi-faith constituency, in which Jews, Christians and Muslims live alongside one another in an atmosphere of mutual respect, friendship and tolerance. I hope that every responsible Member of Parliament will join me in condemning those who would use this delicate situation in the middle east to whip up tensions between Muslims and Jews in Britain. Recent increases in anti-Semitic attacks do not reflect the mainstream views of Muslim people in this country. They are the actions of the fundamentalist few.
I also want briefly to mention the presentation of the current situation. Certain sections of the media—and, indeed, certain Members of Parliament—seem unable to view the situation objectively or with any sense of balance. I have not heard one person today say that it is unacceptable to sit at the negotiating table one day and, a day later, when one does not get what one wants, to turn to violence. I have heard hon. Members talk today about the historical grievances and the historical sources of tension and conflict between both sides. However, that is exactly why we have had a peace process that has made so much progress in the middle east in a relatively short period of time: to resolve that conflict and those tensions.
If we look at the chronology of events, it was at Camp David that the Prime Minister of Israel offered the best deal that has ever been offered in a peace negotiation between the Israelis and the Palestinians. When Yasser Arafat walked away from that negotiating table, he went to visit a variety of world leaders and tried to enlist their support for the fact that he had refused to make progress on that offer. Those world leaders made it crystal clear that they could not support his walking away from the negotiating table. That was when the violence began. I illustrated in my earlier intervention how that violence is not spontaneous, but orchestrated and encouraged. That does not mean that there are not strong feelings among the Palestinian people. One reason for the strong feelings is that those people have not seen a great improvement in their living standards as a consequence of the peace process. A primary reason for that is the misuse of foreign aid by the Palestinian authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr. Savidge) spoke earlier of the tragic vision of a young Palestinian boy being killed. That will live in the memory of many people. So, however, will the lynching of the two Israeli soldiers and the brandishing of the hands, dripping with blood, from that window. That is why those of us who see both sides, and who try to have an objective perspective on the situation, reject the bias

17WH
and lack of objectivity with which this tragic and longstanding conflict is often presented by some hon. Members and by large sections of the media. We should focus on ending the current violence, initiating a period of reflection and trying to restore co-operation on the ground. It is to be hoped that we can then rebuild confidence, enabling both sides to return to a peace process that is the only way forward for Palestinians, Israelis and all who live in the region.
11.5 am
Mr. Mark Oaten: I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing the debate, the most powerful that we have had in Westminster Hall. Emotions have been forcefully expressed and I accept that all hon. Members have strong views on the matter.
I visited Jerusalem in June. I went there with no strong emotions and no attachment to any side of the argument. I went also from a new generation that did not have the student hang-ups—if I may put it that way—that featured in the debates that occurred decades ago. I saw two things that had a profound impact on me. First, the Israelis took me to the holocaust museum, where I saw things that made me cold and which have stayed in my mind for a long time. Secondly, the Palestinians took me into a refugee camp. I had not seen poverty in my life, in which I have been very lucky. What I saw in the camp, where I witnessed at first hand the conditions in which Palestinian children were living, had a profound impact. I learned then and have grown to understand why the emotions and anger that we have seen this morning are so strong.
The visit was also optimistic. Speaking to politicians on all sides, I felt that the peace process was making good progress. I would have predicted then that a deal could have been struck by Christmas of this year. The Camp David agreement in July had seen progress on many core issues, and it is right to acknowledge that President Barak had moved further than many people had said he would. But the problem then is the problem now: Jerusalem.
Two people who seemed to be a whisker away from peace six months ago are now separated by a gulf, as they are sucked regrettably towards the orthodox position in both camps. Since Camp David, things have fallen apart and it is frustrating that we cannot take and bank some of the agreements that were made. There was agreement on 70 to 80 per cent. of the issues, but that is now falling away. However, we are where we are. The attempt to obtain a ceasefire is in ruins and violence occurred again last night. There may be encouraging signs as the violence seems to be less intense and might be reducing, but it is alarming for all of us to see how quickly a peace process can unravel.
Some argue that the closer to peace that we come, the more violence will occur. They cite the example of South Africa and say that, as the peace process gets closer to a conclusion, the militants bed in and become harder. Such people suggest that we might be seeing merely the last throes of violence before peace is established. I doubt that. How many last chances can the region have? Israel's internal party politics will play a key role during the next 48 hours. Barak seeks a coalition and he is talking to Sharon. Obviously, that is not an issue in
18WH
which the United Kingdom should become involved. Israel must decide how it governs itself. However, it would be regrettable if conditions were imposed to end the peace process as part of a coalition agreement.
It has also been suggested that Mr. Sharon is playing it tough in order to remain leader of his party. Some people say that his visit to the Temple Mount was more about internal party politics than the exercise of his religious rights. If that is true, it is to be regretted, but it is not helpful for me or others to participate in a blame culture, a little of which we have seen in today's debate. I shall not do so and I do not think that others should do so. The United Nations took great care to avoid mentioning individual names in its recent resolutions, although we must note that it condemned Israel's use of excessive force.
What are the steps forward and what should happen now? The language must change and the violence must stop. There is no chance for the time out proposed by President Barak. However, Palestinians must recognise that he has moved some way. He should be cautious about domestic deals that make a return to the peace table much harder and Israel should be open to allowing the international community to step in and consider the United Nations claims. The United Kingdom also has a role to play, working with its European Union partners. I hope that the Minister will set out his plans in that respect, especially as a gulf will be left when President Clinton ends his term in office next month.
We are not discussing a party-political issue. It is not about being pro-Arab or pro-Israeli, oil reserves or memories of the holocaust. It is about 14 and 15-year-old children throwing stones and 17 and 18-year-old soldiers retaliating. The grown-ups should become involved. Where are they at the moment? Deep down they must know that without a ceasefire there will be no progress, and that without progress there will be no peace.
11.10 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing the debate. This has been a remarkable parliamentary occasion and the situation in the middle east has been aired from every possible point of view.
Recently, the world rejoiced at the disappearance of Milosevic in Serbia and at the return to democracy. Similarly, we have recently seen North Korea and South Korea come together. I welcome the re-establishment of diplomatic relations. Many good things have been happening in the world during the past few weeks, so events in the middle east seem all the more tragic and unwelcome, especially after seven years of painstaking and halting progress. It is very disappointing that Camp David was not a success.
As well as those in the region, British citizens have also been affected. Our Muslim minority has been affected by anti-social activity that has arisen from the problems. We have in Britain a long-standing and distinguished Jewish community that contributes richly to our national life. Events in the middle east have, therefore, come into Britain not only through the television screens in our living rooms, but in the mindless attack on the young Jewish student in north London and attacks on synagogues. British citizens

19WH
have felt anxiety that derives directly from events occurring many miles away. I hope that in today's meeting, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews will receive assurances from the Home Secretary that protection will be provided for all British citizens and their religious buildings at this difficult time.
At Sharm El-Sheikh, President Clinton delivered to the press an address that set out the basis for the agreement. It is worth while to look back at that agreement. Of course, it called for an end to violence, but it also set out specific ways in which progress could be made. Disappointingly, that has not happened and the reality has been very different.
Before we consider the events and prospects in detail, I should pay tribute to the way in which Arab leaders have sought to calm down the situation. There is always a risk that anti-Israel protests will take on a momentum of their own and spill into domestic grievances. The role of King Abdullah and of President Mubarak in trying to stabilise the situation—a role that they have played with considerable statesmanship—deserves unstinting praise from the international community. I also welcome on behalf of the Opposition the visits made to the region by the Minister of State and, most latterly, the Foreign Secretary's attempts to be of direct help. Obviously, it is the United States that overwhelmingly influences the situation, but we in Britain have historic links to the region and ties of trade and friendship—a relationship that we value immensely.
Although Arab leaders in general are to be commended for their moderation and desire for a cessation of hostilities, that cannot be said of Saddam Hussein. He is a man who will seek to gain advantage for himself through any instability in the middle east. If violence continues, he may be tempted into some unwelcome actions. His confidence is growing as sanctions are, as the Minister knows all too well, being flouted by an increasing number of countries. That is a serious cause for concern.
Since the Oslo accords, Israel has boomed economically. It is at the forefront of biotechnology, communications and information technology. It is a considerable and admirable success story. However, juxtaposed against that is the fact that Palestine is absolutely and relatively poor. I greatly welcome the recent offer made by Arab countries, now richer on the back of the oil price, to give more aid. Young Palestinians in particular, their political passions inflamed, do not have anything like the same economic opportunities as their Israeli neighbours. In the longer run, it is fundamentally important that the question of the economic viability of the West Bank and Gaza be addressed. Two situations polarise the problem. The extent to which Chairman Arafat can control the situation on the ground is not clear, nor is the extent to which he can accept any son-of-Camp-David terms that may emerge in future. The violence will have given fresh support to Hammas in the south and Hezbollah in the north.
Yesterday, in the House of Commons, we elected a new Speaker by a rather arcane route and, in this mother of Parliaments, we saw how bizarre circumstances can arise. However, nothing in the House of Commons compares with the difficulties of
20WH
trying to run a Government, even with a parliamentary majority, in the Knesset. Religious parties have a wholly disproportionate influence in that body. As we have seen on our television screens, specific events have inflamed the situation dramatically. Even Mr. Barak has described Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount thus:
I cannot say that it was the most brilliant idea of the month.
Indeed. Terrible images of young people, including young boys, being shot and killed, haunt everyone who saw them. Similarly, the deaths of the two Israeli reservists in the police station in Ramallah tore at the emotions of the Israeli people. The catalogue of horror continues day by day.
For the moment, the drawbridge is effectively up, and there is fury and anger on both sides. However, it is imperative that the ceasefire should begin to take hold, as agreed at Sharm El-Sheikh. The Israelis have endorsed the ceasefire, and it is important to have the Israeli army's rules of engagement spelt out clearly. It is to be hoped that an enduring basis can be agreed for an impartial inquiry into what led to the tragic events of the past few weeks.
It has always been at the heart of British foreign policy that the state of Israel should be kept secure and independent, and that the Palestinians have the right to national self-determination in a viable political and economic entity. Much progress was made at Oslo. Israel withdrew from South Lebanon earlier this year. There is every hope that the new Syrian leader will come to an agreement with Israel about the Golan heights. There are still enormous hurdles to overcome, but there is no alternative to trying again when tempers have cooled. This is a small corner of the world which is precious to Christians, Jews and Muslims alike. Miracles have happened elsewhere in the world in resolving suspicion and hatred between peoples. I can only pray that the same also happens between Israelis and Palestinians.
11.18 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Peter Hain): I welcome the debate. The strong views that have been expressed here by well informed Members show the Chamber at its best. I also welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), which was valuable in the current situation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) for giving me the opportunity to express the Government's deep concern about the tragic situation in Israel and the occupied territories, and I agree with the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) that this presents an opportunity for the House to show that it is a friend of peace and to take that process forward.
I acknowledge the long-standing and expert interest in the problem taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. He has long been an eloquent advocate of the cause of the Palestinians. I agree with him—because it is factually self-evident—that the vast majority of those killed have been Palestinians. The latest estimates put the number of dead at more than 130, of whom at least 125 are Palestinians. The killing of Palestinian children has made the horror even worse. The lynching of two Israelis by Palestinians in Ramallah confirmed the bleak darkness that has shut out the peace process.

21WH
I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) that Israel must not be above international law. Indeed, with full United Kingdom support, on 7 October the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1322, which condemned the violence, especially the excessive use of Israeli force. It called for an end to all violence and the immediate resumption of peace negotiations.
My hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes, South-West and for Walthamstow, together with the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), asked whether Britain's role in the peace process could be greater. Before I deal with that question, I welcome the acknowledgment of the hon. Member for West Suffolk of the Foreign Secretary's hard work in the region between 11 and 13 October when, in an intensive round of contacts, he met President Mubarak of Egypt, President Assad of Syria and King Abdullah of Jordan. He met Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat twice and he also met the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan. I think that his work paved the way for the Sharm El-Sheikh summit. Last week in Cairo, I received a firsthand report about the summit from Egyptian Foreign Minister Moussa. It is important that we continue to engage in such a process.
The American presidential transition may provide an opportunity for the European Union, and Britain in particular, to continue to engage in the peace process. We have a unique friendly relationship with the Palestinian people, the Israeli Government and their people, the Americans and the Arab world, and can perhaps play a more prominent role in the process than we have been able to do. If we are asked to do so, we shall, but we can do so only with the consent of the other parties involved, including the Americans who have been in the lead up to the present time.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said that the Israeli Government under Prime Minister Barak had faced enormous internal difficulties. As an elected Prime Minister, he must take account of volatile public opinion, yet he has pushed forward the peace process. The hon. Gentleman was right to acknowledge that and to praise it. I caution him, however, against making a demand for aid to be cut to the Palestinians. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) made a similar point. Britain contributes about £25 million worth of aid to the Palestinians and will continue to do so. We shall not turn our back on them, especially at this time. It is vital that we continue to stand together with them and the Israeli people to find a way in which to bring them together in peace not conflict.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: I never suggested, nor do I believe, that aid should be withdrawn from the Palestinians. We should ensure, however, that that aid is used properly and not spent in a way that cannot be accounted for. It must directly benefit the Palestinian people.
Mr. Hain: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's clarification. I agree that there is far too much corruption within the Palestinian authorities.
I also agree with my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Hertsmere that there is a real danger of the conflict spreading. I felt that myself when I received a
22WH
delegation of Muslim leaders at the Foreign Office last week. Indeed, the new leader of the Board of Deputies of British Jews said in her introductory statement at a reception last night that there is a real danger of the conflict spilling over into British society. Attacks have already been made on Jewish synagogues and Muslim citizens, and we do not want our community relations poisoned by the conflict spreading to this country. We must make efforts to ensure that it does not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield is another longstanding advocate of the Palestinian cause, and rightly so. He said that one of the really serious consequences of the conflict was the deaths of Israeli-Arab citizens and referred most movingly to the experience of his friend Asel. We must discourage such a development. The hon. Member for Guildford made the important point that, if reconstituted, the Israeli Government must not turn its back on the peace process. It is a matter for the Israeli people, and the Prime Minister is currently deciding who should be members of the Government. Whoever is a member of the reconstituted Israeli Government must be a friend of the peace process. Britain will stand firmly by that position.
Mrs. Ellman: Will my hon. Friend also assure us that he will make it clear to the Palestinian leaders that they should rejoin the peace process? Will he point out that they have breached one of the agreements of Oslo and the Wye accords by resorting to violence, rather than negotiating to resolve difficulties?
Mr. Hain: I am happy to say that I spoke to the Palestinian foreign spokesman, Nabil Shaath, this morning and urged the Palestinian leadership to re-engage with the peace process and make every effort to stop the violence. They should have made more effort to stop the violence than has been the case in recent weeks.
It is equally important to point out that Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian leadership also have a domestic constituency. It may not have elected them, but there is a strong feeling and a danger that the moderate leadership that he has driven forward will lose out to a much more hard-line and extreme opinion in the community, especially in the current situation.
Mr. Tony Clarke: In trying to discover the reasoning behind the violence, will my hon. Friend go so far as to accept that the British Government ought to back calls for an international inquiry? I had the misfortune to be in Gaza and the West Bank during the worst of the violence, and witnessed individual children being targeted with live rounds from the Israeli defence forces. On visiting a hospital in Gaza, I saw children who had been hit by dumdum bullets that had exploded inside their brains. Given my first-hand evidence, does he feel it necessary for the Government to call for an international inquiry so that we can find out where the violence came from and who was responsible for those deaths?
Mr. Hain: It is precisely because of the points raised by my hon. Friend that we support the decision of those who took part in the Sharm El-Sheikh summit to agree on an internationally based inquiry. There will be one as

23WH
a result of that summit. It was agreed to by all concerned, including the Israeli Government. No doubt the summit will deal with the matters he identified.
I should briefly tackle a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West about a United Nations force, as demanded at the Arab summit. I pay tribute to that summit for urging that the peace process be resumed, and showing a moderate leadership in difficult circumstances. I do not rule such a force out but it is difficult to put a UN peace-keeping force in the middle of warring parties, as we have seen in Sierra Leone, where there was a peace agreement, and can still see in the Congo.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South said that, as a friend of Israel, he was a friend of peace. Given the passions displayed this morning, it is important that we remember that the majority of Israeli citizens backed Prime Minister Barak in his seeking to resume the peace process. I am convinced that the majority still back a peace settlement, even after the events of the past few weeks.
It is a tragedy that the parties know how close they came to an agreement at Camp David. They were in reach of a deal that would have changed the face of the middle east. There is a contrast between what we have seen recently and what I saw on my visit at the end of August. Within a few hours, I spoke to Prime Minister Barak and President Arafat, and it was clear that they were close to a deal. Sometimes that is the most difficult time of a peace process, as we saw in Northern Ireland and South Africa in the early 1990s.
Dr. Rudi Vis: Will my hon. Friend the Minister give way?
Mr. Hain: No. I am sorry, but I do not have time.
The agreement would have led to the creation of an independent and viable Palestinian state with clearly defined and secure borders. It is inconceivable that any other route will lead to such an achievement, so the Palestinians must persevere on it. Further delays in the peace process will lead to the Palestinians being offered less than they have been. The Palestinians must realise that they will have no better partner for peace than Prime Minister Barak, and the Israelis must realise that they will have no credible partner for peace other than President Arafat. It is vital that they continue to work together for peace.
Only peace will enable the Palestinians to express fully their right to self-determination and enable the Israelis to enjoy the security that they rightly demand. Only peace will remove the instability and uncertainty that hangs over Israel. Once it has been achieved, the two peoples—who share not only land, but a history and a future—might realise that reconciliation and co-operation will achieve much more than conflict and confrontation. It is our responsibility, through patient diplomacy and constant engagement with all our friends in the region, to promote that peace settlement. We have had a lot of experience, and compromises will be needed, as in Northern Ireland and many other areas of the world, in order to secure that peace.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I congratulate hon. Members on an excellent debate on an important issue. The next debate will be initiated by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley).

Child Abduction
11.30 am
Sir John Stanley: This is a timely moment for a short debate on the Hague convention on international child abduction. First, child abduction beyond the boundaries of the country in which the child is normally resident is, regrettably, an increasing violation of human rights. That is because of greater ease of international travel, decisions made by a number of countries for different reasons to reduce border and passport controls, within the EU area for example, and, sadly, because the incidence of marriage break-up is rising rather than falling. That combination of factors tends to put an increasing number of children around the world at risk from the evil of child abduction.
Secondly, we are six months away from the quadrennial review of the Hague convention, which is due to take place next spring. It is a desirable to have a major debate in the House, and more widely in Britain among all those who are involved in trying to deal with the issue, on what stance should be taken by the British Government, fellow members of the European Union and other Governments who are signatories to the Hague convention before the convention meeting next spring.
As I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, there is widespread concern in the House about child abduction. In July, before the House rose for the summer recess, the all-party group on child abduction tabled early-day motion 980, which is headed "Review of the Hague convention on child abduction" and states that the House
deeply regrets that some of the signatories to the Hague Convention on Child Abduction, including certain EU member states, fail to give effect to all of the Convention's provisions in some individual cases.
That motion had attracted a total of 118 signatures by the time the House rose last night, which indicates the width of concern, in all parties, on the matter. As the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, the officers of the all-party group followed up the early-day motion with our letter of 25 July to the Lord Chancellor, which drew his attention to our early-day motion and stated:
we wish to urge that you as head of the Central Authority for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and that Jim Wallace as head of the Central Authority for Scotland take early steps to consult with interested and expert parties, and most particularly with Reunite, the national charity for child abduction, on the improvements in the working of the Hague Convention that you both would wish to see being agreed at the Hague Convention review meeting next year.
That letter was sent on 25 July, and until a few minutes ago we were still waiting for a reply. Any reply before a debate such as this is better than none at all, but I would have preferred to have received it earlier than 10.47 this morning, on my fax. It was thrust into my hand by my secretary as I came quickly from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to this Chamber. The Lord Chancellor offered an apology that the delay was caused by an administrative failure in his Department. In any case, I should like to express my thanks that we have received a reply at the last moment. I shall refer to that reply in the course of my remarks.

25WH
On the consultation paper, to which we attach great importance, the reply states that there will be further consultation later in the autumn. The weeks and months before the spring meeting of the special commission are passing, and I hope that autumn will mean in a few weeks' time. It is imperative that hon. Members, Reunite and all specialist practitioners in all parts of the United Kingdom have a proper opportunity to make their own detailed consideration of the Government's proposals, and give their responses to the Government.
I want to make some detailed suggestions as to what we should try to achieve from the Hague convention review meeting next year. Before I do so, I turn to another aspect of international child abduction—abduction of young women, sometimes from this country, who are taken overseas for the purposes of a forced marriage abroad. I appreciate that it is a culturally sensitive matter and I applaud the Government, who, unlike any of their predecessors, have faced up to the issue and taken steps to produce policies that address the matter from a human rights standpoint. I applaud the Government for setting up the working group on forced marriage and, following the working group's report, the Government's response in their action plan, which, by and large, was thoroughly positive. I have one question for the Minister in that regard. Do the Government consider that the existing ambit of criminal law in relation to the removal of young women from the jurisdiction of this country for the purposes of a forced marriage overseas is satisfactory? On that key point, the Government's action plan, at paragraph 4.3, is somewhat ambiguous. It states that the Government will:
Prepare detailed information for all our staff about the criminal law in the UK on abduction and how it applies in cases of forced marriage.
That does not make it clear whether the Government are satisfied with the current criminal law or believe that it should be strengthened. In particular, do the Government accept that adults who conspire, in the UK, to remove a young woman from the jurisdiction of this country to a country overseas for the purpose of a forced marriage would be guilty of a criminal offence in this country? I hope that the Government accept that it would be a criminal offence and I believe that that is the Government's position. If it is, are they satisfied that criminal law is sufficiently wide to ensure that it is a criminal offence for adults to conspire to send young women overseas for the purposes of entering into a forced marriage?
It is generally accepted that, whatever the imperfections in the operation of the Hague convention, there is no prospect—nor, perhaps, is it necessary—for amendments to be made to the text of the convention, but that there should be improved operation and enforcement of the convention under the present wording. At the Hague convention review next year we should seek to get agreement to a remit to the Hague secretariat to produce a series of codes of practice on key areas of the operation of the convention. That would represent a great step forward.
I hope that at the review meeting next year we will not simply provide a generalised remit to the Hague secretariat to produce codes of practice, but go further and specify the particular areas in the operation of the convention in which codes of practice are necessary. I would like to propose five such areas.
26WH
First, we need a code of practice on prevention of international child abduction. As we all know, prevention is infinitely preferable to the trauma of an abduction that actually takes place, both for the child involved and for the parents from whom the child or children are taken. Extremely valuable work has been carried out on prevention in the United Kingdom, not least by Reunite, the national child abduction charity, and I believe that this country would make a considerable input to any Hague secretariat code of practice.
Secondly, I hope that we can create a code of practice on embarkation controls and procedures. Once a child has been abducted, the only likely protection against that child being removed from the jurisdiction of the country in which he or she is normally resident will be at the port of embarkation—the airport, railway station, frontier point or sea port. Therefore it is essential that embarkation procedures and controls are in place rapidly to identify children who have been abducted. As I hope the Minister is aware, the all-party group is concerned about the reduction in embarkation controls that have taken place in this country, and believes that it exposes children abducted in this country to a significantly greater degree of risk.
Thirdly, I hope that there can be a code of practice on judicial training for judges dealing with Hague convention cases. All the experience to date shows that a specialist group of senior lawyers is needed properly to enforce the Hague convention. In this country, we have such a group of lawyers. The subject has always been treated as one for specialists here, and we have a group of judges who are familiar with the Hague convention and have expertise and experience in dealing with such cases. Sadly, in too many countries that task is simply left to the normal judicial hierarchy with the result that judges in lower courts may have to deal with Hague convention cases—probably for the first time in their professional careers. There have been many examples of individual judges treating Hague convention cases as custody decisions, when they should be dealing with the fundamental issue under articles 12 and 13 of the convention, which is the question of whether or not a child should be returned to the country of his or her habitual residence. That is the key judicial function for the purposes of the convention. We need better, more specialist training, and a code of practice would be desirable.
Fourthly, we need a code of practice providing guidance to new state parties. There are only about 50 state parties to the convention at the moment, but we hope that there will be many more over the next few years. We must give the new parties all possible help in implementing the convention from the outset to the highest standards.
Fifthly, I hope that we might have a code of practice on enforcing the access provisions of the Hague convention. The Hague convention is explicit about that; article 21 states clearly:
The Central Authorities are bound by the obligations of co-operation which are set forth in Article 7 to promote the peaceful enjoyment of access rights and the fulfilment of any conditions to which the exercise of those rights may be subject. The Central Authorities shall take steps to remove, as far as possible, all obstacles to the exercise of such rights.

27WH
Access rights are clearly enshrined in the convention and, sadly, in several cases, those rights are not being upheld. Catherine Meyer, in a case with which the Minister is familiar, has had only 24 hours of access to her children in Germany since they were abducted six years ago. That is a sad and deplorable state of affairs and points again to the need for a clear code of practice on operating article 21.
Finally, since sending our first letter to the Lord Chancellor in December last year, the all-party group has been pressing for a quantum leap in achievement from the review meeting of 2001, which will be the fourth such meeting. None of the three previous meetings has achieved anything in practical or concrete terms, although I am sure that they have been invaluable in enabling the participants to exchange views.
I am glad that the Lord Chancellor, in the letter that I received this morning, says that he believes that
the Special Commission this time should look to achieve more than in the past, with a new focus on improving the operation of the Convention, and on making sure that the countries newly acceding to the Convention are in a position to live up to the requirements it imposes.
If that is to be the case, it is essential that Ministers attend the special review conference. I am glad that the Lord Chancellor is much more positive on the subject in his latest letter than he was in his previous letter of 1 March. He says:
I agree that Ministerial attendance at the Special Commission could also be helpful, by raising its profile and providing more political impetus than it has had previously, and we have put this point to the Hague Secretariat.
I urge the Government to do their utmost to secure ministerial attendance; only if we get that attendance will we achieve a positive outcome on an issue of profound human rights importance. If the Minister, in her reply to this debate, can announce that there will be ministerial attendance, I know that that would be widely applauded as a helpful and important initiative by the British Government.
11.49 am
The Parliamentary Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) for initiating this Adjournment debate. As he rightly says, it is a timely opportunity to discuss child abduction and the preparations that we are making for the special commission in the Hague next year. Although this debate is less well attended than the previous one, it is no less important and will attract the same amount of attention outside this place. People will read carefully what the right hon. Gentleman said and my response to him.
The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the all-party group on child abduction have already drawn the attention of the House to this important and sensitive issue through the early-day motion to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The group does enormously valuable work in keeping the issue in the public eye and in supporting the work of Reunite, the international centre for child abduction. I was happy to attend and speak at the reception that the all-party group arranged for Reunite earlier this year.
28WH
I am also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) and for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton), and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) for having, in the terms that the right hon. Gentleman described, written on the subject just before the summer recess. I am sorry that the reply to that letter was delayed during the recess, and I sincerely apologise for that discourtesy, but I hope that the contents of the letter will at least have been worth waiting for. One advantage of the delay was that the reply could report on the common law judicial conference on international child custody, which took place in Washington last month and to which I shall refer later, if I have time.
I have read the reply from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which represents the views of the Foreign Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. It is worth emphasising at the outset that our Departments work closely together on this important subject. Staff in the family policy division of the Lord Chancellor's Department and in the child abduction unit at the Official Solicitor's Office are in regular contact with their counterparts in the consular division of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The right hon. Gentleman asked several important questions, including whether the Government believe the existing ambit of criminal law to be satisfactory. Whether a criminal offence has been committed in a particular case must depend on the circumstances of the case. For example, it is a general rule of law that a conspiracy cannot exist between a husband and a wife, which clearly presents difficulties in this sensitive area. It is, therefore, not a prima facie criminal offence for parents to plan to take their children abroad, as millions do every year. However, I shall pass the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is responsible for developing criminal law and will be interested in them.
Forced marriages are an important subject and an increasingly recognised problem that we take seriously. We have promised to do all that we can to help victims of forced marriage. The Foreign Office and the Home Office have launched a joint plan to turn that promise into action. The plan sets out a comprehensive strategy on the overseas dimension of forced marriage. It launches a major programme of co-operation and training between key police forces in the United Kingdom and their counterparts overseas, and it reviews how our staff overseas handle victims of forced marriage from the moment they walk through the door to the time that they return to the UK.
The right hon. Gentleman makes the criticism that that does not go far enough. The plan calls for a joined-up approach in which we work together to give victims the support that they need, and envisages a partnership of the Government, communities, women's groups, the police and others, working together to help victims. The dozens of commitments amount to a genuine manifesto of practical action.
We have taken our cue from the Government's working group on forced marriage, which published its report last month. The group has done an outstanding job in breaking once and for all the taboo on discussing the subject. It endorses what my Home Office colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the

29WH
Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), said when he set up the group. He commented that
cultural sensitivity is no excuse for moral blindness.
We take on board the right hon. Gentleman's point.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned embarkation controls. I am afraid that what I have to say will not satisfy his call. Currently, there are no formal embarkation controls to prevent child abduction. Our view is that formal controls would be disproportionately expensive. However, Government agencies are working with airports, seaports and carriers to increase awareness of the issue. We will obviously monitor the impact of improvements in the working practices of the organisations involved.
The right hon. Gentleman made an important point about judicial training. I agree that convention cases should be dealt with by judges who are familiar with the convention and the relevant legislation to ensure uniformity across the board. The permanent bureau in the Hague is currently developing an international child abduction database. The project is intended to provide wide access to case summaries and a full text of leading international child abduction cases, of which a significant proportion will be English, Welsh and Scottish. The Government are keen to promote wider dissemination of useful information in all areas of public interest. International child abduction is an especially important matter, in which the sharing of information should carry considerable benefit. I am pleased to say that as part of our commitment to the database, the United Kingdom has contributed £5,000 to the cost of INCADAT for 2000.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about ministerial attendance, in respect of which we have much sympathy with the view of the all-party group. It is not, however, a matter for the United Kingdom alone—a point that we must always bear in mind when dealing with this difficult and potentially intractable matter. If we are to be effective in making improvements to the operation of the convention, we need other member states to join us and to reach a consensus. So far, however, the Hague
30WH
secretariat reports that other countries are not as enthusiastic as we are about the suggestion that Ministers should attend, although the secretariat is sympathetic. We will continue to work on the matter.
We want also to consider with the Hague secretariat and other member states the admission of new members to the convention. So far, the policy has always been to encourage everyone to join. We in Britain have changed our view about that, and I shall want to discuss the matter further at the special commission.
Sir John Stanley: Before the Minister finishes, will she tell us whether the British Government agree that it is highly desirable for the outcome of the Hague convention review to be a formal remit to the Hague secretariat to produce codes of practice in defined areas such as those that I have suggested and to which the Government may want to add? Is not that a desirable objective for the Government?
Jane Kennedy: It is clearly a desirable objective, and I confirm that we shall press for it. We would all agree that the 1980 Hague convention on child abduction was a positive and significant step forward in dealing with international child abduction. It is, however, by no means perfect and we have not reached the end of the road. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the increasing mobility of populations means that people who would probably never have met in the past are more and more likely to meet, form relationships, marry and have children. That is occurring across barriers not only of nationality, but of language, religion and culture. As we have heard, there can be difficulties, but there can also be advantages. The difficulties become especially acute if the relationship between parents breaks down. Children may end up with parents in different countries with different cultures and social expectations. Inevitably, for the parent with whom the children do not live, there is a temptation to take the children back to his or her own country or to keep them there after a visit.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. However important the debate is, time is up.

Fuel Duty (Rural Areas)
12 noon
Mr. Calum Macdonald: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important subject again.
A great deal has happened since my previous Adjournment debate on this topic, just before the Budget. I shall start by saying a few words about the events of the summer. I want to stress that the Government's attitude towards the fuel blockades over the summer was absolutely correct. It is not right for any section or interest group to try to use its economic muscle to blackmail a Government into a change of policy, especially when that policy affects not only that group but the great majority of the population. The Government were right to insist that they would not be pushed into any knee-jerk response while under such pressure.
Of course there is concern about the price of petrol and, within that, about the level of fuel taxation. However, the Government's response to these concerns should be properly thought out with an eye to the long term, and should be based on core principles. For a Labour Government, the most important principle underpinning taxation policy surely has to be a progressive one—that is, the principle that, whenever Practical, taxation should bear less heavily on those least able to afford it.
When we apply that principle to petrol taxes, we find that in practice it is the low-income households in rural areas on which the burden of petrol tax is bearing down hard and disproportionately. In urban areas, the Government have a reasonable argument when they say that the operation of petrol tax is progressive in a rough-and-ready way. In such areas, low-income households tend not to have cars and therefore tend to be exempt. For example, in Glasgow, only about 34 per cent. of households have access to a car.
The same argument cannot be made about remote rural areas, however. I shall concentrate on my own constituency, because I am most familiar with that area, but colleagues will be able to draw their own parallels with other rural areas. In the Western Isles, for example, 62 per cent. of households have access to a car—twice the percentage of Glasgow, and higher even than the Scottish average of 57 per cent. Using a car in a place such as the Western Isles is not a luxury; it is a necessity for getting to work and to the shops, and for being able to lead a regular, ordinary life in the community.
In remote communities, car ownership is not related to income or wealth. Average incomes in the Western Isles are substantially—about 25 per cent. —below the national average. A remote community such as the Western Isles has substantially lower incomes than the national average but is substantially more dependent on private car transport. Logically, therefore, a flat rate of petrol tax must hit my constituents disproportionately hard.
I am not exaggerating the difficulty that this issue creates for my constituents. I checked this morning and the price of unleaded petrol in the Western Isles is 92.3p a litre—a price well above that which provoked the public outcry and the blockades on the mainland this
32WH
summer. I know that petrol tax is not responsible for the phenomenally high prices in the Western Isles, but the Government cannot ignore the fact that petrol tax is part of that price; nor can they ignore the fact that petrol tax has a significant impact on rural communities.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is referring to private road users. Does he agree that the same applies to road haulage in rural areas such as his constituency and my own in Montgomeryshire where the only means by which to transport products to the shops is by way of road hauliers who tend to pay proportionately more for fuel?
Mr. Macdonald: Yes, haulage is affected by petrol tax, too. The further that one is from the main trading centres in Britain and Europe, the greater the impact.
Aspects of unfairness in the tax system sometimes can be tolerated when the tax concerned is relatively minor and when it would either be too cumbersome or expensive to make it more progressive. However, as a tax increases and its impact on low-income households becomes greater, any unfairness becomes less acceptable. That is the key problem with petrol taxation. When petrol tax was relatively small, it could be argued that the cost of adjusting it to make it fairer was disproportionate to the improvement in fairness that would be achieved. All that has changed because of the impact of the fuel escalator that was introduced by the Tory Government. The present Government abolished the escalator, and I warmly welcomed that, but its legacy lives on. Petrol tax has risen, mostly under the Tories. It was a relatively small tax, but it is now one of the higher taxes operated by the Treasury. It raises £22 billion a year, making it the fourth highest tax after income tax, value added tax and corporation tax.
Petrol tax needs to be reformed. I do not believe that it is wrong in principle. On the contrary, I accept that there are strong environmental arguments for petrol taxation. It is important for the Government to have a range of taxes to fund their public services. However, petrol tax needs to be reformed because its size has so increased that it demands our making a serious effort to make it more progressive in its impact on remote areas. We shall never make it completely fair, but we can try to make it fairer, and that is what the Government should now be examining.
The solution would be to provide a rebate in vehicle excise duty for motorists living in remote rural areas. For example, a rebate of about £100 in excise duty for the island communities in Scotland would cost £3 million or £4 million. That is a modest sum compared with the £22 billion collected by the tax, but one that would go a long way towards signalling the Government's sensitivity to the matter of fairness.
There are arguments against such a targeted solution. First, the Automobile Association has argued that my solution would be unfair because well-off people in remote areas would benefit while some vulnerable groups in urban areas would still be affected. The fact is that any solution can only make the tax more fair, but not perfectly fair. We accept the rough edges in the case of value added tax exemptions on food and children's clothes, given that rich and poor alike benefit from them. That is similar to the Government's new policy on

33WH
television licences for the elderly as a result of which rich and poor pensioners alike will benefit. The impact of petrol taxation in remote rural areas is so clearly regressive that a solution directed at those areas can be justified as it will result in substantially improving the overall fairness of the tax.
The second argument against my solution is that it would be difficult to draw or to justify the geographic boundaries that would receive the reduction in vehicle excise duty and those that would fall outside such areas. Such an argument would have some validity if broad swathes of rural Britain were to be included. However, I am not suggesting that. If a vehicle excise duty reduction were confined to genuinely remote areas where the problem was at its most acute, the difficultly would not be insurmountable. The geographic boundaries of remote island communities are certainly obvious to the naked eye and I believe that such a solution would be widely acceptable.
In the case of the Scottish islands, there is a precedent of which the Treasury is aware—the reduction in vehicle excise tax payable on heavy goods vehicles on particular islands. The logic of that targeted reduction for lorries should now be extended to cars.
I believe that the objections to a targeted approach can be answered. The technical obstacles to a targeted reduction in vehicle excise duty that is intended to balance the disproportionate impact of petrol tax on remote communities can be overcome. I grant that a targeted solution has some residual awkwardness and that the Treasury tends to shy away from such measures. In defence, however, I plead the essential residual awkwardness of the geography of the country in which we live. It would be good if Britain were a nice, convenient square shape such as that of France, Germany or Spain. Unfortunately, however, Britain is not shaped like that. It is long and narrow. Most of the population is situated at one end of the country and there are only scattered communities at the other end, on the outer fringes of Europe.
I am not blaming the Treasury for the shape of Britain, but it can be held responsible for policies that ignore the social and economic realities that are dictated by geography. That is why I urge the Government to take those realities into account in framing their fiscal policy during the coming months.
12.11 pm
Mr. David Stewart: First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) for initiating this and previous debates on the subject under discussion. I should like also to thank my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for agreeing to make a brief contribution.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles, I represent a very rural constituency. It is the largest Labour seat in the United Kingdom and stretches from the Atlantic to the North sea. Obviously, the community in this large, spread-out rural area is dependent on cars. The constituency contains a number of island communities, which are a special consideration in this debate. They include Rhum, Eigg, Muck and Canna. For more than a decade, fuel prices have been an issue in my and many other rural constituencies. As the price of fuel approaches £4 a gallon, the problem is becoming
34WH
more acute. I can safely say that the matter is now the No. 1 issue in my constituency, narrowly beating the Child Support Agency into No. 2, although there is not much in it.
As my hon. Friend said, the car is not a luxury in rural areas. My constituency has a very high car ownership, so increases in fuel duty hit low-paid motorists and essential users especially hard. Rural hauliers in particular have been badly hit. During the past three years, I have approached the issue in a number of ways. I have raised it at Prime Minister's Question Time, initiated Adjournment debates and participated in a number of meetings, not least with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary but also with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, along with some other rural Back-Benchers. I have also met those on the other side of the equation: the key companies. I have met the chief executives of British Petroleum, Shell, Esso and Texaco, which was useful in gaining understanding of the issue and have encouraged many of my constituents, not least rural hauliers, to make some contributions to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which is discussing the issue as we speak.
Of course, there are many critics of the level of fuel duty. At present, I think that all the tax and duty adds up to around 72 per cent. of the pump price. Ironically, with all the recent uproar, the proportion has fallen since the previous Government were in power, when it was around 78 per cent. of the pump price. As we heard earlier, the Tories invented the fuel escalator, which the Chancellor has now abolished.
We must be careful not to make false comparisons with other European countries on taxes. For instance, Britain does not have motorway tolls and tends to have lower corporation and direct taxes. Of course, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries has played an important role in the equation. By restricting output—some other political games are going on, especially with Iraq—the spot price of fuel has gone from around $10 a barrel to around $36 a barrel, which is a gigantic increase. Of the last 19p worth of price increases during the past 16 months, which was a big jump, duty contributed only 2p. We must therefore be careful when discussing this equation. OPEC raises much wider issues, such as globalisation, the level of control that individual Governments can have, and what pressure they can bring to bear on OPEC. I am not convinced that the American strategy of releasing the strategic petroleum reserves is the answer. Given the current high petrol prices, I also believe that now is the time to put more pressure on our oil companies to start exploring in a new fields and utilising the existing fields. More than 300 so-called fallow fields in the UK continental shelf are not being developed at all.
What is the future? The easy answer is a cut in fuel duty. A 2p reduction, for example, would cost the Treasury more than £1 billion in revenue. However, the Chancellor also has a responsibility for economic stability. In his reply, will the Minister answer the criticism, which I hear in my constituency, that the Government have made record VAT returns because of the high price of fuel? I would be grateful for his thoughts.
Is there an answer? I would say yes. First, we need a fairness charter to target concessions aimed at lower-income motorists. We must keep the freeze on liquefied

35WH
petroleum gas—LPG—which is an excellent environmentally correct fuel and only a third of the price of conventional fuel. We should introduce an essential users' allowance for rural hauliers, which would be similar to that for the bus industry. There should be further reductions in road tax for fuel efficient vehicles and a road tax reduction for those in rural areas, as my hon. Friend said. Finally, we need a fuel regulatory setup that monitors prices across the country, as I have no doubt that there is exploitation of the so-called soft market, especially in rural areas. I thank my hon. Friend for initiating this debate.
Mr. Robert Maclennan rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. Has the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) had the permission of the initiator of the debate to speak? If so, I hope that he will be brief and allow the Minister sufficient time to reply.
12.17 pm
Mr. Maclennan: It is very much in the interests of all hon. Members that we receive a reply from the Minister. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) for the opportunity to say that, in the highlands and islands, this matter does not divide political parties. There is a common perception that the issue is one of social justice, and that if there is a will there will be a way to deal with the gross disparities of petrol prices between sparsely populated remote areas and densely populated urban areas, where totally different considerations apply.
It is easy but mistaken to suggest that an alteration of petrol taxation affecting those areas would send the wrong signals about the environmental commitment of the party making the adjustment. Adjustments of the kind proposed by the hon. Member for Western Isles would have no material impact on the environment. It should be recognised as primarily a matter of social justice. The variation of taxes in our country to take account of wholly different circumstances is not only theoretically but demonstrably possible, as it has been done even in countries of a different geographical shape from our own. Even a square country such as France has varied petrol duty to take account of the problems of insularity and remoteness. That has been held to conform with the rules of the European Union, not to speak of variations that have taken place in other comparable parts of northern Europe.
I wholly endorse the views expressed by the hon. Member for Western Isles and regard the matter as a test case for the Government to demonstrate their commitment to inclusivity and to recognise that their employment initiatives can be set at nought if they do not tackle this problem in the Budget statement.
12.20 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on securing
36WH
this debate. I know that what he and others have said reflects genuine concern in their constituencies.
I was interested to hear the comments made by all three speakers, and I was also surprised to note the absence of any representatives of the Scottish National party in this debate, because they have spoken a great deal about these matters. However, they have clearly chosen to leave it to others to raise them in this Chamber. I also want to say how much I agree with my hon. Friend's opening remarks about the Government's response to the blockades last month. He was absolutely right to make those points.
I want to repeat the assurances given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that we understand the deep concern over high fuel prices expressed in today's debate. I spend a great deal of time meeting and listening to road hauliers, petroleum retailers and others who have been particularly affected by the recent price increases. However, I want to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), that the recent price increases are not the result of fuel duty. The Budget in March this year saw no real-terms increase in either petrol or diesel duty, and none of the price increases since March has been a consequence of fuel duty either.
The Government have had to make some tough choices over the past three and a half years. Those choices have delivered unprecedented economic stability, benefiting all parts of the United Kingdom. We have cut the deficit, put the public finances back on track, and converted a £27 billion deficit at the time of the election into an £18 billion debt repayment last year. Those provisions have led to very significant gains for the country in terms of the record low unemployment figures announced last week.
Furthermore, because we have been successful in reducing debt and cutting unemployment, we have been able to allocate money that would have gone in debt charges and unemployment benefits to improvements in public services. That will produce important benefits for rural areas over the next few years. Those are the changes that we were elected to deliver, and we are now delivering them—not despite the decisions that we have made on taxation, but because of them. We are now determined to reap the benefits of those tough choices. That means no irresponsible lurches on tax policy and no other reckless moves that some hon. Members—not in this Chamber but elsewhere—have proposed, which would jeopardise the new stability in the economy which is so important for all our futures.
The increases in fuel duties in recent years have produced a number of important benefits. They have given motorists and manufacturers clear incentives to design more fuel-efficient vehicles and to limit unnecessary journeys. The increases have also played a significant part in putting the United Kingdom on track to meet our Kyoto commitments. It has been estimated that real-terms increases in fuel duties between 1996 and 1999 will produce CO2, savings of between 1 million and 2.5 million tonnes a year by 2010. That is a significant contribution towards meeting the Kyoto objectives,

37WH
which I think that everyone here would support. We have also successfully used duty incentives to improve local air quality. We have significantly reduced the sulphur content in fuels, which has produced widespread benefits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles proposed a measure relating to vehicle excise duty. We are sensitive to the concerns that he and others have raised. I shall briefly outline the steps that we have already taken on vehicle excise duty, which has already been cut for smaller cars. We introduced a lower annual rate of £100 for cars with engines of up to 1,000 cc, which was a £55 cut benefiting 1.8 million small cars. In this year's Budget, we announced that, from next March, that reduced rate will be extended to apply to all existing cars with engines up to 1,200 cc. That will bring in another 2.2 million cars, making a total of 4 million cars that will benefit from a lower rate. That will provide an incentive for motorists to make their next second-hand car purchase a smaller and more environmentally friendly model. Many of those about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles expresses concern—I am not referring to those for whom a car is a luxury, but those on modest incomes for whom it is essential to have a car—will benefit from next March from the lower rate that we have introduced, if they have a smaller car.
In addition, also from next March, the vehicle excise duty for new cars will depend on the level of CO2 emissions that the engines of those cars produce. Under the scheme, up to £70 less tax will be charged on 95 per cent. of new cars, and the lower the level of emissions, the lower the rate of duty. The new arrangements will encourage people to buy new cars as opposed to old, and cars with a lower level of CO2, emissions and better fuel efficiency. It is no surprise that the changes that we made in Budget 2000—although that may seem a long time ago now—were warmly welcomed by the press and motoring organisations.
Travel difficulties can be acute in rural areas for particular groups of people, and it is important that we take account in this debate of those unable to use a car, of whom there are quite a number in my hon. Friend's constituency and in other rural areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles referred to the high price of petrol in the Western Isles. He will know that there has been a recent investigation of the pricing of fuel in the highlands and islands, which concluded that:
there is no evidence of any general problem of excessive pricing or profits.
38WH
The investigation came to a different conclusion about the Western Isles, making the point that:
it cannot be concluded that the market in the Western Isles is working competitively. Prices are higher than elsewhere and this cannot be explained in terms of lower volumes or by what we currently know about costs.
The Competition Commission will therefore undertake further work on the issues raised by the Western Isles.
My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles proposed a reduced rate of vehicle excise duty for motorists in rural areas. The proposal is interesting and merits serious consideration, but it could carry significant risks of fraud, and difficult questions of practicality and fairness would have to be answered as well. Would the measure assist the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber? If it were targeted only on islands, very few of my hon. Friends' constituents would benefit. It would be difficult to decide who would qualify for the reduction. The existing concession for lorries up to 12 tonnes applies only to lorries that do not travel to the mainland or travel on specified journeys to and from the mainland. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles would envisage that restriction applying to his proposal too; it would be much harder to apply to cars. I am well aware of the concerns being expressed and am interested in what he proposes, but I do not want him to think that the measure could be introduced quickly, even if it were decided that it was worth while.
Briefly, I refer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber about VAT. Of course, people may be spending more on fuel, but they are spending less on other things. Broadly speaking, therefore, the receipts on VAT are not exceptionally different from those that were expected at the Budget.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends and to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) for expressing their concerns and those of their constituents. I have no doubt that we shall return to these matters both before and after the forthcoming pre-Budget report, whose date of publication is likely to be announced later today in a written answer to a parliamentary question.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have run out of time and we now move on the last of this morning's debates in Westminster Hall, which will be initiated by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George).

Telecommunication Cable (Cornwall)
12.30 pm
Mr. Andrew George: I am delighted to have secured this important debate, and I am pleased to be here with a Minister who was so persuaded by my arguments last time we were in the Chamber debating the subject that he put down his notes and spoke without his brief so as to respond to my specific points. I hope to persuade him with my arguments again today so that he is encouraged once more to speak without his brief. I contacted his office to give a clear indication of the line of questioning and I hope that that was helpful. I am sure that the Minister knows that the regulation of cable companies in Cornwall is a serious issue and that the special circumstances that apply there should be properly understood and appreciated.
Many people who know me will be surprised to see my name associated with a debate about anything to do with the internet and information technology. If I am not the most IT-Challenged Member of Parliament, I must at least be one of the most challenged in the House and, therefore, the world. Despite that obvious handicap, I shall continue, as we must discuss important issues that relate not to use and understanding of the internet but to the practicalities of laying cables in an area such as Cornwall where transatlantic communications cables are being laid.
I want to bring to the Minister's attention the impact of what I consider to be the lax regulation on people, their livelihoods and the environment of west Cornwall. I shall speak about the lessons learnt about the regulatory framework surrounding the laying of telecommunications infrastructure and make a case for updating it. I had hoped to raise the matter sooner, as important developments have occurred this year. I refer especially to cable landing stations. Those large aircraft-hangar-style developments have been initiated in the middle of sensitive landscapes. Many of them will cover some 2,500 sq m, and we expect more. Despite all that has occurred in west Cornwall, I do not think that to introduce tougher measures now we would be to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. Our experience so far is not the end of the road and there is further development to come.
First, we need to understand what fibre optic cables are. As I understand it, such cables carry laser light signals for long distances and provide a quick and high-quality means of sending internet communications. Now they are available in multicolour form. I understand that up to 100 colours are available, each of which can provide a different stream of information. During the past five years, eight companies have brought transatlantic cables to the Cornish coast, which is the most economically attractive place for such development. On each occasion, the local community was given scant notice and suffered a lot of disruption. People's lives and businesses were often blighted and the environment also suffered through the rutting of country lanes, and so on.
Not just cables but landing stations are needed to transfer data streams between transatlantic cables and on-land cables, and they need a controlled environment for multiplex trackers and various other voodoo-sounding things that I do not understand, but which I imagine to be important to the technology.
40WH
During the past three years I have written 20 or 30 letters to Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to raise issues on behalf of constituents who are extremely troubled about the fact that local authorities are pretty powerless to influence the way in which such companies operate. I had a meeting with the then Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), in February last year. Fortunately, he accepted that there were problems and agreed to approach some of the companies to ask them to stage an exhibition in the local community to demonstrate the benefits of the technology for the community. It was a cunning ploy on my part, as I knew that there were no benefits for the local community because the fibre optics went straight out of Cornwall to other areas and that local businesses were being disadvantaged, not advantaged, as a result. I shall return to that point in a moment.
I also asked the Minister to contact all licence holders under the Telecommunications Act 1984 to ask them to find ways of co-operating in future. Rather than company after company disrupting our lives in west Cornwall, they should be forced—or, rather, encouraged, as nothing is specified in regulations to force them to do—to co-operate and bring their cables through together, in shared multiducts. The Minister honourably wrote to all licence holders in March last year. It was a nice letter, but he could use only the art of persuasion and not regulation, and it has made not a jot of difference to how the local community has suffered.
The problems experienced are not limited to obvious disruption for people using what is often the only route out of their village to the nearest town. They include long delays, sometimes in the middle of summer; long queues and unacceptable disruption to people's lives, to businesses and to people coming to the area on holiday; damage to the road surface, as I experienced when on a bicycle recently, and an increase in the number of manhole covers. According to the highways department at Cornwall county council, in some areas the road is in a serious state of deterioration. That blights businesses and communities. In addition, the Wildlife Trust tells me that, where cables are laid off the road in sensitive habitats that are not sites of special scientific interest, companies are not compelled to reinstate the environment.
Cable landing stations are a blight on a sensitive landscape and seriously compromise planning regulations. In all other circumstances, we would not allow development such as we have seen in west Penwith. Furthermore, development is piecemeal. We do not know what will happen next. Another cable company may come, or it may not. Ten may come. We are obliged to accept that. No strategy or structure is involved. Development is virtually unregulated.
What benefits does such development bring? In responding, DTI Ministers have constantly emphasised that the intention is to make the United Kingdom the best place in the world to engage in e-commerce, and we should all applaud and work towards that. For Cornwall, however, there is precious little benefit. The fibre optic cables go to switching stations up country, and we have no access to the fibre optic technology ourselves. In that respect, we have all the pain and none

41WH

of the gain. Indeed, many small, vital information technology businesses, some of which have relocated to the area and some of which have grown in the area, are now at a commercial disadvantage because they send pictures and designs on copper wires, and are therefore much slower than their competitors who have access to fibre optic technology.
Why is that happening in west Cornwall? Companies are landing their transatlantic cables on the coast of Cornwall, not sending them to London or elsewhere, because such action lowers the cost, lessens the risks of broken signals and maximises technological efficiency.
What benefit does this bring to Cornwall? Some people in my area answer that question by saying, "Sweet fibre optics." The scales of natural justice are tipped so far in favour of the cable companies that it makes the situation absurd. It costs £700 million to lay a transatlantic cable. We think that we are doing well in Cornwall because we have objective 1 status and that will give us about £300 million over seven years. We consider that that is a bonanza and we want to make a difference to the future economy of Cornwall with that money. Given that it costs £700 million to bring a cable across the Atlantic, the amount of money that it costs to install cable stations and lay the cables along our roads is chicken feed to the companies involved. It is a multi-billion pound industry, but it is not regulated or enforced to pay any compensation to the local community for the fact that it is disrupting lives.
What regulations exist? From my conversations and correspondence with Ministers in both Departments, it is clear that we are probably talking about deregulations not regulations. The Telecommunications Act 1984 provides companies with a licence. It is a licence for them to do pretty well what they want to do over a 25-year period. Companies need to give the local council only 28 days' notice if they want to dig up the road. In most cases, that is all the notice that they do give. There is precious little that the local authorities can do even about reinstatement. They can force the companies, but sometimes that is difficult if the reinstatement is not up to an adequate standard.
The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 contains some planning regulations, but few. Planning policy guidance notes 8 and 12, the Town and Country Planning Order 1995 and circular 1/97 are all relevant, but they do not seem to have made an impact on the planning side of the technologies and developments. I accept that they have resulted in an amount of stone facing and scantle slate roofing of the structures in some cases, but the regulations do not deal with the size of the structures and the fact that they are genuinely alien to the landscape. In the past, local authorities used to work alongside the electricity, gas and water boards. I know that that is regarded as a joke by many hon. Members, who think that one board dug up a road one day, while another board carried out some work a week later. However, at that time local authorities felt that they had some control over such matters. Now they have no control.
An urgent review of the regulatory framework is needed to give local authorities the teeth to reduce disruption and damage, and enable them to protect the environment. Moreover, they must be able to insist on compensation commensurate with the damage done. I appreciate that the Government are expected to
42WH
ensure regulatory stability by both European and our standards, and that the industry expects regulatory stability, but what about community stability and the economic stability of small businesses in rural areas? What about landscape stability and the integrity of planning stability? Much could be done about that.
The Government need to consider several options, including giving local authorities greater notice and allowing them to have more say in such matters. Local authorities must be able to insist on routing being carried out elsewhere along motorways and railways. They could require the companies to pay a fee or provide a bond to the local authority that is held until it is satisfied that the road has been adequately reinstated. They should insist that cable companies have single windows of opportunity to lay their cables and that they should use those windows to lay a substantial number of cables. The terms and conditions on which excess cables are sold or leased should then be negotiated. An occupation charge should be levied for the use of the highway, to encourage those who are laying the cables to do their job quickly and not to hang around. There should be penalties for companies that do not comply with the regulations. Perhaps the Government should consider charging the internet equivalent of a barrelage charge in places such as Cornwall, where we have to suffer the landing stations as well as disruption to our lives.
When I asked for this debate, I received calls from a number of companies with interests in mobile phones asking me not to raise questions about masts. I shall not do so, but if I had the opportunity to do so, I would say that they, too, need planning—I got that one in as well, after all.
It is difficult to predict the future of the technology. The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), wrote to me in November 1998, when she was a DTI Minister, in response to an issue that I raised with her. She said that she saw my concern as something of a temporary problem. She thought that it would be resolved in a few years and said:
it is unlikely that it will bring a rash of new companies.
Hardly had the letter appeared on my desk when a rash of new companies arrived.
We do not know what will happen in future, but we do know that we are talking about a multi-billion-pound industry. It is important, and we want to support it, but we also know that people's lives and livelihoods are blighted, that the planning system and landscape are compromised and that we can see only pain and very little gain in a place such as Cornwall. The Cornish economy and internet businesses are being disadvantaged as other areas and businesses benefit. A local organisation called Digital Peninsula is currently making proposals on behalf of 100 small companies in the area, which constantly tell me about the problems caused by their obvious disadvantage.
People in my area believe that the scales of natural justice have tipped so far in the companies' favour that the situation has become almost absurd and the scales have almost fallen over. They believe that the regulatory framework has failed to keep pace with technology and commercial developments and needs to be updated after

43WH
the enactment of the Telecommunications Act 1984. It is now time for the Government to take action and urgently to review the regulations.
12.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), but I am afraid that I shall stick fairly closely to my brief as I am probably as IT challenged as he is. In fact, I am challenged by almost all forms of technology beyond the bicycle.
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter that I recognise to be a cause of great concern among many of his constituents. He did so reasonably and cogently. I appreciate that work by telecommunications operators has caused disruption not only in Cornwall, but elsewhere. However, a number of factors in Cornwall mean that such works can have a greater impact there. Those include narrow lanes, proximity to the Atlantic and the various other factors about which the hon. Gentleman spoke.
The recent growth in international communications traffic is a reflection of the United Kingdom's success. The modern broadband networks that are now under construction are vital to meeting our target of making the United Kingdom one of the best places in the world to do business electronically. I must challenge one point made by the hon. Gentleman in that respect. He seemed to suggest that Cornwall would not benefit from these developments. That is not quite right. Although Cornwall may be slow to benefit from competition in modern telecommunications development, it will do so in due course. Some benefits have already been provided, and in future there will be big benefits for Cornwall and the rest of the country. Cornwall county council is a member of the South West Grid for Learning, which has secured Department for Education and Employment standards fund money. In the first phase of the project it is planned that 31 secondary schools will be broadband connected by March 2001. It is also planned to link libraries and primary schools into the network in the near future. Those are definite benefits to Cornwall. Developments in information and communications technology offer a real opportunity for peripheral and rural economies such as Cornwall to overcome some of the disadvantages of location and the scale of local labour markets.
The information society is a theme of the objective 1 programme. It is early days yet, but the indications are that several projects are expected to come forward for increasing the number of businesses utilising e-commerce and improving the ICT infrastructure within the county. Those should all ultimately benefit Cornwall's economy.
Pressure for more development will continue and we believe that the key to avoiding or minimising disruption from street works and other development lies in a combination of measures. The planning system is one of the tools available. Local authorities are not completely powerless, a point that I shall touch on in a minute. National and local planning policies play an important role in respect of many mast developments and cable landing stations, but other measures also contribute to controlling cable-laying activity.
44WH
A modern network brings many social and economic benefits, but it is essential that the drive to develop the industry is balanced against environmental objectives. Planning policy guidance note 8, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is the relevant document. In particular it emphasises the need for telecommunications development to take place in a way that keeps the environmental impact to a minimum.
Under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, licensed telecommunications code system operators have the right to lay cables without the need to make an application for planning permission. However, a prior approval procedure applies to cable laying in areas such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas and sites of special scientific interest. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman has a number of those in his constituency. In those areas the local planning authority can refuse approval where it considers the development will pose a serious threat to amenities.
The powers granted to telecommunication operators by the DTI enable companies to lay cables in public streets without the need for separate licences from local highway authorities, but those rights come with obligations.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Mullin: I want to give the hon. Member for St. Ives a full answer and he left me only 12 minutes in which to do so. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall carry on.
Licences contain conditions designed to reduce disruption from street works activity. For example, licences require operators to explore the possibility of duct sharing in order to reduce unnecessary digging. Where practicable they are expected to install sufficient ducting for future growth in demand, so reducing the need for further street works and wherever feasible to install ducting in footpaths rather than the road, to minimise traffic disruption. I recognise that some of the roads the hon. Gentleman described do not have footpaths. I am familiar with Cornwall.
In view of growing concerns about the impact of cabling activity the Government have reminded operators of their licence obligations and we have urged them to do all that they can to minimise the disruption arising from the construction of new networks. We shall continue to do so and I take the opportunity to repeat that message today.
I am sorry to hear that this has not had much impact. There is one rather more practical measure that may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. Street works carried out by licensed telecommunications operators are subject to the controls contained in the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Except in the case of protected streets, where street works may be executed only with the consent of the street authority, the Act does not allow authorities to refuse undertakers permission to carry out street works if they have a statutory right to do so. But it is not a free for all: undertakers—utilities and others with apparatus in the street—must reinstate road surfaces. They must give the required notice of forthcoming works and they must co-operate with each other and the street authorities.

45WH
For their part the authorities must co-ordinate their own and undertakers' works. Further powers in the Act are aimed at controlling the time spent on street works and at minimising disruption. Undertakers, whether in the telecommunications industry or other fields, have statutory rights to carry out street works as part of providing the public with services that are regarded as essential in a modern society. On the other hand, road users and local residents are rightly entitled to the minimum disruption from those necessary activities.
For some years now, the liberalisation of the telecommunications market and the resulting growth in the number of excavations has given rise to increasing concern about the consequent disruption to traffic. There has been some consensus that there may be a need to tighten controls. Accordingly, we consulted on ways of countering traffic disruption caused by street works, and announced our intention to implement section 74 of the 1991 Act, which allows charging for contractors who overstay. Provided that Parliament approves the section 74 regulations that we intend to lay before the end of this year, they will be brought into force early next year. We will also introduce guidance on best practice on street works. I hope that that will provide a little comfort for the hon. Gentleman. Additional controls may be needed, and we shall carry out an early review of the effectiveness of the existing ones, including the section 74 regulations. In that context, the Government have tabled amendments to the Transport Bill in another place, as a reserve measure to allow highway authorities to charge undertakers for street works from the first day of works—so-called lane rental. That, too, meets one of the points made by the hon. Gentleman in the concluding section of his speech.
I am aware of concerns about the insensitive siting of cable landing stations. Licensed telecoms code system operators are permitted, subject to certain conditions and exceptions, to install, alter or replace any telecommunications apparatus. However, cable landing stations normally consist of buildings—large and, in some cases, inappropriate buildings—which are specifically excluded from the definition of telecommunications apparatus. Developers proposing to install such a building will therefore need to apply for planning permission. I assume that all those to which the hon. Gentleman referred applied for local planning permission. Local authorities therefore have some influence on the siting and construction of such buildings.
Where planning applications are submitted for telecommunications development, it will normally be for the local planning authority to determine the
46WH
application. The starting point in that process will be the development plan. The Cornwall structure plan includes a policy that provides for telecommunications development in ways that will maximise the use of existing sites to limit the impact on the landscape. Local plans can contain more detailed policies such as the emerging Penwith local plan, which provides detailed locational and environmental guidance.
Penwith district council has also recently published supplementary planning guidance on "Cable Stations and Associated Development". The guidance makes clear that the council believes that there are few if any sites where landscape needs can be fully addressed by further development of the kind that has taken place up to now. For that reason, the guidance introduces more stringent criteria. We are pleased that the council is seeking to provide a more detailed framework against which planning applications for cable landing stations in Penwith can be assessed.
Mr. George: I appreciate that my intervention must be brief. Will the Minister or his Department issue guidance on the use of obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, especially in relation to achieving some form of compensation from companies for the disturbance and blight on the landscape that has been described?
Mr. Mullin: I cannot comment on that at the moment. It is one of a number of practical suggestions that the hon. Gentleman has made, which I shall consider. Under the section 74 measures that I mentioned, it will be possible, where companies overstay, for a hefty charge to apply.
Telecommunications development is vital to the success of the British economy. The benefits are accruing now and will continue long into the future. However, the Government fully acknowledge the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for St. Ives about the localised but often significant disruption that such development can cause. Cornwall will benefit from the new technology, and, as far as future development is concerned, we want to make various changes—I referred to some—to the regulatory regimes within which the industry operates. In addition to introducing overstay and lane rental charging, we are consulting on revised planning guidance and we are prepared to consider licensing controls. The Government are willing to consider any new ideas to tackle what I acknowledge is a serious problem.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to One o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Banana Trade Dispute
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy on the provision of temporary aid to UK businesses affected by the EU-USA banana trade dispute; and if he will make a statement. [134210]

  Mr. Byers
  The way to alleviate this burden from all the companies facing possible US sanctions is to find a solution to the banana dispute that is satisfactory to all parties. It is precisely this that the Government have been working hard to achieve since the US first imposed retaliation last year.

  While I fully sympathise with the plight of these companies, any suggestion of offering some form of direct compensation for lost business as a result of US actions poses considerable legal difficulties, under the terms of membership of the WTO.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what decisions he has reached on the future of the Patent Office in the light of the review announced by the Minister for Competitiveness on 27 April. [134447]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The first stage of the Review of the Patent Office has now been completed. I am pleased to say that the Review found that the Office is now extremely customer focused and responsive. The quality of the Office's patent granting and other registration functions is well regarded and compares favourably with that of other intellectual property offices. The Patent Office has met or exceeded most of its performance objectives and targets. It has contributed to the achievement of wider Government objectives. Its standards of customer service are very high. It has achieved a Charter Mark three times, and IiP accreditation.

  The Patent Office will continue as an Executive Agency of the DTI. There are significant concerns about privatising or contracting out in full what are largely judicial functions, where commercial drivers could lead to unhelpful pressures. The review found that Agency status was widely thought to have worked well.

  We want the UK to play a key role in driving forward international policy on intellectual property—not just patents and trade marks but copyright too, where the Internet and digital uses are posing new challenges. We need to ensure that copyright can be protected and enforced on an international basis, while balancing both user and owner interests. We intend to strengthen the policy units, bringing in a range of expertise and widening the consultation mechanisms, so as to work in partnership with the different interests.
  102W
  Getting a patent or trade mark is only part of the story for business. They also have to find a market for their invention and need to know how to defend their intellectual property rights. The Patent Office will in future be doing more to help them—linking up with the Small Business Service and the support for innovation the DTI provides. For example, we will be exploring what more needs to be done—using the web—to match inventors with business partners. The Patent Office will also be investigating how it might develop alternative dispute resolution with the interests of small business and private applicants in mind.

  Trade is becoming increasingly international and patents need to reflect this. The UK can play a key role in developing the international systems to make them cheap, speedy and accessible. We want to see the expertise of national offices used to achieve this. We have a very well respected team of specialist examiners—we want to see them (and other national offices) being used to speed up and improve the international routes for granting patents. The UK route for patents could then become complementary to the international routes. The review recommended that UK fees should be adjusted to discourage duplication of work and to cover costs. We intend to consider, and consult as necessary, on the scope for changing the fee structure to achieve these objectives.

  Our trade mark registration function is highly regarded and it is still needed alongside the EC trade mark and the international trade mark system. The review concluded that there was a good case for bringing greater consistency between the UK and EC systems by ceasing to refuse applications on the grounds of conflicting marks, but possibly notifying the applicant and trade mark owner of conflicts. We intend to consult on the options.

  On designs, an EC regime is in prospect and we will consult on whether a UK system is still needed once that is in place.

  We intend to ensure that the governance of the Patent Office reflects the need to provide a balance between producer interests, the innovation agenda and the interests of end-consumers, by including a range of external members on the Steering Board, which would discuss policy at a strategic level. We will also be considering whether a new name would better reflect the Office's role and aims. The Office will be working closely with Companies House and Nominet to ensure that, in so far as it would be helpful for companies, a unified application should be possible.

  IT is a key strategic enabler for the Office. Advice from consultants showed that the current management, systems and equipment were appropriate and effective for business needs and offered value for money. They generally endorsed the Office's approach to new initiatives, while making some proposals which the Office will be taking forward. The Patent Office has already developed a highly rated website and is on track to have all services available electronically by the Government target of 2005.

  The report of Stage 1 of the Review of the Patent Office has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Stage 2 of the review has now started and is considering whether any changes should be made to the way in which the Patent Office operates, including its aims and objectives, targets and financial controls.

  ACAS Report
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the Annual report for the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. [134445]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The ACAS report for 1999–2000 is being laid before both Houses of Parliament today. Copies are available from the Vote Office.

  Supermarkets Inquiry
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ask the Director General of Fair Trading to inquire into the proposed new distribution arrangement between W H Smith Retail and Tesco; and if he will assess what percentage of the wholesale market in the UK is held by each and the consequences of this for competition. [133818]

  Dr. Howells
  The Director General of Fair Trading is already aware of proposals to introduce new arrangements for the distribution of magazines and is monitoring the situation. It would be for the Director General to assess what impact these arrangements would have on competition.

  Industrial Compensation
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many MAP testing centres there are in the UK; where they are; on what dates they opened; how many examinations were carried out at each centre; and how many persons are waiting to be examined at each centre. [133985]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As at 8 October 2000 Healthcall Services Ltd., the company contracted to carry out the full Medical Assessment Process, has 26 centres operational (Mountain Ash being counted as a double centre because it has two sets of equipment). Healthcall will shortly be opening two further centres in South Wales, a centre in Wrexham, a centre in Stirling and a second set of equipment is to be installed in Barnsley, bringing the total to 30.

  Location

  Date opened

  Number of assessments

  Future booked appointments

  1. Ayr

  End of April

  163

  25

  2. Barnsley

  End of March

  78

  141

  3. Bristol

  End of May

  1—

  4. Cannock

  End of April

  25

  59

  5. Chesterfield

  End of February

  79

  93

  6. Coventry

  End of January

  47

  36

  7. Deal

  End of May

  43

  5

  8. Durham

  End of March

  87

  241

  9. Edinburgh

  End of March

  166

  55

  10. Glasgow

  End of March

  235

  58

  11. Huddersfield

  End of February

  2—

  11

  12. Leeds

  End of May

  47

  25

  13. Lochore

  End of January

  207

  102

  14. Manchester

  End of February

  30

  19

  15. Mansfield

  End of February

  236

  168

  16. Mexborough

  End of February

  103

  111

  17. Mountain Ash3

  End of January

  414

  452

  18. Newcastle

  End of January

  83

  183

  19. Newport

  End of January

  473

  199

  20. Nottingham

  End of January

  132

  109

  21. Pontefract

  End of February

  169

  220

  22. Sheffield

  End of January

  147

  62

  23. Stoke

  End of April

  37

  54

  24. Swansea

  End of January

  364

  313

  104W

  Location

  Date opened

  Number of assessments

  Future booked appointments

  25. Wigan

  End of June

  10

  28

  Deceased

  1150

  209

  Domiciliary

  266

  29

  Total

  4791

  3021

  1 Due to lack of claims the equipment was moved to Mountain Ash, when numbers increase new equipment is available to re-equip the centre at short notice

  2 Centre is equipped and doctors are available. Awaiting claims documentation before appointments could start

  3Two sets of equipment

  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema have been settled under the MAP process; what the names are of the firms dealing with these claims and the numbers of claims settled in each case; and what the average value is of these claims. [133987]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Department is not yet able to make full and final offers in most cases as some elements of compensation (for example pension loss) have still to be agreed with the miners' solicitors. However, interim payments are made on all other heads of damages. So far we have processed over 1,300 claims post Medical Assessment Process (MAP). Half of these resulted in interim offers of compensation. The average value of accepted offer is just under £3,500.

  Under the handling agreement signed by the DTI and the

  claimants' solicitors the breakdown of post MAP interior offers is:

  Solicitors Name

  Offers Made

  Offers Accepted

  Ashton Morton Slack Solicitors

  2

  1

  Attey Dibb and Clegg

  2

  2

  Barnetts

  1

  1

  Browell Smith and Co.

  2

  0

  Davis Blank Furniss

  1

  1

  Donald Race and Newton

  1

  1

  Foy and Co.

  1

  0

  Furley Page Fielding and Barton

  2

  0

  Graysons Solicitors

  8

  6

  Hopkins

  17

  13

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  192

  180

  Keeble Hawson Moorhouse

  14

  12

  Latham and Co.

  1

  0

  Malcolm C. Foy and Co.

  1

  0

  Meloy, Whittle Robinson

  1

  1

  Moss Solicitors

  5

  2

  Nelsons

  1

  0

  Raleys Solicitors

  3

  3

  T. S. Edwards and Son Solicitors

  15

  11

  Thomas and Co. Solicitors

  4

  2

  Thompson and Co.

  1

  1

  Thompsons Solicitors

  80

  61

  Towells Solicitors

  1

  0

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers

  320

  280

  Total

  676

  578

  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many offers of compensation for chronic bronchitis and emphysema have been made under the expedited process; how many offers have been accepted; what the names are of the solicitors or organisations dealing with these claims; and what the average value is of these claims. [133986]
  105W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The Department announced in September that it would upgrade the levels of expedited offers (going up from previous maxim of £4,750 to £14,500 depending on loss of lung function). 5,500 revised offers totalling £21.4 million went out last week. This will considerably raise the average offer to date.

  Under the Handling Agreement signed by the DTI and the claimants' solicitors the breakdown of expedited offers is:

  Solicitors name

  Offers made

  Offers accepted

  Abenson and Co.

  1

  0

  Accident and Injury Claims Centre

  5

  1

  Adam F. Greenhalgh and Co. Solicitors

  1

  1

  Ashcroft and Co. Solicitors

  1

  1

  Ashton Morton Slack Solicitors

  4

  4

  Attey Dibb and Clegg

  43

  10

  Barnetts

  2

  1

  Beecham Peacock

  2

  2

  Bell Wright and Dallman

  1

  0

  Ben Hoare Bell and Co. Solicitors

  7

  0

  Beresfords (incorporating R. A. Swift)

  34

  11

  Berryman Shacklocks Solicitors

  2

  2

  Bleasdale and Co.

  1

  0

  Bridge Sanderson Munro

  1

  0

  Browell Smith and Co.

  835

  43

  Burton Green Williamson

  1

  1

  Bury Walkers Solicitors

  2

  0

  Can and Co. Solicitors

  2

  0

  Chapman and Chubb

  1

  0

  Coley and Tilley

  1

  0

  Corries Solicitors

  6

  0

  Davis Blank Furniss

  1

  0

  Dean Thomas and Co. Solicitors

  1

  0

  Donald Race and Newton

  1

  0

  Douglas Jones Mercer Solicitors

  4

  0

  Elliot Mather

  6

  4

  Emsleys Solicitors

  12

  1

  Endlar Quigley

  1

  0

  Endlars Solicitors

  7

  3

  Farleys

  7

  4

  Foy and Co. Solicitors

  7

  2

  Frank Allen Pennington Solicitors

  11

  3

  Furley Page Fielding and Barton

  110

  18

  Gabb and Co.

  20

  8

  George Mills Solicitors

  6

  3

  Gorman Hamilton Solicitors

  60

  16

  Gorvin Smith Fort

  8

  6

  Graysons

  659

  406

  Gwilym Jones and Davies with Bryant and Co.

  1

  0

  Hamers Solicitors

  8

  0

  Hartley and Worstenholme Solicitors

  1

  0

  Hickmotts Solicitors

  15

  6

  Higgins and Co. Solicitors

  1

  1

  Holyoak and Co. Solicitors

  1

  0

  Hopkins

  151

  55

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  1139

  285

  Irwin Mitchell Solicitors

  324

  127

  Ison Harrison

  2

  1

  J. Keith Park and Co. Solicitors

  22

  14

  Jackson Heath Solicitors

  2

  0

  John E. Millar and Company Solicitors

  3

  2

  John Y. Robertson

  6

  1

  Jordans

  2

  0

  Keeble Hawson Moorhouse

  137

  41

  Kidd and Spoor Harper Solicitors

  51

  30

  Kirk Jackson

  1

  1

  Latham and Co. Solicitors

  50

  13

  Lees and Partners

  1

  0

  Leo Abse and Cohen

  2

  0

  Mace and Jones

  1

  0

  Malcolm C. Foy and Co. Solicitors

  4

  1

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  16

  1

  Marrons Solicitors

  75

  3

  Mathie Lennox

  1

  0

  106W

  Solicitors name

  Offers made

  Offers accepted

  Maurice Smith and Co. Solicitors

  1

  0

  McArdles Solicitors

  1

  0

  Meloy, Whittle Robinson Solicitors

  15

  0

  Mills Kemp and Brown Solicitors

  1

  0

  Mincoffs

  6

  1

  Morgan Cole

  32

  4

  Morison Bishop

  18

  10

  Mortons Solicitors

  28

  7

  Moss Solicitors

  85

  18

  Moxon and Barker Solicitors

  2

  0

  Needham Solicitors

  1

  1

  Nelson and Co. Solicitors

  10

  5

  O. H. Parsons and Partners Solicitors

  243

  80

  Osborne Jones and Co. Solicitors

  1

  0

  Oxley and Coward Solicitors

  48

  10

  Park Hutchison Solicitors and Notaries

  61

  24

  Peace and Co. Solicitors

  1

  0

  Philip Morris Solicitors

  1

  0

  Pickerings Solicitors

  1

  1

  Plancey and Co.

  14

  11

  R. L. Edwards and Partners Solicitors

  1

  0

  Raleys Solicitors

  1,166

  347

  Randalls

  2

  1

  Randell Saunders Phillips and Lloyd

  68

  29

  Richard J. Knaggs

  8

  3

  Richmond Anderson Goudi

  1

  1

  Richmonds

  5

  4

  Robinson King Solicitors

  9

  1

  Ross and Co.

  11

  10

  Ross Harper Solicitors

  1

  1

  Russell Jones and Walker

  4

  1

  Saffmans Solicitors

  27

  14

  Sedgwick Phelan and Partners

  5

  4

  Shaw and Co.

  98

  7

  Silverbeck Rymer Solicitors

  19

  7

  Simpson Millar Solicitors

  12

  6

  Southern Stewart and Walker

  5

  2

  Stanton Croft Solicitors

  47

  38

  Stephensons

  1

  0

  Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

  1

  0

  Stuart Bell and Associates

  4

  0

  T. H. M. Tinsdills

  0

  T. H. Murray

  1

  0

  T. S. Edwards and Son Solicitors

  35

  2

  Taylor Bracewell Solicitors

  3

  1

  The Beaumont Partnership

  3

  1

  The Paul Rooney Partnership

  1

  0

  The Smith Partnership

  4

  4

  Thomas and Co. Solicitors

  82

  29

  Thompson and Co. Solicitors

  79

  11

  Thompson and Robinson Solicitors

  2

  1

  Thompsons Solicitors

  2,439

  999

  Tilly Bailey and Irvine Solicitors

  3

  1

  Towells Solicitors

  337

  135

  Treanors Solicitors

  3

  0

  Twigg Farnell

  2

  1

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers

  362

  90

  W. Brook and Co. Solicitors

  3

  1

  Wake Smith

  15

  2

  Walker Cooke

  1

  1

  Watson Burton Solicitors

  405

  193

  Widdows Mason

  1

  0

  Woollcombe Beer Watts

  1

  0

  Total

  9,739

  3,253

  The average expedited payment made is just over £2,400.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the Telecommunications Council meeting held in Luxembourg on 3 October. [134446]
  107W
  Ms Hewitt
  There was an orientation debate on the proposed Local Loop Unbundling Regulation. During the debate all member states stressed their commitment to the Regulation and a rapid timescale for its adoption. I strongly welcomed the Regulation as an enormously important issue for the development of e-commerce across the European Union, and confirmed the UK fully supported and would be fully compliant with it. The Presidency hopes that the Regulation will be adopted at the very latest at the next Telecommunications Council in December.

  The Council adopted a Resolution calling for a more co-ordinated EU approach within ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). Welcoming this, the Commission now intends to establish a network of European expertise on internet naming and addressing issues.

  The Commission gave a progress report on the creation of an .eu top level domain name, and it is expected that a Commission Proposal will follow in October. The Council also took note of a Presidency progress report on the programme to improve the exploitation of public sector information, facilitate access to venture capital and boost multilingual content on the internet. The Presidency hopes a Council Decision will be adopted in December. There was also a Presidency progress report on the state of discussions on the new measures under the 1999 Communications Review.

  The Council also discussed the Commission's postal services proposal, the main provision of which is to reduce the area reserved for incumbent national postal operators (the 'reserved area') from deliveries weighing less than 350 grams to those under 50 grams. During discussions, member states were divided on whether the proposal offered an acceptable pace of liberalisation, with several member states calling for a target date for full liberalisation. The Presidency hope for agreement at the next Telecommunications Council in December.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sanctions
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the changes to sanctions regimes implemented by the United Kingdom since 28 July. [134499]

  Mr. Hain
  There have been changes to the following sanctions regimes.

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  Following the election of Vojislav Kostunica as President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), European Union Foreign Ministers agreed at the General Affairs Council on 9 October to revise EU sanctions against the FRY.

  The EU oil embargo and flight ban were lifted with effect from 9 October. Legislation implementing these measures in the Overseas Territories by means of a licensing requirement is being repealed.

  EU financial sanctions and the visa ban will be revised. Restrictive measures against Milosevic and his associates will be maintained.
  108W
  The EU arms embargo and embargo on the supply to the FRY of equipment which might be used for internal repression or terrorism are unaffected. The UN arms embargo against the FRY and prohibition on the arming and training for terrorist activities there remain in force.

  Ethiopia and Eritrea

  UN Security Council resolution 1298 (2000), which was adopted on 17 May, imposed an arms embargo and a ban on the provision of related technical assistance and training in relation to Ethiopia and Eritrea. Since then, two further Security Council resolutions have been adopted which set out exemptions for demining and peacekeeping purposes.

  UNSCR 1312 (2000) was adopted on 1 August and exempts the UN Mine Action Service (UNMAS) from the prohibitions imposed by UNSCR 1298. UNSCR 1320 (2000) was adopted on 15 September and allows equipment and other material, including technical assistance and training to be provided for demining within Ethiopia and Eritrea under the auspices of UNMAS. It also allows the sale and supply of arms and related material for the sole use of the United Nations in Ethiopia and Eritrea.

  Sierra Leone

  UNSCR 1306 (2000), which was adopted on 5 July, imposed a ban on the import of all rough diamonds from Sierra Leone.

  The resolution provided for an exemption from the ban for diamonds controlled by the Government of Sierra Leone through a Certificate of Origin regime when the UN Sanctions Committee on Sierra Leone had reported to the Security Council that an effective regime was fully in operation.

  The Committee Chairman reported to the President of the Security Council on 6 October that the Committee had no objection to the procedures to be implemented by the Government of Sierra Leone. Therefore, diamonds controlled through the Government's Certificate of Origin regime are now exempt from the prohibition on the import of all rough diamonds from Sierra Leone imposed by UNSCR 1306.

TREASURY

  Pre-Budget Report
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to deliver his Pre-Budget report to the House. [134502]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  On Wednesday 8 November.

  Duty Free
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will be reviewing the duty-free successor regime for intra-EU voyages; and if he will make a statement. [134503]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Intra-EU sales of duty-free alcohol and tobacco, for passengers to take away, were abolished from 1 July 1999. I said at that time that a post-implementation review of the successor regime would take place. I have now approved the Terms of Reference,
  109W
  copies of which are available in the Library of the House. I expect to publish the findings of the review early in the New Year.

  The review will concentrate on how well the successor regime is working and whether there are any further technical changes which can be made to improve its operation. Customs will be asking those businesses concerned in the intra-EU sales of excise goods what changes they would like to see. The review will also assess the effect of the abolition of intra-EU duty free sales on the Exchequer receipts of excise duty and VAT.

  Late Payments
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will ensure that small companies automatically receive interest from public bodies on late payments made after 30 days of being invoiced; [134107]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on compensation for payment by public bodies after 30 days of invoices from small businesses; [134110]

  (3) what steps he has taken to ensure that public bodies settle invoices within a 30 day period. [134109]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the three answers my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce gave to him on 23 October 2000,Official Report, columns 9–10W.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to amend the Late Payments of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 to ensure that small companies automatically receive interest from public bodies on late payments made after 30 days of being invoiced. [134108]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, small businesses have an automatic right to claim interest from public bodies on debts incurred under contracts agreed after 1 November 1998.

DEFENCE

  Animals (Research)
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of animals in defence research. [134449]

  Dr. Moonie
  The independent Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, chaired by Dr. Jeremy Lucke, has published its fourth annual report. The Committee was set up in 1996 specifically to keep under review the care and welfare arrangements of animals used in defence research. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The use of animals in defence research is concerned with providing the armed forces with safe and effective protection against hazards encountered while conducting their duties, and is kept to the absolute minimum.
  110W
  The Committee's Report highlights the work being done by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency to ensure the welfare of all animals used for defence research purposes. The report provides assurances that all animals used in defence research programmes in the UK are regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The report also concludes that there is an effective ethical review process for the application of new licences which examines, among other issues, whether the use of animals can be avoided altogether in any new research procedures.

  The Ministry of Defence continues to seek to find alternatives to the use of animals wherever possible. There is still much to be done in developing technologies that allow the use of animals in experiments to be further reduced. We welcome continuing scrutiny by the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and aim to minimise the use of animals as far as possible, against the continuing requirement to research effective measures to counter the hazards faced by the armed forces in the conduct of their duties.

  Submarine Fleet
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operational availability of the submarine fleet. [134444]

  Mr. Spellar
  A flaw has been found in pipework that forms part of the cooling system in some Trafalgar and Swiftsure class hunter-killer submarines. Initial indications are that this may have arisen from the original construction of this component. The repair of this flaw, if needed, is straightforward but, because of the stringent safety procedures that we employ for any work involving repairs to our nuclear submarines, the repair process will take some months. As responsible nuclear operators, we take even the slightest flaw to our submarines very seriously. It is for this reason that our deployed hunter-killer submarines are being brought alongside to be inspected. Until all inspections have been completed it is not possible to determine fully the requirement for repair work and operational implications but they will be significant. The submarines remain safe, and at no time has there been any risk to their crew or the general public. Vanguard Class Trident submarines, which are of a very different design, are not affected.

  Armed Forces Pay Review Body
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about appointments to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. [134448]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Lord Patel as a new and additional member to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and re-appointed Vice-Admiral Sir Toby Frere for a second three-year term. These appointments have been conducted in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments' guidance on appointments to public bodies.

  Weapon Systems
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to procure a suitable weapon system for the UK Rapid Reaction Force to replace the Trigat-Medium Range Anti-Tank Weapon Programme; what it will cost; and if he will make a statement; [134134]

  (2) how much his Department has spent on the Trigat-Medium Range Anti-Tank Guided Weapon Programme; over what time; and if he will make a statement. [134136]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 24 October 2000:
  I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about Medium Range (MR) TRIGAT. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.The Defence Procurement Agency released an Invitation to Tender on 29th September 2000 for the Light Forces Anti-Tank Guided Weapon System. Initial responses are anticipated by the end of November 2000 and assessment trials are due to start in April 2001.The initial estimate of costs are commercially confidential, but the actual costs will be dependent upon the final systems selected and the total number of systems purchased.You also ask about expenditure on MR TRIGAT. Expenditure on the Medium Range TRIGAT Anti-Tank Guided Weapon Programme as at 31 March 2000 is £107M since Full Development began in 1988. Prior to this, Feasibility Study and Project Definition phases were combined for both Medium Range and Long Range TRIGAT. Meaningful separation of costs is therefore not possible for these stages.

  Forces Personnel (Promotion)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average length of time is for promotion from lieutenant-colonel to colonel for(a) nonmedical and (b) medical personnel in the Army. [133597]

  Mr. Spellar
  Based on the last four years of data for those promoted to full colonel, the average length of time served in the rank of lieutenant-colonel before promotion to colonel for(a) non-medical personnel is five years and five months and (b) medical personnel eight years and seven months.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average length of time is for promotion from wing commander to group captain for(a) non-medical and (b) medical personnel in the RAF. [133598]

  Mr. Spellar
  The average length of time for promotion from wing commander to group captain is seven years for non-medical personnel, and 10 years for medical personnel in the RAF.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average length of time is for promotion from commander to captain for(a) non-medical and (b) medical personnel in the Royal Navy.[133599]
  112W
  Mr. Spellar
  The average length
  of time for promotion from Commander to Captain in the Royal Navy for non-medical officers is 6.7 years. For medical officers, the equivalent average length of time is 11.5 years.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bilateral Corcordat (Wales)
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the bilateral Concordat between his Department and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales will come into force; and if he will make a statement.[134504]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I am pleased to say that letters formalising the bilateral concordat between this Department and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales were exchanged on 17 October 2000. The Concordat, which is an agreement on the working relationship between the National Assembly for Wales Agriculture Department (NAWAD) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, establishes for all matters relating to the Welsh Assembly's responsibilities for agriculture, fisheries and food, an agreed framework for co-operation between the Administrations.

  I look forward to continuing the close and constructive relationship that my Department has developed with NAWAD following the introduction of devolution on 1 July 1999.

  Copies have been lodged in the Library of the House and the document is on the Internet at http://www.maff.gov.uk/aboutmaf/devolve/devolve.htm. The Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales is placing copies in the Library of the Welsh Assembly.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend winter fuel payments to recipients of(a) Disability Living Allowance and (b) other disability-related benefits. [134212]

  Angela Eagle
  Disability Living Allowance and the Disability Premium in the income-related benefits are already paid in recognition of the extra costs faced by people with disabilities.

  British Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many war widows' pensions have been awarded to widows of British nuclear test veterans since 1970. [133842]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, records show that, since 1983, 13 awards of war widows' pension have been made in respect of conditions claimed to have resulted from exposure to excess ionising radiation during participation in the UK nuclear weapons test programme.
  113W
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for war pensions by British nuclear test veterans who believe they might have been exposed during service to excessive ionising radiation have been(a) turned down and (b) awarded by (i) the Pensions Appeal Tribunal for Scotland and (ii) the Pensions Appeal Tribunal for England and Wales since 1970. [133843]

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

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average income in benefits was for recipients of Disability Living Allowance in each year since 1992 at today's prices. [134213]

  Mr. Bayley
  Information is not available in the form requested, because some awards of income-related benefits are made for families rather than individuals. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Average weekly benefit income of households in Great Britain

  which include a Disability Living Allowance recipient

  £

  1995–96

  196

  1996–97

  195

  1997–98

  197

  1998–99

  196

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey

  The Government recognise the need to increase the incomes of the most severely disabled people on Income Support and have announced their intention to introduce a disability income guarantee for such people in April 2001.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on survey data, and as such are subject to sampling error.

  2. Amounts are rounded to the nearest pound.

  3. The amounts are expressed at September 2000 prices and cover the years for which information is available in a comparable form.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Staff Secondments
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the private sector companies from which secondments have been made to his Department since June 1997. [133870]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 1102W.

  Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiatives which promote the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. Before an Interchange can occur all parties must be satisfied that no conflict of interest arises.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what accountancy firms audited and prepared the first two years of accounts for the Dome. [134174]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) accounts for the first two years were audited and prepared by Ernst and Young.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what fee was paid to PricewaterhouseCoopers for the report on the finances of the Dome; and when he intends to publish the report. [134173]

  JanetAnderson
  PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) were paid £350,000 by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) for the report on the Dome's finances, presented to the Board on 22 August. The PWC report was placed in the Libraries of the House on 2 October.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which legal firm advised on the contracts with sponsors for the Dome. [134175]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) employed Norton Rose and Harbottles to provide legal advice on contracts with sponsors.

  BBC
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will publish the guidelines he uses in assessing BBC commercial proposals. [134500]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I intend to publish the guidelines tomorrow, and copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Government Sports Strategy
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to integrate the facilities provided by fitness clubs and leisure facilities into the Government's sports strategy. [134167]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government's Sports Strategy "A Sporting Future for All" is based on creating opportunities for all people to take part in sport. Work is being carried out as part of the implementation of the strategy to ensure that the role local, community-based and commercial fitness and leisure centres play is fully integrated into the overall strategy. The strategy implementation subgroup charged with this task is on course to report back to Ministers at the end of the year.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Hillsborough Papers
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Hillsborough papers considered by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith in his scrutiny will be available to the general public in the Liverpool Central Library.[134326]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Liverpool Central Library has completed the sorting and cataloguing of all the papers and they are now ready for public viewing.
  115W
  I understand that Liverpool City Council will give priority access, which I support, to the families of those who died in the disaster and to the survivors. The Lord Mayor made an announcement to this effect last Thursday during a conference organised specifically to discuss outstanding issues.

  I am very grateful to the staff of both the House of Commons Library and the Liverpool Central Library for their efforts in this matter.

  Entry Refusals
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received to the consultation paper on the refusal of entry into the United Kingdom of those with criminal convictions. [134327]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have received seven replies to the consultation paper. These were from the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, the Law Society, my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones), Sports Network and a member of the public. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The responses raised no fundamental objections to the proposals set out in the consultation paper. I therefore intend to implement these, taking account of the comments received so far as possible. The relevant amendments to the Immigration Rules will be laid before Parliament for approval in due course.

  Fuel Blockades
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken to reduce the risk of disruption to the fuel supply in the event of further blockades [134328]

  Mr. Straw
  I have been chairing a Fuel Task Force, which comprises Ministers and representatives of the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, the oil industry, the police, the trade unions and others. Members of the Task Force signed a Memorandum of Understanding on 29 September. This establishes more robust systems to avoid disruption of fuel supplies. It commits signatories to establishing practical arrangements aimed at maintaining continuity of oil supply. In particular, it commits relevant signatories to establishing joint early warning systems and co-ordinated contingency plans; to joint emergency management systems; and to reducing the potential for intimidation of tanker drivers. Copies of the Memorandum of Understanding have been placed in the Library.

  The Task Force is continuing to oversee work in support of the Memorandum. As this concerns planning to respond to any future disruption, it would not be appropriate to give further details of this work.

  Additionally, preparations are being made to ensure that properly trained and qualified military drivers would be available if required to help distribute fuel to essential users. If called upon, this would be provided under the normal arrangements for providing military assistance to ensure essential supplies and services are maintained.
  116W
  The events of last month demonstrated the importance of oil supplies to our economy and to our society. The economy relies on just-in-time supply chains. It benefits from their efficiency, but is vulnerable to disruption. It is not possible to eliminate all risk to oil supplies. Our aim has been the practical one of reducing the risk to the minimum.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  A27 Polegate Bypass
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what status the roundabout to be built at Cophall as part of the A27 Polegate bypass will have; if the Order as made assumed that the A27 Folkington Link extension westwards would be built; and if he will make a statement. [133807]

  Mr. Hill
  Cophall roundabout is being built as part of the A27 Polegate bypass on which construction commenced earlier this month. It is being constructed by virtue of a Side Roads Order under section 14 of the Highways Act 1980. During this phase the roundabout will be subject to a Trunking Order which, if made, would make maintenance the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  The Line Order for the scheme allowed for a westward extension of the new A27, the Folkington Link. The bypass scheme was designed to allow for grade separation and for the A27 to continue underneath the junction.

  Proposals to extend the A27 westwards from Cophall roundabout were excluded from the Targeted Programme of Improvements announced in 1998 and are now being considered as part of the Southampton to Folkestone multi-modal study, which commenced in July this year. In view of this the roundabout design has been amended to remove the bridges which would have carried the roundabout over the extension. The roundabout will also be lowered by 1–2 metres on its south eastern side and the adjacent screening enhanced to lessen further the impact on nearby housing. Notwithstanding the layout changes made, the new design does not preclude a westward extension being built at a later date, should such a decision be made in the light of the outcome of the multi-modal study.

  2010 Horizon Plan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy towards not applying for participation in the European Communities 2010 Horizon Plan for Inland Ports and Inland Waterways, under the TEN project, as set out in OJ C228, Volume 43, 9 August 2000; and what funds are available to participating states. [134206]

  Mr. Hill
  The EU is now designating ports for inclusion in the transport trans-European network (TEN) and the Government's policy is that UK ports should be included wherever they qualify. The main criterion for inclusion in the TEN inland waterway network is the ability to take vessels 80m long and 9.5m wide. One non-tidal waterway in the UK—the Manchester Ship
  117W
  Canal—would qualify. However, we have proposed that Manchester and qualifying ports on tidal waterways should be included in the TEN as seaports. There are no TEN funds specifically set aside for inland waterways or ports and any bids for support from the TEN budget must compete against bids for support for road, rail, airport, and other transport infrastructure projects.

  Property in Multiple Occupancy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government will announce plans relating to a licensing system for property in multiple occupancy. [134260]

  Mr. Mullin
  We issued a consultation paper last year setting out detailed proposals, and will announce conclusions in due course. We remain firmly committed to legislation when parliamentary time allows.

PRIME MINISTER

  Community Budget
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Government approve the discharge of the 1998 Community Budget; and what representations it has made on the issue. [134200]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government's Annual Statement on European Community Finances (Cmnd 4771) covers the process of recommending discharges for the 1998 Community Budget.

HEALTH

  Hospitals (Redbridge and Waltham Forest)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to visit Redbridge and Waltham Forest Health Authority to discuss pressures on local hospitals. [131863]

  Mr. Denham
  We have no immediate plans to visit Redbridge and Waltham Forest Health Authority.

  Hospital Beds (Barnet)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the availability of hospital beds in Barnet Health Authority area. [131864]

  Mr. Denham
  Work is currently under way to ensure that an additional 45 beds are in place on the Barnet hospital site in time for the winter. Funding has also been approved for a further 15 beds on the same site which can be used during peaks in demand.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS waiting times. [131865]
  118W
  Mr. Denham
  The average waiting time for those on the inpatient list has fallen. At the end of August the average wait was 13 weeks, two weeks less than in June 1998.

  The waiting list is currently 120,000 below the level inherited. We have met and maintained our manifesto commitment to reduce waiting lists by 100,000 from the level inherited.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about out-patient waiting times. [131875]

  Mr. Denham
  At the end of June this year there were 68,000 fewer people waiting longer than 13 weeks for an appointment than at the September 1999 peak.

  Incompetent Doctors
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that incompetent doctors are not allowed to continue in practice. [131870]

  Mr. Denham
  As part of a package of reforms for protecting patients, the Government have changed the law so that the General Medical Council can swiftly impose interim suspensions or conditions where the doctor represents a danger to patients.

  From next April, the new National Clinical Assessment Authority will assess poor clinical performance cases and recommend remedial action.

  Poverty (Manchester)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the link between poverty and health in Manchester. [131872]

  Mr. Denham
  There are a number of social, economic and environmental factors which contribute to poor health in Manchester. Both the White Paper, "Our Healthier Nation", and the NHS Plan acknowledge the links between poverty and health. A series of inter-departmental initiatives are in place to tackle the underlying inequalities, for example the Manchester, Salford and Trafford health action zone, the Healthy Cities programme and the New Deal for communities.

  Out-patient Waiting Lists (North-west)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in reducing out-patient waiting lists in the North-west. [131873]

  Mr. Denham
  Reducing waiting time for outpatient appointments is a Government priority. In the North-west, measures have been implemented including Outpatient Improvement Plans, an additional investment of £13 million on schemes having a direct impact on outpatient waiting times, and the sharing of good practice through "A Step by Step guide to improving outpatient services". Between June 1999 and June 2000, despite increased demand, these initiatives have been successful in reducing by 7,292 (8.8 per cent.) the number of patients waiting more than 13 weeks for an outpatient appointment. The NHS is aiming to achieve further reductions by March 2001.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had, and with whom, about improving long-term care and health care for elderly people. [131874]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have regular contact with NHS, social services and voluntary sector to discuss the Government's plans to improve long-term care and healthcare for older people. Yesterday I met with key stakeholders from the voluntary sector, local government and the professions to discuss the implementation of our long-term care proposals.

  Postcode Prescribing
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about progress by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in eliminating prescribing based on postcode areas. [131877]

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about progress by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in eliminating postcode prescribing. [131871]

  Mr. Denham
  I welcome the progress which the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has already made. Authoritative, evidence-based guidance has been issued on a wide range of subjects including drug treatments. We have provided additional funding to enable the NHS to implement these recommendations and will be following up through performance management to ensure that they are taken up.

  Diamorphine
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered drug-user patients are being supplied diamorphine (heroin) on the NHS; and what is the total cost. [131878]

  Mr. Denham
  Diamorphine, in the treatment of drug addiction, is used as part of a maintenance regime in a very small minority of patients, who are generally the most difficult cases. The Misuse of Drugs (Supply to Addicts) Regulations 1997 require that only medical practitioners who hold a special licence issued by the Home Secretary may prescribe, administer or supply diamorphine in the treatment of drug addiction; other practitioners must refer any addict who requires these drugs to a treatment centre.

  Diamorphine is also used for analgesia in palliative care. General practitioners and other doctors may prescribe diamorphine for patients (including addicts) for relief of pain without a special licence.

  The total cost of diamorphine treatment for drug addiction cannot be calculated accurately as data are not collected centrally which link prescription to diagnosis.

  Dentists (Sedation Techniques)
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to increase facilities for the training of dentists in sedation techniques. [131879]
  120W
  Mr. Hutton
  We have accepted the recommendations in the report from the review of general anaesthesia and sedation for dental treatment, which was led by the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Dental Officer. We want to see methods of pain and anxiety control other than general anaesthesia used whenever possible and are exploring the need, and ways, for increasing the provision of training in sedation.

  Winter Pressures
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to combat winter pressures in the acute hospital sector. [131880]

  Ms Stuart
  The National Health Service has been planning for this winter for some time, working closely with social services and building on experience over previous years. All NHS trusts are members of local winter planning groups, working with other health and social services organisations. We have provided an additional £660 million to provide additional capacity both for winter and to meet demand throughout the year. This funding includes £60 million for an improved flu campaign and £142.5 million to provide over 340 additional adult critical care beds.

  Health Professsionals (Standards)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans for the regulation of the professional standards of health professionals. [131881]

  Mr. Denham
  We have published for consultation, plans for modernising the regulation of nurses, midwives and health visitors and of the professions supplementary to medicine. The consultation period ends on 1 November. Specific proposals for legislation will subsequently be issued for further consultation.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the central recovery unit recovered from NHS trust accident and emergency hospitals in respect of road traffic accidents in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [131882]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 1998–99, National Health Service trusts had responsibility for collecting charges for hospital treatment following road traffic accidents under the provisions of sections 157 and 158 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. NHS trusts in England collected a total of £19.6 million in that year. The system changed with the introduction of the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999 which came into effect on 5 April 1999 and there is now a new centralised recovery system which is undertaken by the Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU). The CRU recovered £26.6 million for NHS trusts in England in 1999–2000. However this sum does not represent total income to the NHS in that year. This is because income would have been received directly by trusts in the first part of the year as a carry-over from the old arrangements. We are unable to calculate the amounts carried over from the old system as this information is not collected centrally. The total amount collected for the first half of 2000–01 in England is £30.3 million.

  Beta Interferon (Gloucestershire)
  >Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on the prescribing of beta interferon in Gloucestershire. [131883]

  Mr. Denham
  In Gloucestershire Health Authority beta interferon is prescribed to patients with relapsing/ remitting multiple sclerosis who fulfil the clinical criteria of the guidelines of the Association of British Neurologists. The health authority has provided additional funding of £300,000 a year to meet the costs of this treatment. This policy will be reviewed following the publication of guidance by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to end age discrimination against patients in the NHS. [1318841

  Mr. Hutton
  Discrimination on the grounds of age within the National Health Service is totally unacceptable. The NHS Plan made it clear that we will challenge and remove any practices which discriminate against older people. The National Service Framework for Older People, which will set new national standards for the NHS and social care will be published later this year and introduced from April 2001. The new national standards will ensure that ageism is not tolerated in the NHS.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to regulate standards of care provided in private hospitals. [131885]

  Ms Stuart
  Independent healthcare is currently regulated under the Registered Homes Act 1984. We recognise the deficiencies with the present system and that it has not kept pace with the developments in independent healthcare over the past two decades. The Government are therefore putting in place a new modern regulatory framework for the independent healthcare sector, through the Care Standards Act 2000. One of the main elements of the Act is to establish a new independent body, the National Care Standards Commission, which will regulate independent hospitals to proper modern standards. The Act will put in place a regulatory system that will ensure the delivery of quality services, proper accountability by the provider, and flexibility to allow the regulatory framework to respond to developments in the healthcare field.

  To ensure consistency and quality of service provision the Commission will inspect against national minimum standards for each of the services to be regulated, ensuring that patients can have confidence in the quality and safety of the services that they receive. Work is currently progressing on the development of the national minimum standards in consultation with patients, providers, inspectors, healthcare professionals and specialists. Once the standards are developed they will be the subject of a full public consultation in April 2001.

  GP Training
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to encourage GPs to undertake in-service training. [131886]
  122W
  Mr. Denham
  Learning must be lifelong and cannot cease at the end of formal training. The existing general medical services arrangements for general practitioners include incentives to keep their knowledge up to date through a balanced programme of postgraduate education. This is mirrored in the new core contract for personal medical services.

  In addition, the National Health Service Plan outlines a new quality agenda for the health service. Continuing professional development (CPD) is central to this and to ensuring that all GPs, doctors and other professional staff can meet the highest quality standards. The plan commits us to investing an extra £140 million by 2003–04.

  We are therefore committed to developing all professionals in primary care and are currently developing, in consultation with the profession, a programme for delivering quality, with a strong emphasis on CPD.

  Health Action Zones
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce the funding allocations for Health Action Zones for 2001–02. [131867]

  Mr. Hutton
  Decisions on funding levels for Health Action Zones have not yet been made. We will make an announcement as soon as we are able.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusion he has reached on the funding of beta interferon. [131869]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has not yet published its final guidance on beta interferon for the treatment of multiple sclerosis and it would not be appropriate to pre-empt what the final guidance might say. The Government have provided the National Health Service with adequate funding to enable health authorities to fund treatments which NICE recommends.

  Private Sector Secondments
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the private sector companies from which secondments have been made to his Department since June 1997. [133876]

  Ms Stuart
  Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. Before an Interchange can occur, all parties must be satisfied that no conflict of interest arises.

  Central Records indicate the secondments have been made to the Department from the following companies since June 1997:

  Private Finance Panel Executive

  Tarmac plc

  Naborro Nathanson

  Pinsent Curtis

  Rawlings Ophthalmic Opticians

  Hempsons

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers

  123W

  Ward Hadawy

  Beachcroft Stanleys

  Dickinson Dees

  Lloyds Bank

  Addleshaw Booth & Co.

  Berwin Leighton

  Taylor Woodrow

  Deloitte & Touche

  Herbert Smith

  British Airways.

  Organ Transplants
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what (1) action is being taken to increase public awareness of the NHS Organ Donor Register; and if he will make a statement; [133975]

  (2) what percentage of the population has joined the NHS Organ Donor Register. [133974]

  Mr. Denham
  Our current organ donation campaign, launched in 1998, is ongoing. It encourages people to join the National Health Service Organ Donor Register, carry the donor card and, most importantly, discuss their wishes with their friends and family.

  The percentage of the population who have joined the NHS Organ Donor Register—as of 31 December 1999 are:

  England

  Registrations

  7,167,917

  Percentage of population

  14.3

  Food Safety
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on new rules and regulations proposed by the European Community concerning the labelling, storage, use, cooking and servicing of foodstuffs on public premises, stating what consultation has been made with(a) UK local authorities, (b) HM Government and (c) similar bodies in member states of the European Community. [134182]

  Ms Stuart
  Proposed Regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council to consolidate and simplify existing European Union food hygiene legislation were adopted by the European Commission on the 18 July 2000. The proposals apply to food businesses throughout the food chain and are intended to reflect a need for clearer and up-to-date rules providing a high level of health protection for consumers.

  The Food Standards Agency began an extensive public consultation exercise on 28 July 2000. In addition to making the proposals available on the Food Standards Agency website, copies were sent to all
  124W
  United Kingdom local authorities, all major food industry stakeholders, various consumer groups and other interested organisations. The proposals will be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny in the normal way.

  Following completion of consultations, all comments will be analysed with a view to forming a UK position on the proposal.

  NHS (Private Finance Initiative)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the Private Finance Initiative on improvements to facilities in the NHS. [131860]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier today, column 108.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's initiatives to combat heart disease in the United Kingdom. [131866]

  Yvette Cooper
  Tackling heart disease is a key priority. The National Service Framework for heart disease sets standards for prevention, treatment and care and provides significant further investment in services. To tackle the root causes of heart disease we have major programmes of work on tackling smoking and improving diet and physical activity.

  Waiting Lists (Eastbourne)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he proposes to introduce to reduce hospital waiting lists in Eastbourne. [131876]

  Ms Stuart
  The Government have provided Eastbourne Hospitals National Health Service Trust: £1.3 million this year to spend on additional activity to address waiting lists and waiting times; £133,000 for a third wave booked admission project for general surgery and gynaecological day cases; and £844,000 capital funding for initiatives to address out-patient waiting lists.

CABINET OFFICE

  Late Payment
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will seek to amend the Late Payments of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 to ensure that small companies automatically receive interest from Government organisations on late payments made after 30 days of being invoiced. [134104]

  Mr. Stringer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Lord Ashcroft
Sir Michael Anthony Ashcroft, Knight, KCMG, having been created Baron Ashcroft, of Chichester in the County of West Sussex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Parkinson and the Lord Blyth of Rowington.

Telecommunications Masts and the Countryside
2.43 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to avoid further erosion of the character of the countryside by advertising and by the erection of telecommunications masts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, local planning authorities in England already have powers to control outdoor advertisements, including those in the countryside. Last year my department consulted on proposals to improve the regulations and announced the outcome in June 2000. Similarly, the planning regime for telecommunications masts in England already includes mechanisms for the protection of the environment. My department is currently consulting on possible changes. Responsibility for these matters in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland rests with the devolved administrations.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and declare an interest as vice-president of the Council for National Parks. Does my noble friend agree that the countryside is one of our most precious assets and that psychologically it is becoming increasingly important in the pressurised age in which we live? Therefore, does he agree that it is unfortunate to see increasing evidence that the countryside is being spoiled by more advertising along the roadside and by a growing number of radio masts across the country? Can he bring together the companies which deal with radio masts to discuss how their task can be undertaken with a more strategic and sympathetic approach? Will he also throw all his weight behind strengthening the resolve of local authorities to deal firmly with those who want to allow more advertising to take place on roads and in the countryside?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, so far as concerns telecommunications masts, it is important that the
136
consultation process ensures a degree of co-ordination among telecommunications companies and that it is made clear that some sharing of masts will be appropriate. I concur with my noble friend about the importance of maintaining the environment of the countryside and of ensuring that the environmental damage and visual intrusion of such masts is minimised. It is, of course, also important that modern communications exist for those who live and work in the countryside.
Local authorities in the countryside and elsewhere already have strong powers in relation to roadside advertising. Road safety issues also arise in connection with advertisements which are situated close to the roadside. Local authorities should observe their obligations in that respect as well.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that planning authorities have not done enough to prevent garages and petrol stations from bearing the most garish advertisements which interfere with the beauty of the countryside? Will he send a memorandum to all of them to deal with that matter?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the rules which cover planning permission for garages and the items which they can display are fairly tight. I believe that local authorities are aware of their responsibilities in that respect. If a particular aspect of that issue needs to be addressed, I should welcome further information from the noble Lord and would certainly undertake to look into it.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, is the Minister aware that mobile telephones have become an essential tool of modern life but that they convey environmental problems? Can the Minister state fairly precisely when the revised version of policy planning guidance no. 8, which concerns the power of local authorities in considering applications, will emerge? Will he consider a further improvement to make it possible for the planning authority to question the applicant about the operational need for such stations? At present the applicants decline to answer such questions and say, "It is an operational matter and it must be up to us". Therefore, an attempt to persuade two companies to share the same site, to modify the height of a mast or to consider a practical improvement almost invariably will be rejected. In the district where I live, 20 or more planning applications have been received in the past few months. Therefore, local authorities are simply unable to cope.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, local authorities have the power to cope. Certainly, that number of planning applications has been received in other areas and has been dealt with relatively well. It is for the operators and local authorities to consider together the best location and design to produce the minimal impact on the environment. Local authorities can control the site. They have adequate powers and can control planning permission for the appearance of masts. If it

137
is sensible for shared masts to be established, local authorities have the leverage to ensure that that happens.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, having taken a decision that no mast would be erected on any school ground, Stockport Borough Council turned down an application by the Stockport Rugby Football Club for one to be located on its premises? Is he further aware that, following, I understand, very little investigation into the matter and little consultation with the local residents, an inspector from the Department of the Environment overturned that decision? Finally, will the Minister give an assurance that, accordingly, an adequate investigation will be carried out into the protests of the residents who have written to Mr Michael Meacher and into the inspector's decision?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend will be aware that it is very unwise for Ministers to make commitments in relation to planning decisions which may yet be subject to ministerial engagement. I am not aware of the details of that particular case. However, I am aware of the fact that special precautions need to be taken in relation to telecommunications masts which are close to schools. The Stewart inquiry made that point, and if the main beam affects schools, special precautions will need to be taken. I am sure that all planning authorities are aware of those restrictions.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, although the Minister is saying all the right things about the countryside, the problem is that, day by day, more and more masts are being erected. Real leadership is required, as is a lead to the local authorities to stop giving permission for all those masts, which I believe can be found at the top of nearly every hill between here and the Border.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I have said, local authorities have those powers. We are consulting as to whether such powers are correct. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that that consultation will continue until the final version emerges, which should be reasonably rapid. Local authorities already have strong powers. In this age it is necessary for the people who live and work in the countryside to have access to the best of modern telecommunications. The question is not whether to ban masts but to ensure that they do minimal visual and environmental damage.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I do not wish to correct the Minister, who is responsible for these matters. However, perhaps I may refine his reply. It may be true that local authorities have the power to turn down applications but they do not have the authority to negotiate improvements, which is what is needed.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in absolute terms the noble Lord is right. However, there is plenty of opportunity
138
for discussion and negotiation prior to the formal planning process. Many local authorities have modified the original proposals, and engaged in sharing and relocation of masts as a result of such discussion.

Paving Stones Containing Titanium Oxide
2.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are encouraging the experiment being conducted with paving stones containing titanium oxide in order to test their effectiveness in extracting polluting substances from the atmosphere.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government are not directly involved with this experiment. I understand that Westminster City Council is considering a possible trial of some paving stones containing titanium dioxide but that the idea is at an early stage. We shall be interested to learn of any results in due course.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Provided the stones meet the essential requirements for sound and solid paving, do the Government foresee a useful possible role for them in urban areas in removing pollution caused by motor traffic? I believe that everybody would support that, and that it would be welcomed.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is too early to comment positively on that. I understand that Westminster City Council has had discussions with Mitsubishi Materials, the manufacturers of the paving stones, which have been trialed in Osaka, Japan. However, we do not have the full outcome of those trials. It will be a matter for Westminster City Council, in discussions with the manufacturers, to decide whether the paving stones would be appropriate for this area. Should those answers be positive, clearly the Government would be interested. However, it is far too early to comment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the basis on which the stones are supposed to work is by converting nitrous oxide into nitrogen and oxygen and so purify the air? Is he also aware that sunlight is a necessary factor in that process? Does he think that our climate in this country might occasionally make it difficult to quantify the result?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are such variables. The noble Baroness is correct in describing the chemical process, which requires ultra violet rays. However, I believe that the City of Westminster

139
receives sufficient days of sunshine for this process to be effective if everything else applies. There is potential scope, but, as I have said, many uncertainties.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the stone is a composite or natural stone, such as York stone?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is probably natural stone. The only extant example is in Japan, so I doubt whether it corresponds precisely to York stone. It is heavily impregnated with titanium dioxide, which changes the composition.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, if the experiments were to indicate wider effectiveness, might not that material also be used near other sources of air pollution, for example, downwind of refineries and sewage works?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the emissions from such installations are slightly different to those from road traffic. I agree that we are primarily dealing with nitrogen dioxide. Once again, there are many uncertainties in this area. It is too early for me to pronounce on the noble Lord's Question.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the Government do not like chemicals such as fertilisers and pesticides, what is the virtue of putting down chemicals on the streets to remove chemicals from the air?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government are not opposed to appropriate use of pesticides. However, we are opposed to inappropriate use. If the process proves to be appropriate, we shall consider it for wider use. Perhaps I may repeat that this is far too early a stage to comment.

Arms Brokering and Trafficking
2.56 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to introduce a comprehensive system of licensing for arms brokering and trafficking.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has already said that the Government will introduce a system of licensing for arms trafficking and brokering. That will, of course, require new primary legislation. We will announce our plans for new legislation once we have completed the review of proposals in the White Paper on strategic export controls. That will include details of the controls on arms trafficking and brokering. As to when new legislation will be brought before
140
Parliament, your Lordships will understand that that depends on the availability of time in the legislative programme.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the speech given by the Secretary of State to the Labour Party conference on this subject was extremely strong? Indeed, he announced that the Government have decided to introduce legislation. Does he accept that we are now two and a half years down the road from the White Paper on this subject? That seems to be enough time to consult on all the implications. May we therefore hope that the consultation is now complete?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about the strength of the speech made by the Secretary of State to the Labour Party conference. As regards the time taken since the publication of the White Paper in summer 1998, I acknowledge that that is a long time. However, a number of new issues have arisen since then: notably, the extension of possibilities for licensing, trafficking and brokering, as well as matters relating to licence production and the responses to the two reports of the quadripartite committee of the House of Commons. They are new issues which the Government have to consider in their response to the consultation on the White Paper.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the brokering and trafficking in arms, especially to third-world countries and those with authoritarian regimes, is an extremely destabilising procedure? Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will consider with great urgency the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire? This is a dangerous process.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. That is why the Secretary of State made such a strong statement on this subject. By licensing procedures, we would be seeking to adhere to the principles set out in the statement made by the Foreign Secretary in July 1997 when he expressed our antagonism about arms used for internal repression or external aggression. Clearly, arms brokering and trafficking, either by United Kingdom citizens or companies registered in the United Kingdom, could contribute to those destabilising influences. That underlines the importance of trying to put a stop to such process. However, as the noble Lord will recognise, there are huge practical difficulties in doing that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the legislation include the transport of arms brokered by somebody else? Has the Minister noticed that the allegation that many of

141
the shipments of arms for illicit use in African conflicts are said to have been shipped by companies operating aircraft registered in the United Kingdom?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. Brokering as opposed to direct trafficking involves persons acting as agents. The legislation will certainly include agents for the transportation of arms.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that there is adequate examination and checks on end-user certificates?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that again is a difficult area. There is no universal and consistent programme of checking end-user certificates. That is why the European Union produced its code of conduct. It is extremely difficult to check and great efforts are made to avoid public knowledge of what happens to arms after they have been exported. That was a major part of the thrust of the Scott inquiry.

Regent's Park
3.1 p.m.
Lord St John of Fawsley Lord St John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the role of the Royal Parks Agency in relation to The Regent's Park.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government's policy is to require the Royal Parks Agency to manage Regent's Park, as with all the other Royal Parks, so as to enhance, protect and preserve it for the benefit of this and future generations; to sustain its fabric, buildings and structures; to enhance visitors' enjoyment by improving its services and facilities; and to maximise income where possible.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In applying those principles, does he condemn as an act of vandalism the proposal to set up a commercial garden centre in the middle of the park, not far from Queen Mary's Rose Garden and abutting the Garden of Meditation of St. John's Lodge? Will he also get rid of the statues and sculptures of Mr Ronald Rae, which are disfiguring and have disfigured for over 12 months the Nesfield Garden? And while he is in the Nesfield Garden, will he get his agency to remove the hideous concrete platform from which, during the summer, cassettes of bird song were hired out to unsuspecting tourists, thus preventing them from hearing the real song of indigenous birds in the trees?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I may take those questions in reverse order, we were not aware that there was still a concrete platform where the so-called "talking trees" had been. We shall certainly look
142
into that. The Ronald Rae statues will be removed by March of next year and that area will be returned to parkland.
On what I believe to be the noble Lord's most urgent point, the question of proposals for a commercial garden centre at Chester Road, those proposals are at a very early stage. Plans are being prepared to apply to Westminster City Council for Circular 1884 permission for such a garden centre. Of course, major issues of disturbance, car parking and so forth will have to be considered, both by the Royal Parks Agency and by the local planning authority.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the recent announcement that the Royal Parks have to pay for themselves represents official government policy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not aware of any recent announcement that the Royal Parks have to pay for themselves. They do not pay for themselves and it has never been intended that they should pay for themselves. In my first Answer I said that one of the objectives in the Royal Parks corporate plan was to maximise income. But that would be supplementary to the grant-in-aid which the Royal Parks Agency receives.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, will the Minister accept that I wholeheartedly support a great deal of what my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley said? In addition to those concerns, I add the problem of traffic management in the Inner Circle. It is already heavily trafficked and parking facilities are extremely expensive, often excluding disabled persons wishing to use the park. Moreover, the agency is extremely arrogant in its approach to traffic management and imposed schemes which are running at present which cause great inconvenience and danger to permanent residents.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no easy solution. There are those—including the noble Lord, Lord St John—who believe that there should be even more severe restrictions on traffic in the Royal Parks, particularly through traffic. I fear that there is an insoluble conflict between that aim and the aim of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, to remove obstacles to traffic. Of course there are problems in the Royal Parks; they are part of central London. I acknowledge also that problems exist in the Inner Circle. I was not aware of specific problems for disabled people and would be glad to hear more from the noble Baroness on that subject.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords. I declare an interest as someone who lives in a flat on the Outer Circle. Is the Minister aware that a severe problem arises in the Royal Parks, particularly Regent's Park, through the intrusive effect of tall buildings? Are the Government

143
therefore concerned about the potential damage which may be caused to Regent's Park by the prospective tall development at Paddington Basin?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are aware of the proposals for tall buildings at Paddington Basin and the Royal Parks Agency formally objected to that development on the grounds that there will be visual intrusion, particularly in Regent's Park.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in reply to his noble friend Lord Strabolgi, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said in his first Answer that one of the aims of the agency was to "maximise profit". Before those words he used the phrase, "as far as possible". Can the Minister remind us what the limiting factor is on the maximisation of profit? There is clearly a conflict of interest between the quiet enjoyment of the park and the exploitation of it for commercial purposes. On that hangs the whole quality of the park itself.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my actual words in my first Answer were,
"to maximise income where possible".
That possibility depends on a congruity with the other objectives I set out in my first Answer. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, is right. There is always the possibility of conflict between maximising income and the other objectives, including the quiet enjoyment of the parks. But that does not mean they are totally mutually exclusive. The committee of Dame Jennifer Jenkins acknowledged the need to raise income from the Royal Parks and a lot of income-producing activities in the Royal Parks are popular and bring people to the parks.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that there is a difference between, for example, having a series of theatrical performances during the summer at Regent's Park, and having a permanent commercial activity in the centre of the park? It is that to which a number of people, including myself, object so strongly.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we recognise that there is a great deal of difference between the open-air theatre and the possibility of a commercial garden centre at Chester Road. The points made by the noble Baroness are relevant to the considerations of the Royal Parks and Westminster City Council.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, in view of the satisfactory and sympathetic answers of the noble Lord, and the introduction by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House of the new constitutional idea of self-nomination, will the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, consider nominating himself as Secretary of State because he clearly has all the qualifications for the position?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Prime Minister might have a thing or two to say about that.

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 4,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 5 to 11,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 12 to 19,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 20 to 26,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 27 to 63,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 64 to 67,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 68 to 71,

Schedule 7,

Clause 72,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 73 to 79.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
3.10 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD CHANCELLOR in the Chair.]
Clause 103 [Designation of organisations to whom assistance is available]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 233:
Page 66, line 2, leave out from ("applies,") to ("specify") in line 3 and insert ("the Commission shall").
The noble Lord said: Clause 103 deals with the question of designating the umbrella organisations conducting a referendum with a view to giving them assistance. It is a simple enough matter when one question is asked in a referendum and the answer is either "yes" or "no". It does not take one too long to work out that there are therefore two sides and two umbrella organisations. However, subsection (3) deals with the situation in which there are more than two possible outcomes; that is, when there are two questions.
There were two questions in the Scottish referendum. The first asked whether voters wanted a Scottish Parliament and the second asked whether they wanted it to have tax-raising powers. Members of the Committee can therefore see that there are four possible outcomes: yes/yes; yes/no; no/yes; and no/no. Indeed, some people took up all four positions. Clearly, a majority answered "yes" to both questions and a minority answered "no" to both questions. However, some people decided that they wanted a Scottish Parliament but that they did not want it to have tax-raising powers and others did not want a Scottish Parliament but thought that, if there were to be one, it ought to have tax-raising powers. The problem is deciding how to define the umbrella organisations involved.
Interestingly, as the Bill stands, the Secretary of State will decide about the umbrella organisations as regards those outcomes. My first amendment suggests that it should not be the Secretary of State but the electoral commission. I believe that the case for that is unanswerable. If one is to make referendums acceptable in this country, the Government must not be seen to be taking things apart in deciding what the rules are and who is or is not playing. Therefore, I submit that the electoral commission should decide that matter.
My Amendment No. 234 addresses the question of how the commission should decide on the umbrella groups or "designated organisations" as they are called. Let us say that, for example, two different organisations decided to campaign for the same outcome in a referendum on proportional representation. I read in an extract from Mr Ashdown's diaries in this week's Times that the Prime Minister used almost exactly the same words in respect of such a referendum as he used last week in respect of a referendum on the euro; namely, that if there were a referendum tomorrow he would vote "no". That must come as interesting news to the Liberal Democrats who must be wondering about their bedfellows in such referendums. At least they know where I and my party stand on such issues, but they must be unsure about their partners.
As regards a referendum on proportional representation, it is possible that a significant proportion of the Labour Party will not want proportional representation and will want to set up an organisation in order to campaign for first past the post. "Labour For First Past The Post" might be a good title. I accept that some people in my party would approve of proportional representation but clearly the majority of them would be in favour of keeping the first-past-the-post system.
It may be that those two organisations would find it difficult to come together. Labour members advocating first past the post might find it uncomfortable to team up with Conservatives and therefore there would be two potential umbrella
146
organisations. How will the commission deal with that? It is one of the points my amendment addresses by stating:
"Where the Commission is satisfied that more than one permitted participant has demonstrated … substantial support … [and a] principal reason for campaigning … they may designate two or more permitted participants".
Perhaps some members of the Liberal Democrat party will want to form an organisation for "Liberal Democrats For First Past The Post" or "For a Fair Electoral System", as I believe first past the post is. They may not want to team up with either Labour or Conservative members.
One can see that a number of genuine outcomes could come from a decision to hold a referendum. I hope that my amendment is therefore helpful to the Government and, more importantly, to the electoral commission, which will have to make those difficult decisions. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Bach, explain why the Government have decided that the Secretary of State should decide on the outcomes and what is wrong with my amendment which helps to guide the commission to its conclusion on how many umbrella organisations, if more than one, it should recognise. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Bach: These amendments are concerned with the designation of those permitted participants which may then benefit from the assistance specified in Clause 105, including a grant of up to £600,000 and free mailshots.
Amendment No. 233 is concerned with subsection (3) of Clause 103. This subsection addresses the possibility that there might be more than two possible outcomes to a referendum. Where that is the case it may or may not be appropriate to provide for the designation of a permitted participant in respect of each possible outcome. I say "may not" because certain possible outcomes may be contradictory or absurd.
Clause 103(3) provides that, in such circumstances, the Secretary of State may by order specify the possible outcomes in respect of which a permitted participant may be designated. I understand that the noble Lord objects to that provision. Such an order could be made only after consultation with the electoral commission and would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, thereby leaving the final say in determining such matters to Parliament.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The issue will arise later in another context, but I heard what he said about the electoral commission being consulted. Will its view be made public?
Lord Bach: It would be extremely difficult for the commission's view not to be made public. However, I shall seek further information so as not to mislead the noble Lord.

147
Amendment No. 233 would vest the decision in the electoral commission alone, removing any parliamentary scrutiny. We do not believe that to be appropriate. Parliament determines whether a referendum is held. Parliament would ultimately agree the form of the proposition or question to be put to the electorate. Equally, it is entirely appropriate that Parliament should have the final say in determining which of the possible outcomes should be supported from public funds. Of course the electoral commission should have an important say in this matter and its views will carry considerable weight.
However, there is a wider political perspective to determining such matters which an independent electoral commission cannot properly bring to bear. We have provided for proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Government's decision and I suggest that the order-making power set out in Clause 103 is the right way for these matters to be determined.
Amendment No. 234 provides for the designation of more than one permitted participant in respect of a particular outcome in a referendum. It raises drafting points but, suffice it to say, by replacing the existing subsection (5) of Clause 104 it is not clear on what basis the commission could decide to designate only one permitted participant in respect of a particular outcome where there had been more than one applicant.
The amendment envisages that the commission may designate more than one permitted participant in respect of a particular outcome if certain criteria are met; namely, that the commission is satisfied that more than one applicant enjoys substantial support and has a distinct reason for campaigning for that outcome, and that it would be unreasonable to refuse designation. In those circumstances the commission will apportion such assistance as is available between the designated permitted participants as it thinks fit.
That is clearly contrary to what the Neill committee envisaged. In framing its proposals the committee's intention was to ensure that each side should be able to mount a campaign so that each side of the argument was heard. The committee recommended that the available core funding should, therefore, be sufficient to cover the establishment of a campaign headquarters with basic equipment and staff. The committee considered that a sum equivalent to that provided to the two umbrella organisations in the 1975 referendum would be appropriate.
The committee did not envisage that more than one group on each side should receive a grant. I quote briefly from paragraph 12.35 which states:
"No more than one organisation on each side should be funded"
Still less did it envisage that that assistance should be carved up among a number of disparate groups, which would defeat its purpose. The Neill committee came to the view that if no single suitable recipient could be identified on one side of the argument, neither side should benefit from such core funding.
148
As drafted, the Bill simply requires the commission to identify the permitted participant which "to the greatest extent" represents those campaigning for a particular outcome. That broad-brush test points to the designation of an umbrella organisation which represents the broad spread of opinion on one side of a referendum question: it is essentially the test used in the 1975 referendum. The White Paper on that referendum indicated that assistance would be available to organisations "which adequately represent" the two sides. However, the noble Lord's amendment would involve the commission in an altogether different kind of exercise. Its task would not be to ask which, if any, of the organisations stood out as representing the case for the particular outcome, but, instead, whether each of the competing claims, on its own merits, deserved a slice of the pie.
To assist the commission with this altogether more difficult task the noble Lord seeks to devise some rather more specific criteria, such as the separate levels of support enjoyed by different groups and their distinct reasons for campaigning. Although they might look objective on paper, inevitably they would open up the commission's decision to challenge; indeed, the proposal that the commission should grant an application if it would be unreasonable to do otherwise would positively invite it.
Nor is it easy to see how the assistance available to designated organisations might be apportioned as proposed. Certainly, the grant might be divided up but we do not see how the free mailing facilities could be. If there is to be only one mailshot, are the two or more designated organisations on a given side of the campaign supposed to divide up the country between them? Or perhaps it is the noble Lord's intention that each designated organisation on a particular side should benefit from a free mailshot so that it could explain its distinctive arguments to the electorate. If so, each additional designated organisation would cost the public purse £3.6 million for a mailing to each household. More to the point, it would give one side in the campaign an unfair advantage over the other, which was the very thing that the Neill committee sought to overcome.
The whole purpose of the designation procedure is to ensure that there is an adequately resourced "yes and no" campaign in any referendum. To make provision for the designation of a number of organisations on each side would limit the resources available to them and could thereby result in the arguments on one side or the other not being properly heard. We believe that that would defeat the object of these provisions. For those reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
The noble Lord asked whether the views of the commission would be made public. As the noble Lord is aware, that matter is not covered in the Bill. However, the views of the commission will undoubtedly be published either by the commission itself or by the Government. I refer to the next line of

149
my advice with some trepidation: the provisions of the Freedom of Information Bill would also probably apply.
Lord Elton: As to the first of my noble friend's amendments, I am a little anxious about the Minister's suggestion. Presumably, the issues to be decided by referendum will be highly political, and they may also be complex. The decision as to which organisations shall be funded to campaign depends on the possible outcome to be specified in relation to permitted participants. I do not suggest that the following example would have happened in this case but it illustrates the mechanics of it. Let us suppose that the governing party at Westminster had a very large majority and wished to have a devolved assembly elsewhere in the United Kingdom but that it should not have tax-raising powers. The specified permitted outcome might be that there could be a devolved assembly but not one with tax-raising powers. That would be such a broad, blunt and controversial issue that, no doubt in the light of public pressure, it would be decided that both outcomes could be possible.
In trying to provide for the unforeseen future, in which perhaps some of our citizens regard certain matters as of great importance but central government do not agree and may not want others to be persuaded to that view, one is giving to the executive of the day a very powerful weapon to suppress the expression of minority interests. I believe that that is something that the Committee should think about carefully before proceeding.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was interested in the Minister's reply. I do not believe that he turned his mind to the question which arose in the Scottish referendum where there could have been four umbrella groups to address the four possibilities. Although only two sides of the argument were up and running, an attempt was made to create an organisation to say "yes" to a Scottish parliament but "no" to tax-raising powers, and the other way round; in other words, "no" to a Scottish Parliament but "yes" to tax-raising powers, on the principle that if one had to have such an arrangement it should be a proper one and take responsibility for some of its own decisions vis à vis the taxpayer. Those two organisations did not get off the ground simply because a great deal of support was not forthcoming. Clearly, if the electoral commission had given them funding to get off the ground they would have been up and running. It would not have influenced the final outcome, but there would have been a good deal more split voting than there was in the final analysis.
I do not approve of two-question referendums which complicate the issue; there should be only one question and that should be the end of it. But if the Government insist on two questions, or even more, obviously this Bill should contain provisions to ensure that all the various outcomes can be covered by umbrella organisations. Can the Minister provide any advice as to that? To help the noble Lord in that
150
regard, perhaps one may go back to some of his other answers. Although I appreciate the Minister's point about the electoral commission having to make difficult decisions, this Bill is still in an unsatisfactory position. The Secretary of State still has some power over how a referendum is conducted.
One is supposed to have a generic referendum Bill so that when Parliament wants a referendum the only matter that it must decide, after (one hopes) consultation with the electoral commission, is the question to be put and on what date the referendum should be conducted. The rest of the rules should slot into place, as they do for a general election, without any need for Secretaries of State to take powers to make rules and regulations for one specific referendum.
Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that no great pressure arises from the part of the Bill on referendums. We could quite easily take out the whole matter which would allow a quicker passage of the Bill and enable us to reach the end of the Session more quickly. It would also allow Her Majesty to come down to this Chamber very much sooner than is likely if we carry on with the whole of the Bill. I suggest to the Minister that he take out the referendum part completely. His right honourable friend the Prime Minister has clearly signalled that this part will not be needed because we will not have a referendum on the euro in the next Parliament. Even if we do, the Prime Minister will vote no, which at least gives me some confidence about the eventual outcome.
But it is a serious point. If this is not a generic referendum Bill, which clearly it is not—otherwise I would not need my first amendment and the Secretary of State would have no involvement—why do not the Government take away this part of the Bill and come back with it in the next Session? After all, that is only two or three weeks away, or two or three months away or perhaps next year—who knows? They could then give us a proper generic referendum Bill which we could discuss separately from the provisions surrounding general elections, which I understand the noble Lord wants to get on the statute book quickly because of the election that the Government want to hold on the first Thursday in May.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Bach: I have learnt a great deal from the noble Lord about both the Prime Minister's views and about the date of the general election. I am very grateful to him for telling me. As always, the noble Lord is very seductive indeed in the proposition he puts forward, which is that the whole of the referendum part of the Bill should be taken out and brought back on another day. However, I am afraid that I shall not fall for that, seductive though it is. It is important for all political parties and all those concerned with these matters that we get the Bill through as quickly as possible. Who said that the only referendum would be on the euro? How does the noble Lord know that there may not be referendums on other items before any referendum on the euro?

151
Where there are two questions, a particular outcome may he absurd. It would not therefore be appropriate to have a designation in such cases. That then opens the possibility of two organisations being designated on one side and only one on the other. There is a political judgment to be made, which in the end must rest with Parliament. It will rest with Parliament through the affirmative order that will have to go through both Houses of Parliament before it can be implemented.
Lord Elton: Does the noble Lord then accept my point that it is a political judgment and that it may be about a political question? That will then give an advantage to the party in the majority in Parliament at the time which could have the effect of silencing the expression of the views of the minority. If that is the case, this is yet another example of the increase of the powers of the Executive; and it is to be regretted.
Lord Bach: The power to make the final decision would not be taken away from Parliament. That would be another loss of Parliament's power. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. The Secretary of State will make a recommendation and Parliament can either accept it or refuse it. As I have already said, the commission will have made its views publicly known. One can imagine the outcry there would be if the eventuality happened which the noble Lord fears. I think we can entrust it to Parliament.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not think that the noble Lord fully understood the implications of what my noble friend Lord Mackay was saying about the possibility of four outcomes, as happened in Scotland. During that campaign it was very difficult indeed for people to work out the implications of the interrelationship between tax-raising powers and the devolved body. Those implications are only now beginning to dawn on people. Had there been a proper discussion during the referendum campaign that would have been understood from the outset. Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that he should look carefully at what my noble friend said when he spoke to the second amendment and appreciate that the answer he has just given did not address the problem.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I support what was said by my noble friend Lord Mackay. Surely the whole purpose of the electoral commission is to take away from the Government, who, by definition, are an interested party, matters that are accurately politically sensitive. As has been demonstrated in this short debate, the Government could easily give themselves an advantage by taking the decision as to whether there should be one umbrella organisation or two umbrella organisations. That might be important in a referendum. It is fairly extraordinary of the Minister to say, "Ah, but the recommendation of the electoral commission will have been published. There will be an outcry if we ignore that". On various points the Government are ignoring the recommendations of the
152
Neill committee. We have not had much of an outcry because everyone knows the Government can normally get their way. This is not an adequate safeguard.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My two noble friends are quite right. When, towards the end of his remarks, I heard the Minister say that it was up to the Government to decide and not the electoral commission, I began to wonder why we are to have an electoral commission at all. It was a little like saying we will have a referee—
Lord Bach: I believe I said it was for Parliament to decide, not the Government. Parliament will have the final say.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bach: I see the difference. Do noble Lords opposite not see it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have been in Parliament for a long time. I know the distinction. But, when the truth is told, it is more imagined than real. The point is that, whether it is Parliament or whether it is the Government, I thought that the principle behind an electoral commission was that it was to be a kind of referee; especially when it came to referendums, as we are discussing now. You cannot say, "Let us have a referee", and then say "But all his decisions are subject to a decision and a vote by the players after he makes his decision whether they will go along with the referee". That is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
Like my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, I do not think the Minister addressed the question of the four possible outcomes. He seemed to think that some of the outcomes would be so ludicrous as not to be worthy of contemplation. But the truth is that in Scotland the two umbrella outcomes were "yes, yes" and "no, no". In fact the Labour Party in Scotland actually chose the third option: to have a Scottish Parliament and not to have tax-raising powers because it said clearly that it had no intention of using those powers. So it campaigned for a "yes, yes". In fact it should have been campaigning for a "yes, no" because that is how it has turned out. That is what the Government will do. So the "yes, no" position was a perfectly legitimate one to argue and to be one of the umbrella organisations to get some of the money.
I started off this debate as a probe, but like all probes one begins to turn over stones that one did not realise were there. I must say that the Government's attitude to the electoral commission has rather appalled me. I wonder what this body is now worth. Indeed, I would suggest that between now and Report stage the noble Lord reads the Nairne committee's recommendations on the whole issue. Perhaps he will see how far adrift he is from reality. I am so appalled by that answer and by the idea that the electoral commission is just there for a bit of window dressing

153
to allow the Government to get their own way through Parliament—that is what it comes to—that I shall test the opinion of the Committee.
3.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 233) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Con tents, 160.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Ampthill, L.

Jopling, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Kimball, L.

Astor, V.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Laird, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Biffen, L.

Luke, L.

Blackwell, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bledisloe, V.

McConnell, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brightman, L.

Marsh, L.

Byford, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Caithness, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Noakes, B.

Colwyn, L.

Northbourne, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northbrook, L.

Cox, B.

Northesk, E.

Crathorne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cuckney, L.

Peel, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Denham, L.

Plumb, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renton, L.

Elles, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rogan, L.

Elton, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Fookes, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Sharpies, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Freeman, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Geddes, L.

Strathdyde, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Swinfen, L.

Glentoran, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Goschen, V.

Trumpington, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Vinson, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Vivian, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Waddington, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hooper, B.

Wilcox, B.

Howe, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Amos, B.

Addington, L.

Andrews, B.

Ahmed, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Avebury, L.

Alli, L.

Bach, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Barnett, L.

154

Bassam of Brighton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Berkeley, L.

Billingham, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Blease, L.

McNally, L.

Blood, B.

Maddock, B.

Borrie, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Bragg, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Brennan, L.

Methuen, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brookman, L.

Morgan, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Newby, L.

Burlison, L.

Nicol, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Northover, B.

Christopher, L.

Orme, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Parekh, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Paul, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Peston, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

David, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Puttnam, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Desai, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dubs, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Elder, L.

Rennard, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Richard, L.

Ezra, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Filkin, L.

Roper, L.

Fitt, L.

Russell, E.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Sandberg, L.

Gale, B.

Sawyer, L.

Geraint, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Serota, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Goodhart, L.

Shepherd, L.

Goudie, B.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Greengross, B.

Simon, V.

Gregson, L.

Slim, V.

Grenfell, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Harrison, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Haskel, L.

Taverne, L.

Hayman, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tenby, V.

Hooson, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hoyle, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Tordoff, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Turnberg, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Islwyn, L.

Uddin.B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Varley, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Jeger, B.

Walmsley, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Judd, L.

Whitaker, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Whitty, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wigoder, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Lincoln, Bp.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lipsey, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Lockwood, B.

Winston, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L

Young of Old Scone, B.

3.50 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 233A:
Page 66, line 12, leave out subsection (5).
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 104 [Applications fir designation under section 103]:
[Amendment No. 234 not moved.]
Clause 104 agreed to.
Clause 105 agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Assistance available to designated organizations]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 234A:
Page 146, line 19, leave out ("Post Office regulations") and insert ("such reasonable terms and conditions as the universal service provider concerned may specify").
The noble Lord said: I hope that this group of government amendments will prove to be slightly less controversial than the last group. All bar the last of these amendments relate to paragraph 1 of Schedule 11 to the Bill. The paragraph sets out the right of designated referendum organisations to send a free mailshot to every elector or household in the area in which the referendum is being held. As it stands, paragraph 1 refers to the Post Office and to Post Office regulations. This reflects the fact that, at present, the Post Office is the only universal postal service provider.
The Committee will remember well the Postal Services Act 2000. That Act will alter the framework for the provision of postal services in this country. Under the provisions of that Act, there may, in due course, be a number of licensed universal postal service providers, any one of which could deliver a free mailshot on behalf of a designated referendum organisation. These amendments take account of this new system of regulation for postal services. The amendments mirror those made by the Postal Services Act to Section 91 of the Representation of the People Act, which provides for a free mailshot for candidates at a parliamentary election.
Amendment No. 234L is concerned with those provisions of Schedule 11 governing referendum campaign broadcasts. Paragraph 4(4) places the licensing body under a duty to have regard to the views expressed by the electoral commission before it makes any rules under Sections 36 or 107 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. The amendment makes it clear that that duty extends only to views expressed by the commission in relation to referendum broadcasts. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, he stated that the amendments make provision for universal postal service providers. Can he confirm my assumption that, in any given area, such a universal service provider would carry out exactly
156
the same role as that which would have been provided by the Post Office and thus would be subject to the same regulations? Furthermore, do the regulations which are to apply come from the Postal Services Act 2000? If not, to which regulatory provisions would a universal postal service provider be subject?
Secondly, Amendment No. 234L refers to provisions on broadcasting during referendums. The Minister used a phrase which somewhat surprised me. He referred to the fact that a broadcaster would need to,
"have regard to the views expressed by the electoral commission".
Is that not a slightly weak statement? I presume that any broadcasting body would be subject to the same full regulatory framework which applies to all the current broadcasters: the BBC, ITV and so forth. Can the noble Lord assure me that a new broadcaster, whether it be an Internet service or a cable company, will not only need to "have regard to", but will also be subject in exactly the same manner to the existing rules which pertain to broadcasts made during elections and referendums?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Those of us who were engaged in the "Think Twice" campaign in Scotland preceding the establishment of the Scottish Parliament will recollect how helpful the Post Office was at that time. When we had gathered together sufficient money—the service was by no means free—the Post Office agreed to distribute our literature to every household in Scotland. Most conveniently, it was prepared to do so some five days after the referendum had taken place. Not surprisingly, we did not consider that to be the best use of our limited funds.
Can the Minister give the Committee a reassurance that the revised provisions in Schedule 11 would require the Post Office or a universal postal service provider to undertake such distribution exercises at a time falling within a reasonable period before the referendum takes place; namely, neither too far in advance, nor—as in the circumstances that we encountered—after the event?
Lord McNally: I should like to comment along similar lines. We should recall the experience of the election campaign for the Greater London Assembly. Only after this House insisted on it was a freepost granted. Given the "reasonable terms and conditions" which may be specified by the universal service provider, what would happen if one or other of the competing parties finds those conditions unsatisfactory? What right of appeal has been put in place for a party that wishes to seek redress? Problems may arise if a campaigning organisation wishes to specify that its literature will take a certain form. Alternatively, the universal service provider may attempt to insist on rather irksome conditions.

157
A decision may seem reasonable from the universal service provider's point of view, but it may be quite unreasonable for one or other of the campaigning organisations. I should appreciate further clarification on the right of appeal.
Lord Bach: I think that I can give noble Lords the reassurances they seek.
The first amendment is consequential on changes to the framework of postal services being made by the recent Act. That Act enshrines in law a universal postal service which must be provided to all UK residents at a uniform tariff for postal packets weighing less than 20 kilograms. Certain postal operators who apply for a licence will be required to provide such services through the imposition of a licence condition. Those operators who are required by their licence to provide all or part of a universal postal service will be regarded as universal service providers. It is anticipated that the new Post Office plc will be such a provider, but in due course there may be others. The way in which they carry out their functions will need to be in accordance with the provisions laid down in the recent Act.
As regards the level of efficiency of such new providers, we cannot give any firm undertakings on that point. However, in response to the question put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, I am happy to give him the reassurance he seeks on that point.
So far as concerns the question about the electoral commission asked by the noble Viscount in relation to Amendment No. 234L, I can confirm that this amendment relates to referendum broadcasts; namely, the equivalent of party political election broadcasts, rather than to the general news coverage of referendums. In that sphere, the normal rules of balance and impartiality will continue to apply.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked about appeals mechanisms. Our view at present is that appeals would be made to the Post Office, but I should like to write to him in more detail. Furthermore, I shall ensure that a copy of that letter is placed in the Library.
4 p.m.
Viscount Astor: The Minister has given a helpful reply. However, I am not sure it has cleared up my question in relation to broadcasting. I shall read what he said and if I have any further questions, I shall write to him before the next stage. It is a technical point.
Perhaps the Minister can clarify this issue for the Committee. The amendment states,
"such reasonable terms and conditions as the universal service provider concerned may specify".
If during a referendum the Post Office covers one area of the country and a universal service provider covers another, can the Minister give an assurance that those "reasonable terms and conditions" will not vary from area to area and that one service provider will not have
158
different terms and conditions from another? It is important that the rules for all those involved in a referendum are the same throughout the country.
Lord Bach: The universal service providers will be under licence from the Post Office, which will specify what services the universal service providers must provide.
Viscount Astor: Does that mean that they will be the same throughout the country?
Lord Bach: They will be consistent. Whether they will be exactly the same, I cannot say.
Viscount Astor: I am sorry to come back on this, but it is rather bizarre that we might find ourselves in a position where different parts of England are subject to different terms and conditions during a referendum campaign. That is not terribly satisfactory. Perhaps between now and the next stage the Minister will consider this matter further and come back and clarify the position.
Lord Bach: Let us see whether I can do that now. Obviously there will be consistent specifications set out under the terms of the licence, but no one can say exactly when each of the universal service providers if they exist at the time—will post the free mailshot through the door. To some extent, that will have to be at the discretion of the service providers. But a specification that it will have to be carried out by a certain time—it is no good doing it after the referendum, for example—will of course apply.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 234B to 234L:
Page 146, line 20, leave out ("charge for postage") and insert ("any charge for postage which would otherwise be made by a universal service provider").
Page 146, line 23, leave out ("regulations") and insert ("terms and conditions").
Page 146, line 27, leave out ("those regulations") and insert ("any such terms and conditions").
Page 146, line 28, after first ("of") insert ("any such").
Page 146, line 31, leave out ("72 of the Post Office Act 1969 (remuneration of Post Office for") and insert ("200A of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (remuneration of universal service provider for free postal").
Page 146, line 33, leave out ("the Post Office") and insert ("a universal service provider").
Page 146, line 34, leave out ("the Post Office in pursuance of the Representation of the People Act 1983") and insert ("such a provider in pursuance of that Act").
Page 146, line 37, at end insert—
(""universal service provider" has the same meaning as in the Postal Services Act 2000.").

Page 146, line 37, at end insert—
("() If this paragraph comes into force at a time when the amendments made to section 91 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 by the Postal Services Act 2000 have not come into force, then until such time as those amendments come into

159
force, this paragraph shall have effect subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order under section 151 of this Act which brings this paragraph into force.").

Page 148, line 13, at end insert ("for the purposes of this subparagraph").
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 106 [Referendum expenses]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 234M and 234N:
Page 67, line 25, leave out ("either").
Page 67, line 27, leave out from ("purposes") to end of line 30.
The noble Lord said: These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 191. I beg to move.
On Question, Whether Clause 106, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: With Clause 106 we enter into the arena of the expenditure which would be allowed in a referendum. Essentially, a number of amendments will be brought forward in the next few groups which look at this question from different angles. Perhaps the best way to start is with a clause stand part debate. I refer to the question that in referendums we do not attempt to impose limits on the expenditure of political parties or umbrella organisations.
There is a good basis for this. The first report on these issues was the Nairne commission report on the conduct of referendums to which reference has been made. The report considered all aspects of referendums. One of its main recommendations was the setting up of an electoral commission. I wish in particular to refer to guideline 14. It follows paragraphs in the report which discuss whether or not we should have limits on spending on referendums. The guideline states:
"On balance, it is not considered practical to exercise Government control over the total expenditure by those campaigning on either side in a referendum. Umbrella campaigning organisations should be required to undertake to provide accounts of monies received or spent on the campaign if they are to qualify for public money or services in kind".
So Nairne quite clearly said that there should not be a limit on spending.
I turn now to the report of the Neill committee. In the debate on the first of today's amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, heavily prayed in aid the Neill committee to counter what I was saying. He quoted from its report and said, "That is it. Neill said such and such and that is what we should do". I just want to remind the Committee of what the Neill committee said on the question of referendum expenditure. It explicitly followed Nairne and rejected the approach taken in the Bill.
The committee pointed out that in referendums political parties may well not be the principal contestants. Indeed, political parties may be split on which side to support— just as the Labour Party, as I mentioned earlier, would be split in a referendum on
160
proportional representation. Who should decide on which side of the argument the £5 million allowed to the Labour Party should be spent?
The Neill committee looked into this issue and recognised the problems. I do not want to read it all out, but quoting from it saves me making the argument. The Neill committee makes a powerful case against the Government's current position and in favour of removing these limits. The report refers to the imbalance which is possible if one does not have limits, and it goes on to state:
"The case, in principle, for imposing spending limits in referendum campaigns is a strong one".
No doubt the Minister will quote that. However, it goes on:
"We believe, however, that it would be futile and possibly also wrong to attempt to impose such limits in connection with referendums. Ordinary election campaigns bear some resemblance to sporting contests, in the sense that they are fought by competing 'teams' in the form of the political parties. It is known long in advance that such contests will take place (though, in the case of general elections, the precise date may be uncertain). The political parties themselves are, in the great majority of cases, permanent institutions with leaders, members, headquarters, and professional staffs. By contrast, a referendum campaign is more like a free-for-all. Anyone can participate. Many do. The political parties may, or may not, be the principal contestants, It is often not known long in advance whether a referendum will take place, let alone when it will take place. Those on the Yes and 10 sides of the argument may never have worked together before—and may, quite possibly, be unwilling to work together now"—
a point I made earlier. This is the important point:
"It appears to us that under these circumstances it would be impracticable to try to control campaign spending. The number of individuals and organisations involved would often be too large. The time-scale would often be too short. Adequate accounting procedures would often be impossible to put in place. The administrative apparatus required would resemble one of Heath Robinson's most outlandish contraptions—and would almost certainly not work".
And yet the Government have gone ahead with spending limits which are indefensible in theory and unworkable in practice.
Amendment No. 237 seeks to ensure that at least an uncoupling is made between the results at the last election and the amount of money to be spent. Why should the amount that a political party can spend on a referendum be dependent on its votes in a previous general election? A referendum is an entirely different issue; it has nothing to do with a general election. In fact, if an issue had been decided at a general election, there would be no need for a referendum. Some might think that certain issues should be decided at general elections and not left to referendums, but that is not the road along which we are going.
As the Committee will hear, in a referendum on the euro, Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the SNP could spend something like £9 million to scrap the pound, but the Conservative Party would be allowed to spend only £5 million to save it.
Earlier, I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that there might be more than one umbrella organisation. The noble Lord's best argument—perhaps his only argument— against my proposition was that if there were two umbrella organisations on

161
one side and only one on the other, the two organisations on the one side might have two freeposts. I wrote his words down,
"it would give one side … an unfair advantage".
That is what he said at 3.23 p.m. today. When he rises to reply at 4.23 p.m., he will no doubt be oblivious to the fact that if one side is allowed to spend at least £9 million, because of the political party line-up, and the other side is allowed to spend only £5 million, that gives an unfair advantage to one side in exactly the same way as allowing two umbrella organisations on one side to put out free leaflets would give that side an unfair advantage.
Amendment No. 238 seeks to impose spending limits on each side of the referendum as a whole. That is the attractive alternative. But the reality is, as my right honourable friend Sir George Young acknowledged in another place on 16th February, while it is an attractive solution, it is highly impracticable, because there will be differing organisations which will want to campaign in a referendum and it will be impossible to bring them all under the same total umbrella.
If that is impractical, it seems to me that the only alternative, in order to allow a fair referendum to take place, is not to have any spending limits at all. No spending limits seem better than rigged spending limits. I do not want to be emotive about this matter, but they are rigged. These spending limits would have been rigged in the Scottish referendum where, even if no side had been able to raise the money, it would have been very limited in the amount that it could have spent in comparison with Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Nationalists. So there would have been an imbalance. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, may come to regret his phrase,
"give one side … an unfair advantage",
just as his noble friend Lord Bassam has come to regret his phrase at an earlier stage of the Bill, "unworkable and bureaucratic".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: For the record, I used the phrase "cumbersome and bureaucratic". I might perhaps have added a word, and said "necessarily cumbersome and bureaucratic".
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There we are. If it is cumbersome and bureaucratic but "necessary", it is fine. I do not think that a great deal of the Bill is necessary. Therefore its cumbersome and bureaucratic nature will make it impossible for the political parties—which, as I have told the Minister time without number, are largely voluntary organisations—to remain within the law, do their work and run elections, which are the very basis of our democratic society.
The Neill committee concluded that there were severe problems in relation to spending limits in referendum campaigns and the committee rejected them. We agree with the Neill committee. The committee's conclusion is not "if", "may be", or "possibly"; it is a very definite rejection. The Government should either make an overwhelming case
162
for going against the conclusions of the Neill committee, or they should withdraw those parts of the Bill which place caps on spending and allow referendums to be uncapped. I oppose the Question that the clause shall stand part.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 235L and 235M standing in my name. They deal with the same subject of caps on expenditure by reference to political parties during a referendum. I have also given formal notice of my intention to oppose Clauses 112 and 113 and Schedule 13 in order to be able to have a debate on the whole principle of the caps, and to put forward an alternative to the idea of having equal caps on both sides.
The Bill contains a whole series of caps. There is a cap of £5 million on a designated umbrella organisation; there are caps on individual political parties, defined according to their share of the vote at the previous election; there are caps on what are described as "other permitted participants" of £0·5 million—these include individuals, registered companies and unincorporated associations; in addition, there is a limit of £ 10,000 on spending by individuals who are not "permitted participants".
The question raised by my noble friend Lord Mackay is one that I raised at Second Reading and one to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, speaking at that time from the Liberal Front Bench, was quite sympathetic. In addition, the Government said several times in another place that they had an open mind on the matter, they were open to argument and were prepared to consider the position. This is not a party point; it is not merely about the referendum on the euro. It is a fundamental point about equity in framing the rules for a referendum. The Government, in attempting to stop people, as they put it, "buying" the result of a referendum, have created an in-built inequity in what is proposed.
As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, the basic problem is that the Government's attempt to control the expenditure of political parties in a referendum does so based on their share of the vote at the previous election. Two questions arise. First: is it right to concentrate on political parties at all? Secondly, if the concentration is on political parties, is it right to do so by relating the spending limit to their percentage of the vote at the previous election? The Government's proposition is questionable in a number of respects, and in other respects positively wrong. It is certainly against the recommendations of the Neill committee.
It is not necessarily the case that political parties will always be the key players in every referendum. The whole reason that we have referendums is to deal with issues that cut across party lines. As Professor Pulzer said in evidence to the Neill committee,
"the whole point about the referendum is to get opinions from people who are organised not along the lines of the established political parties, and very frequently people do not vote in accordance with the advice that is given to them by the parties that they normally support".

163
In many of the issues put forward in referendums, parties are split. So the concentration on parties is arguable. Perhaps there is an argument for saying that political parties should stand back from referendums and leave them to the umbrella organisations. In 1998, the Neill committee touched on this point, and put the matter bluntly (at paragraph 12.30):
"To represent referendum campaigns as merely another manifestation of the usual party political battle seems to us both misconceived in principle and false to the history of referendums since 1975".
In the same paragraph, the committee states:
"We believe that experience shows that referendum campaigns may well feature people from all parties, and also people with no party allegiance at all, on both sides of the argument".
So I question the targeting of political parties in this way.
Even if it is right to apply caps to political parties, it surely cannot be right to do so in relation to their share of the vote at the previous election. That proposition is fatally flawed. The whole point of referendums is to deal with issues that cut across and do not conform with party divisions.
My noble friend referred to proportional representation. There are Conservatives in favour of proportional representational. It has been said that there are very few. There may be rather more among people who vote Conservative but who are not Conservative activists. But if the Conservative Party is opposing PR in a referendum, why should it be permitted to spend money that is based on its share of the vote, including Conservatives who are in favour of proportional representation?
Obviously, the point could be made more dramatically with the case of a referendum on the euro. There are many Labour Party voters, not party members, who are against the euro; indeed, for all I know, perhaps as many as half of Labour voters. If the Labour Party supports the euro in a referendum campaign, why should it be allowed to spend a permitted amount of money that is calculated by a percentage that includes millions of people who do not share its view?
It seems to me that the proposition put forward by the Government ignores the fact that, in a referendum, people are voting on one issue. However, in a general election, people are voting on many issues. People who vote for a party in a general election may have a different view from their party in a referendum. The main point is that the outcome is extremely inequitable. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, acknowledged on Second Reading, this is not a party point. The unfairness would certainly arise in the case of a euro referendum where, if the caps were applied on the basis of votes cast at the last general election—that is to say, in 1997—it would result in caps on funding that were massively in favour of the "yes" side in a euro campaign. My noble friend Lord Mackay illustrated that fact, although he left out of his calculation the £5 million for the umbrella body.
164
However, on the "no" side, there would be £5 million for the umbrella body, £5 million for the Conservative Party, being a party that achieved more than 30 per cent of the vote at the previous election, making around £10 million in all. Conversely, on the other side, you would have £5 million for the umbrella organisation, £5 million for the Labour Party, which got over 30 per cent of the vote, and £3 million for the Liberal Democrats, which got between 10 and 20 per cent. I read in the Hansard report of the debate in another place that there were seven other parties, which could attract ceilings of £500,000. If that is correct, that would make a total of £16·5 million, compared with £10 million. However, if that is incorrect—I have not checked the figures myself—one merely adds to the Liberal Democrat and Labour Parties the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists, which would give £14 million against £10 million for the "no" campaign.
What is the argument that is put forward in favour of this rather extraordinary proposition? The Government say that they want,
"to prevent people buying the referendum".
That is why they want the caps. However, they are going a long way towards allowing one side possibly to buy the result. It seems to me that there is no point in having these ceilings on the various participants in a referendum—political parties, individuals, associations, companies and umbrella groups—if there is no overall expenditure limit. What is the point of having sub-limits if there is no overall limit? I should be willing to give way to the Minister if he could answer that question. I do not see the point of having sub-limits in the absence of an overall limit. I do not know whether the Minister can explain that point to me. As I said, I should be most willing to give way to the noble Lord if he wishes to intervene in my speech at this point. I simply do not follow the logic of it. I see that the Minister does not seem to want to intervene.
It seems to me that the Government have thrown equity out of the window in their enthusiasm simply to have caps that have no purpose. The only purpose of having caps on political parties would be where the vote in a referendum corresponded to party lines. That is very unlikely to be the situation in most referendums. Incidentally, as I said earlier, the Government have also rejected the findings of the Neill committee. As my noble friend Lord Mackay said, it was not opposed in principle but in paragraph 12.46, the committee said that,
"it would be futile and possibly also wrong … to impose such limits in connection with referendums".
It seems to me that there are two ways to deal with the problem: either you have a cap for both sides—an umbrella cap—or, as my noble friend from our Front Bench said, you have no caps. The first option of equal spending on both sides for the two umbrella organisations is the subject of both my amendments, Amendments Nos. 235L and 235M. Amendment

165
No. 235L would cap the spending on either side in a referendum at £12 million. But I understand that many people may object to that; indeed, that may not be appropriate for referenda on certain subjects. We must not let our thoughts be dominated by one particular subject. Amendment No. 235M states that the spending on both sides should be equal, but that the precise sum should be determined by the electoral commission.
As my noble friend Lord Mackay hinted, I know that there are objections to that suggested course of action. I am sure that it must have been considered by the Neill committee. We look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has to say on the matter. The objections to my two amendments would be as follows: first, not everyone would necessarily want to be corralled into one umbrella organisation. Indeed, there are often people on one side of an issue in a referendum who are hardly on speaking terms with each other. In the last referendum in Northern Ireland, the parties did not want to campaign together in favour of the Belfast agreement. I understand that objection to what I propose, but the fact that people do not want to campaign together in an umbrella organisation does not mean that it is wholly impossible for them to agree, in discussion with the commission, some way in which the cap could be shared out among them. So that is not entirely impossible.
A second objection to what I propose might be our increasingly familiar friend the Human Rights Act, and Section 10 of the ECHR. In Quebec, provisions similar to those that I propose were struck down in advance of a referendum on the legal grounds that they were a violation of the rights of those who did not want to be ushered in and forced into the umbrella organisation. I realise that there are arguments against caps. However, I put it to anyone who approaches this in an unbiased way that what is proposed by the Government is manifestly unfair and not in accord with the reality of referenda.
It is not just the caps on political parties; it seems to me that it will be very easy to get round all the proposed caps. Indeed, they may be very ineffective. With respect to the Neill report, I know that one witness was quoted as saying, "Show me a cap and I'll show you how to get round it". As regards the amoeba phenomenon—that is, the idea that you can limit an organisation to £500,000—it will be very difficult for an organisation that is not a political party to enforce such a limit. I say that because an organisation can divide itself into two, three or four separate organisations. The impracticality applies also to the £10,000 limit on individuals who are not registered participants. As I see it, there is nothing to stop different people getting together with their individual £10,000 limits and making very large contributions to the campaign.
I entirely understand why the Neill committee came to the conclusion that caps are impractical. There were, of course, no caps in the 1975 European referendum and none in the 1979 Scottish referendum. Faced with this real problem, one might wonder
166
whether caps have any purpose. If a rich individual whom one is trying to control can buy a newspaper, he is already well round the caps. Indeed, there will be a great deal of expenditure which is not controlled.
In my amendments and in my remarks about Clauses 112 and 113 and Schedule 13, I have endeavoured to state the problem. I have also tried to state some of the arguments that I believe could be deployed by the Minister against the idea of having caps on the umbrella organisations. It seems to me that we have a choice: either we have a cap on the umbrella organisations, or we have no caps. I believe that what the Government propose is manifestly unfair and has very little merit, as was clearly demonstrated by the Neill report.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: We are dealing with basic questions about the referendums and how they should be controlled in future; whether there should be control of who can spend and how much. The problem that the Neill committee faced was quite fairly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, when he said that that committee liked the idea of controlling expenditure in terms of avoiding an arms race— and achieving a certain fairness—but reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was impractical to do that with a referendum which brings into the arena so many different and disparate interests. Therefore, it recommended that there should be no attempt to cap the expenditure on a referendum.
The Government rejected that particular proposal. I do not believe that I am misrepresenting the views of the Neill committee, of which I am a member, in saying that we were not particularly upset because we hoped and expected that the Government would produce a workable scheme which would in fact limit the amount that was spent and do that fairly and effectively. The Bill and its provisions give us the answer but for a number of reasons, it does not provide adequate regulation of campaign expenditure in relation to referendums.
As regards how much, that is fairly easy for individuals, according to the Bill. One must not spend more than £10,000 advocating "yes" or "no" during a particular referendum campaign. I shrug my shoulders as to how that is to be policed and monitored. I assume that it is just possible.
The big question is in relation to the permitted participants and those who can spend large sums of money. The first in the list are the campaign organisations for the "yes" and the "no" campaigns. Clearly, they must have a substantial sum of money. They are awarded £5 million each in the Bill. Then there are the political parties. I believe the point has been fairly made that the strength of the political parties in the House of Commons has little to do with the strength of their support for a "yes" or "no" vote in a referendum campaign. Nevertheless, some allowance must be made for the political parties. Whether the actual sums of money they are allowed to

167
spend and the relationship between them are fair are matters that can be debated and vigorously questioned, as, indeed, they should be.
I am even more concerned about the next category. The third category is neither the political parties nor the "yes" or "no" campaigns, but those referred to in the Bill as individual companies or an unincorporated association. They are permitted participants provided they have registered as such. They can spend £500,000 each. When one considers the vested interests that could be involved in a particular referendum campaign, that again is a coach and horses through the control of the money. I can well imagine a situation in which more than 10 companies take part on one side of a campaign and easily equal the £5 million allotted to a major political party or to the headquarters of the "no" or "yes" campaign.
Then we reach the point very properly made and brought out very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in his amendment: is there an overall cap? We have individuals caps and I have just been through them. Is there no limit on what can be spent? As regards the euro, let us imagine the vested interests on one side or the other: is there to be no cap? Are we really saying that money can be poured out without any constraint? The Minister must answer that. Is there to be a cap? We can argue about whether the cap proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is the right one can but in principle, is there to be a cap on the aggregate total expenditure in a referendum campaign?
That brings me back to the other fundamental question of who may take part. Clearly, companies can spend a great deal of money. The Minister and his friends have driven an even bigger coach and horses through the control mechanism because they have allowed, as permitted participants, not only British companies, but any company registered in the European Union. Can one imagine a referendum on the euro in which companies in the European Union are allowed to spend up to £500,000 each in the British campaign? Even the thought of that is outrageous. Yet the Government have feebly accepted that, because of some arcane ruling by the European Court of Justice, it would somehow be discriminatory for us to regulate the practice of our own democracy. That is ruled out by a single judgment of the European Court of Justice in a case which has nothing to do with the issues before us.
I say to this House—and I hope that others are listening outside—that that this is one of the greatest outrages and the abnegation of sovereignty and self-respect in the history of our nation. We are allowing a foreign body to decide how we should practise democracy and the control and management of democratic procedures in our own country. This wicked provision must be ruled out.
Lord Blackwell: I am taken by the point made by my noble friend Lord Mackay that it is likely to be difficult to find caps which are both practical and equitable and that it may make more sense to remove caps altogether.
168
I particularly want to take up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and his amendments. If there are to be caps, I question the relevance of expenditure as regards political parties and referendum campaigns. It seems to me that by definition referendums concern single issues which cut across party political lines. It is difficult, but not inconceivable, to imagine a situation where one could have the leadership of all the main political parties aligned on one side of a referendum and the opposition to that point of view drawn from members of all political parties. In that situation, if one were to allocate expenditure based on political parties concerning an issue that cuts across them, it may arise that expenditure would be heavily weighted on one side of the issue simply because of the arithmetic concerning the political parties supporting an election campaign. If we are to have referendums about issues as opposed to those concerning support for parties at a general election, then expenditure based around political parties is both irrelevant and potentially damaging.
Lord Goodhart: This is a very complex issue. I am not sure that I agree either with the Government or with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on it. This group of amendments raises three different questions. The first is whether there should be a total limit on the spending of either side in a referendum campaign. The second is, if there should be no total limit, should there nevertheless be a limit on the spending by any particular player in that campaign? Finally, if there should be a limit of that kind, what should it be?
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, slightly misrepresented the position of the Neill committee. We said that there should not be an overall total limit on expenditure. We did not consider whether there should be a limit on individual players. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, rather implied that we had said no to both questions whereas we said no to the first question and did not answer the second question.
On the question of whether there should be a limit on total spending, it seems to me pretty clear that we were right in coming to the conclusion that there should not be. It is fair to say that the Government have not attempted to impose a total limit on the spending of either side. There are certainly a number of objections to imposing a total limit. One is the great difficulty of enforcing and controlling that limit. It can possibly be done with an umbrella organisation if all the players on one side are willing to belong to that organisation. However, there are many referendums in which no umbrella organisation can be formed. The most obvious example—one which was mentioned in the Neill committee report—was the Good Friday referendum in Northern Ireland with on one side the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP and Sinn Fein, and, on the other side, the DUP and some republican splinter groups. It is perfectly obvious that neither side would have been willing to come together for the purpose of fighting a joint campaign. It would have

169
been out of the question, for example, to have told the Ulster Unionists, "Sorry, you cannot spend any more money on this campaign because your allowance has all been spent by Sinn Fein".
Therefore we felt that it was plainly impracticable to impose an overall limit and, indeed, possibly wrong on grounds of freedom of speech in view of the Bowman decision in the European Court of Human Rights which concerned money spent in a particular constituency election campaign. By analogy that would also apply to a referendum and to the Canadian case which the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, mentioned in which it was held to be a breach of the right of freedom of speech under the Canadian charter of rights to require someone to join an umbrella group if they wished to participate in a campaign. In that case an umbrella group existed but someone said, "I do not want to join that umbrella group because I support the same argument as them but for different reasons and I wish to have my own say on the matter". It was held that that applicant was entitled to do that.
The question of whether there should be a limit on the spending of particular players in a campaign is, I think, much more arguable. The Neill committee did not consider that matter. In retrospect I think that we should have but I am not clear what conclusion we would have reached had we done so. The noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, takes a strong view on that matter. I take a somewhat different view, although it is not so strongly held as that of the noble Lord. I believe that there are arguments for saying that one ought not to allow a particular political party, or rather a particular individual with extremely strong views on a subject, for example, Mr Brian Souter or Mr Paul Sykes, to fund an expensive campaign. I accept that there are difficulties. A number of those difficulties were justifiably pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. However, I believe that there is an arguable case for saying that you can do that. If it is to be done, I am not happy with the way the Government propose to do it. Certainly the view of the Neill committee was that the emphasis on political parties in referendums was too great. We felt that in the case of referendum campaigns there were strong advantages in giving incentives to like-minded people to join in a single umbrella campaign. That would simplify the procedure in many ways. For example, it makes the question of broadcasting much easier.
If a political party on its own is entitled to spend as much as a whole umbrella group would be entitled to spend, I certainly feel that that places far too much emphasis on the role of the party. If more than one party is involved, together they may well be in a position to spend far more than the umbrella campaign. I regard the figures for party spending as far too high. I also take the view—I believe that both the noble Lords, Lord Mackay and Lord Lamont, mentioned this—that it is wholly wrong in principle in these cases to determine the amount of money that any political party is entitled to spend on the basis of its share of the vote. That seems to me to be wholly wrong. It is inconsistent with the rule in the case of
170
general elections where although parties such as mine are likely to be unable to get close to the limit, nevertheless if we could do that we would be entitled to do it. I believe that the same principle should apply to party spending on referendums.
I am also somewhat concerned at the level of spending by permitted participants. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Shore, got it somewhat wrong when he said that no individual could spend more than £10,000. If an individual becomes a permitted participant, the limit is not £10,000 but £500,000.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: I should make it quite clear that I was referring not to individual but to companies' expenditure which is specifically under the limit of £500,000.
Lord Goodhart: In a sense the division between individual and company spending is somewhat irrelevant because I think that the very large sums of money are not, frankly, likely to come from big commercial companies with large shareholdings but are much more likely to come from the private companies of wealthy individuals who might decide to put their companies' money into a campaign rather than their own. But be that as it may, it is certainly my view that a spending limit of £500,000 is too high. Even if one applies the 5 per cent test which was applied to third party spending for constituency and national campaigns in general elections, the figure would be reduced to £250,000. I believe that £250,000 is a more realistic figure than £500,000.
In principle I am quite happy with the idea of some control on spending by particular players. However, I am not happy with the way in which the Government have set about that. It is a matter which the Government should reconsider.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This subject is clearly fraught with enormous difficulties. The more I have listened to the argument, the more problems seem to arise, in particular with the route that the Government have chosen.
I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney when he says that it is completely intolerable that the European Court of Justice should be able to decide to what extent our political parties might be financed; and that the electoral law that we all want—and the Government want—restricting the amount that companies can provide for political parties is to be decided by the European Court of Justice and not our own Parliament. I should have thought that every parliamentarian would want to agree with my noble friend. I am sorry that my noble friend on the Front Bench, and the Government, did not say to the European Court of Justice and the Commission, "This goes too far and we shall not go along with it, whether or not it is against supposed European law".
The question of expenditure in a referendum is fraught with difficulties. In this country, we do not have long-term experience of running referendums.

171
Therefore we do not have too much experience to call upon. But it is absolutely certain that to base the amount which can be spent on the basis of political parties cannot be right; nor can the number of votes cast at the last election be the right basis because trends in opinions change within a period of six months, 12 months, three years or five years. So that is not a good basis on which to decide what each political party should spend.
An alternative basis might be to use current opinion polls. Let us consider the current opinion poll on the euro. The last one was taken on 2nd October by MORI. That indicated that 72 per cent of the electorate were against ditching the pound and going into the euro. It would be as fair a system as any for allocating funds to say that the campaign in favour of retaining the pound should have 72 per cent and the other side only 38 per cent of the expenditure. That is clearly nonsensical but no more so than the proposition put forward by the Government in the Bill.
The Government have to consider the issue again. If they do not, I shall vote for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, because we must have an alternative. However, I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter. How they can do so has already been suggested. One can have a limit on the total expenditure. But I do not know how one could impose that limit. I am the chairman of the anti-Maastricht alliance. We have 21 organisations in the alliance and many more outside it. How one will be able to control the expenditure of all those individual organisations plus the contributions of individuals themselves I do not know. We face a very difficult situation.
Let us think back to 1975. I remember 1975 because I represented Swindon in the House of Commons. I took an active part on the "no" side throughout Wiltshire and the South West in that referendum. The Labour Party was in a difficult position. The Labour Party was in favour of withdrawal from what was then the common market. On the other hand, the Labour government took the view that we should remain in. So there was a difference of opinion between the Labour Party on the one hand and the Labour government on the other. How would we sort out that situation?
The position then was even more difficult. To resolve its internal difficulties—those who were in the Labour Party at that time know this perfectly well—the Labour Party said that all party members could opt for whichever side they liked. How does one distribute the amounts of money available to the party under those circumstances? The whole subject is fraught with enormous difficulties. Those of us who fought in the 1975 referendum believe that one of the reasons that we lost the vote was because of the enormous amount of money that was on one side of the argument. That is why we believe that some control is necessary.
I have also to take into account the referendum which took place in Denmark on 28th September 2000. Despite the assistance that some of us sought to give it, I understand that the "no" campaign on the euro was
172
outgunned by about 20 kroner to one. Virtually all the press were in favour of the "yes" campaign as were all the political parties. Big business and the trade unions were in favour of the "yes" campaign. And the Danish people voted 53 to 47 per cent against getting rid of the kroner. What do we do under those circumstances? It seems that money does not always count. Nevertheless it counts in people's minds. People must see fairness in a referendum campaign. This Bill does not give us fairness. It does not make clear to ordinary people that the referendum will be fought fairly. That is why I believe that the Government need to have further consultations, perhaps with the Neill committee and all-party consultation, to try to reach a situation where all people can have confidence—in particular, the voters.
5 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wonder if I could support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Lamont and those of the noble Lords, Lord Shore of Stepney and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, by bringing to your Lordships' attention the position of the United Kingdom Independence Party, which I do not think is represented in your Lordships' House and therefore has no one to speak about its situation.
I am myself a loyal Conservative Back-Bencher, perhaps on the Euro-realist wing of the party. My lack of knowledge of the UK Independence Party is no doubt confirmed by the fact that I cannot remember whether or not it existed at the last general election—I am told that it did, just, but did not win many votes. We did have Sir James Goldsmith's Referendum Party, which has now metamorphosed into the all-party Democracy Movement, and at the time that party won quite a few votes.
The point I wish to put to the Government is that if there were to be a referendum on the euro before the next general election, under the provisions of this Bill the UK Independence Party would get no money a t all. It is a political party and would not qualify for funding under Schedule 13, as I read it, and therefore would get absolutely nothing. That surely cannot make sense when we consider that the last test of public opinion on matters European was last year's elections for the European Parliament. The party then actually won 7 per cent of the vote and three seats in the European Parliament; yet the Bill as drafted would give it only up to half a million pounds. That amount would not be in line with what it achieved at that election, the last test of public opinion.
Also, it would not be in line with the latest test of public opinion so far as UKIP is concerned. That occurred on 2nd October, when 46 per cent of those consulted in a MORI poll on whether, if there were to be a referendum tomorrow, they would wish to stay in the European Union or get out of it, said they would want to get out. As there is no one else here to speak on behalf of UKIP, I feel that I might as well do it,

173
from the point of view of showing the Government that the Bill as drafted is completely inequitable, at least to that party.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This has been a long and very thoughtful debate; it has been a curate's egg of a debate, and I have enjoyed it greatly. My job as a Government Minister is to look at all the points that have been made and see whether we can find some light at the end of this inverted telescope—because that seems to be how the debate has gone. It seems to have been largely overshadowed by one issue: that of a possible referendum over the future participation of this country in the euro.
I welcome the fact that we have had the debate, even though it has been contentious and perhaps even a touch controversial. At one point when the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, referred to "foreign bodies", I began to feel a little queasy; on the other hand, the passion with which the argument was put was quite right.
The Opposition have argued that the arrangements set out in the Bill are unfair because they do not guarantee a level playing field. The charge is that it would be possible for one side in a referendum campaign grossly to outspend the other side, and Amendments Nos. 238, 235L and 235M seek to rectify this perceived unfairness by providing for the commission to specify an overall limit on the aggregate expenditure that may be incurred by all of those campaigning for a particular outcome. The Government freely concede that their proposals would not ensure that each side in a referendum was subject to the same overall limit on expenditure, and there is no pretence that our proposals are intended to create a level playing field in that sense.
The Neill committee concluded, rightly, that any attempt to do so would be, as has already been said, futile and quite possibly wrong. That was stated in paragraph 12.46. To operate such overall expenditure limits would require that all those campaigning for a particular outcome co-ordinate their expenditure and collectively account for that expenditure. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and others have said, they may not wish to work together and would have to be compelled to do so. The committee concluded that such arrangements, again to quote an expression which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, borrowed from the report,
"would resemble one of Heath Robinson's most outlandish contraptions".
I have to report here that the noble Lords, Lord Lamont and Lord Mackay, have not attempted to draw up the sort of amendments that would be inevitably consequential on their Amendments Nos. 238, 235L and 235M.
It is worth exploring just a little further what would be needed to make those amendments effective. The first requirement would be to prohibit anyone from spending money in a campaign, except as part of an umbrella group or other such combination. You
174
would have to have an absolute bar on anyone else spending any money. Having prevented anyone campaigning outside an umbrella group, the next step would be to regulate the affairs of that group, perhaps in the form that we have regulations in the Bill for political parties. Some form of constitution would be needed for deciding, among other things, which organisations to admit to membership; how the views of the group were to be presented; how the overall spending limit was to be apportioned to the various constituent organisations and, finally—this is the important part—how to enforce expenditure limits.
In addressing these points the Bill would need to determine whether all the constituent organisations were to be jointly and severally liable for any overspend or whether the treasurer should be answerable for matters over which he or she may have no practical control. To resolve such issues would be difficult in the extreme, if not impossible. As the Neill committee pointed out, we would not be dealing with an established organisation with its own internal rules on which statutory provisions could be grafted. Referendum campaign groups will be formed on an ad hoc basis, sometimes at short notice, for each referendum. Sometimes the composition will vary from case to case, but we would need a set of statutory rules to cover all eventualities. In some cases, this simply would not work. Clearly, there are cases when two organisations will never join the same group or share a platform with each other, even if they hold the same view on a referendum question. I can well remember that from the 1975 referendum campaign on our continued membership of the Common Market. There were members of the Labour Party who would not share a platform with Enoch Powell under any circumstances, even though he was a member of the same "No" campaign and deployed almost identical arguments. During the 1998 referendum in Northern Ireland, the Ulster Unionists and Sinn Fein were not prepared to campaign together.
In the event of a referendum on Britain's membership of the euro, the amendments would require the Conservative Party to form an umbrella group that included not only the Ulster Unionists, but Business for Sterling, the "No" campaign of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, Paul Sykes' Democracy Movement, the UK Independence Party, whatever the Referendum Party is now called, the Communist Party and perhaps even the National Front. I am sure that there are one or two organisations in that list with which the Conservative Party would not want to be associated, but if they were left out of the umbrella group, they would be denied the ability to campaign in a referendum. The question of who is in and who is out cannot easily be answered by the law.
The Bill recognises and encourages the formation of umbrella groups and sets separate expenditure limits for them. The key difference is that there is no obligation on a party or other organisation to join an umbrella group or to campaign as part of it. That would be overly prescriptive. A party or other organisation can stay away from the group and do its own thing.

175
The case against an overall expenditure limit for each side in a referendum is overwhelming. However, the Government have not drawn the conclusion that it would be both impossible and wrong in principle to operate any expenditure limits whatsoever. Placing a limit on what any particular individual or organisation may spend will at least make it possible to prevent a wealthy individual or organisation exercising a disproportionate influence over the outcome of a referendum. Several of those arguing against the Government's position have claimed that that is their perspective. Furthermore, the Neill committee had already recommended that referendum campaign organisations should register with the electoral commission.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Minister is now arguing that it would be unfair if a particular organisation or a rich individual could unbalance the playing field by pouring money into one side. Surely that is an argument against the playing field starting off unbalanced, which will be the result of the Bill. If the political parties are lined up, one group will have £9 million and the other group will have £5 million. What is the difference between that imbalance and the imbalance created in what might be described as a free-for-all, when one wealthy individual might fund one side heavily? Such a wealthy individual might spend his money in favour of the euro.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We are trying to prevent an outrageous arms race. This is the one mechanism that we can design with some certainty behind it that will begin to achieve that. The requirement to register with I he electoral commission provides a large part of the control machinery needed for the imposition of expenditure limits.
The Opposition's position is not persuasive. They object to the Government's proposals on the grounds that one side may spend more than another. However, when challenged to put forward an alternative, they are not able to come up with workable proposals.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Minister cannot get away with that. Removing the clauses from the Bill is an alternative. That would remove any attempt to impose spending limits, because they are impossible whatever way we look at the issue. The Minister must address that argument as well.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is interesting, because some of the noble Lord's amendments propose spending limits in some form. He cannot have it both ways either. That is the problem in the arguments that we have heard from the Opposition and from others. When challenged to put forward an alternative, they are not able to come up with workable proposals. The noble Lord has challenged me, but he has not addressed the bureaucratic construction that might be necessary to give effect to another part of his solution—whichever solution it happens to be. The Opposition fall back on the argument that if there can
176
be no overall expenditure limits, there should be none at all. That would guarantee the unfairness that they see as inherent in the Government's proposals.
Amendments Nos. 236 and 237 would reduce the expenditure limit for a designated campaign organisation from £5 million to £3 million and would subject all political parties with the support of more than 5 per cent of the electorate to the same expenditure limit of £3 million. In the original draft Bill, we proposed a £5 million expenditure limit for any registered political party, irrespective of its electoral support. However, in its comments on the draft Bill, the Neill committee questioned whether it was right that all political parties, irrespective of the number of their Members in the House of Commons, should be subject to the same £5 million limit. In response, the Government revised their proposals and introduced a sliding scale whereby the level of the expenditure cap was related to the level of electoral support enjoyed by that party. Amendment No. 237 would return us to an arrangement closer to that which the Neill committee found unsatisfactory.
I am not sure whether the proposal for a £3 million upper limit on spending by a designated campaign or by a political party is consequential on Amendment No. 238 or whether it reflects a conversion to the view that the proposed limits on referendum expenditure are generally too high. Conservative Central Office originally observed that the £5 million limits for umbrella organisations and political parties set out in the draft Bill seemed "on the low side".
In the absence of any recommendation on that point, it is simply a matter of judgment as to whether £5 million is preferable to £3 million. On balance, perhaps £5 million is a more realistic figure in the context of a nationwide referendum. In the 1975 referendum, Britain in Europe spent around £1.5 million, which equates to around £7.5 million in today's money. Against that background, a £3 million limit seems unnecessarily low.
The four government amendments address minor drafting points. The first two ensure consistency between the offences in Clause 113 and those in Clause 89. The third removes paragraph (1) from Schedule 13 on the ground that the definition contained there is already supplied by Clause 100(1). The fourth amendment provides that that clause applies to a minor party.
The Opposition should make up their mind on the merits of referendum limits. They have made the case for limiting what each side in a referendum may spend. On the face of it, the case has some merits, but it falls down on the practicalities. If we have to reject that option, as I believe that we do, the controls on expenditure set out in the Bill are the next best thing. I urge your Lordships to support them.
The worst possible course would be to do without limits, which would guarantee gross inequality between the two sides. That being the case, I am afraid

177
that I must invite your Lordships to oppose the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Mackay and Lord Lamont, and to support the clauses.
Lord Norton of Louth: A central part of the Minister's argument seems to be that at least there will be a limit on spending by individuals under Schedule 13. What is to stop a very wealthy individual giving several colleagues £500,000 each and encouraging them to register under Clause 100(1)(b)? That would disperse all that money on one side in a referendum campaign.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Would it be possible for a citizen of the European Union to spend £10 million on UK adverts to favour one outcome? They would clearly be breaching the £500,000 limit, but how could they be prosecuted if they lived in another member state?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The issue goes back to some of the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. In an interesting contribution, he wrestled with all the vexed questions that we had gone through. He wrestled with total limits, limits on a particular party and what those limits should be. He dealt with the impracticality of the umbrella controls, and he said that limits on the parties were arguable. He said that in the end he was not happy with the Government's position. However, he did not offer a practical alternative, just as Members of the party opposite have not offered practical alternatives. I do not believe that a construct which does exactly that has been offered in the debate today. Finally, we need to accept that there must be a degree of good will in any referendum campaign. We have tried to provide a workable limit to, so to speak, the arms race of expenditure in a referendum campaign where there are clearly strong and entrenched views.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Will the noble Lord give way? Does he agree that somehow either the solution preferred by my noble friend Lord Lamont or that of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish must be considered, and, more so, that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Shore? I do not believe that referendums are any good if people do not trust the result. There is a serious danger that if people who compete in a referendum are able to say, "Ah, well, he has £10 million under the counter from such and such a firm; he has this, and he has that", we are making it possible for the whole process to be discredited. We rarely have referendums, and they are usually held on rather important subjects. Therefore, I believe that it is quite essential that that problem should be solved.
Lord Goodhart: Perhaps I may assist the Minister in response to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. I believe that it is fairly obvious that rich men do not give away £500,000 to a dozen different friends who, all by coincidence, choose to spend that money on a particular referendum
178
campaign. I do not believe that the courts would have much difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the various so-called beneficiaries of the gifts were in fact acting merely as agents for the original donor in the spending of the money and that therefore the donor was in breach of the rules.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I am very disappointed in the Minister's reply. I also believe that he is dealing with this matter in a rather puzzling way. He said that we have given him two options—either this or that—but that we have not put forward a proposition. However, we gave him a choice—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Does the noble Lord accept that his two propositions act in contradistinction to each other?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Completely. I put them forward in that very spirit.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: In that case, which proposition does the noble Lord support?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My first choice would be no limit. However, if the noble Lord is not prepared to accept that, I would go for a cap on both sides. I am prepared to go either way. There are three propositions: the Government's approach, no caps, or a cap or umbrella. I believe that it is unfair and unacceptable to have an approach that guarantees, to use his words, inequality between the two sides. He said that, if there were no caps, that guaranteed that there would be inequality. I suppose that that is the case in the sense that one side would spend more than the other, but I do not believe that one can be certain which side that would be. However, under the noble Lord's proposition the political party that will spend more is guaranteed because it is enshrined in the legislation.
I am extremely disappointed in the Minister's reply because it completely flies against what the Home Secretary said at Second Reading:
"We remain open to argument … I have asked the Opposition to come forward with [proposals]".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/99; col. 39.]
He said that he was open to argument, and that is why I put forward two absolutely separate and completely contrasting propositions. However, the Minister simply makes a cheap point about how they conflict with each other. The propositions were designed to provide alternatives. As is so often the case in politics, we are choosing the least unsatisfactory solution. However, I suggest that what the Minister has put forward is completely indefensible. He says that it is designed to stop an arms race, but one does not normally stop an arms race by saying that one side can have two-thirds more armaments than the other. That is a very odd way to tackle an armaments race.
I am disappointed in what the Minister said. I do not believe that it made sense. He did not explain why it makes sense to have sub-limits if there are no overall limits. The purpose of that was not at all clear. At this

179
stage I do not intend to press my amendments to a Division. However, I certainly hope to return to the issue on Report because I believe that the Minister's reply was most unsatisfactory.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This has been an interesting debate. It has certainly been interesting to discover from the Minister that he does not understand that choice can sometimes involve two quite opposing matters. He does not understand that. However, we have given him a choice and—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. Simply, the point that I made was that achieving one of those options would create a bureaucratic nightmare of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, would probably not envisage in his most wild and outrageous dreams. He and I agree that it is bureaucratic and of course it is cumbersome, hut, I argue, necessarily so. As I explained, it is politically impractical to create a construct to control umbrella expenditure and it is impractical to orchestrate. I believe that the alternative of the more severe cap is overly restrictive. In this exercise we have tried to plough a sensible middle course and I believe that that exactly describes our position.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The only wild and outrageous dream that I have is when occasionally I believe that I am asleep on the Front Bench listening to the Minister. However, we shall leave that aside.
The real point is that this is a difficult issue, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, gave a very fair appreciation of it. He reinforced the point made by the Neill committee in relation to umbrella organisations. I believe that probably the argument in that regard is correct: the difficulty of deciding how the organisations would work inside one umbrella and how the money would be divided is probably impossible to resolve.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, say that it was not clear what answer the Neill committee would have given if it had considered the alternative now put forward by the Government. I find it odd that the Government, or the Labour Party, did not consider putting forward that proposition to the Neill committee for consideration. Perhaps that is a pity. I have no evidence of that other than reading the Neill report and trying to discover how the committee reached that conclusion. However, I suspect that it may have concluded that the Government's alternative was equally as fraught with difficulty. After all, I notice that the Minister did not answer his noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon when he referred to the 1975 referendum about which the Labour Party was severely divided.
Let us assume that we hold a referendum on a subject that divides one of our great parties (let us forget the euro for a moment). In the past, one reason for having a referendum was that it provided the easiest way out when a party was divided. Let us assume that we hold a referendum and one of our great parties is severely divided. Who receives the £5 million
180
to spend? It is a very good question but the Minister simply did not answer it. He did not answer my question about the rich individual in Paris or London spending £10 million, way in excess of the £0.5 million which would be allowed if he lived in the UK. Who would prosecute him? How would he be prosecuted? Is there any answer to that question?
However, perhaps above all, the Minister said simply that the Bill is not fair; it introduces an inequality, but it is an inequality from the word go. The Minister said that we should guard against the possibility that fund-raising might end up as an inequality. Two wrongs do not make a right and two inequalities do not make an equality. I believe that my proposal would be better. The noble Lord has not really addressed that.
However, to return to the suggestion of the Neill committee, we cannot cap referendum expenditures because they are so different from general election expenditures. The Government's Bill deals with that on the basis of the results of the last general election. However, since then we have had a European election. One could say that that election was more relevant to the question of Europe than was the general election. Therefore, why not fund on the basis of the last available election? Why return to the general election? So many questions arise here, but I believe—
5.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I am beginning to become confused by his argument. The noble Lord raised the example of a rich individual. He probably knows more about rich individuals than I do. However, in raising this argument about inequality, it seems to me that he is losing sight of the fact that if we move back to a position where there are no limits at all, the rich individuals genuinely can come in and attempt to buy a referendum. The noble Lord has not answered that point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is a slightly wider argument. I think that it would be hard to prove that all the money on one side necessarily buys the result of a referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, referred to the Danish referendum where all the cash was on one side, all the powerful players were on one side—and they lost. I know what the Minister will say, that one could say the same about my opposition to his Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord is right. That is the point. Through the Bill, we seek to establish a position of transparency. I thought that the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was helpful to us. It made the point that the people will not be defeated when they clearly see things in a certain way, regardless of the amount of money stacked up on one side of the argument by one group of supporters.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not want to go on too long on this point. However, there is a

181
difference between one individual stacking the odds and the political parties being allowed legitimately to stack the odds. I believe that the public would make a judgment about whether they thought that that individual should or should not stack the odds on one side. However, when it comes to political parties, which are legitimate organisations, the imbalance laid out in the Bill is much more difficult for the public to see through. They may well accept that imbalance. Clearly, the noble Lord will not be persuaded. He wants inequality. It is a new concept of a level playing field: we must start off with the playing field being uneven in case, during the match, it turns out to be uneven. That is a ludicrous argument. We would be far better standing where we are. The Minister does not seem to like the choices. The choice I would come down on is not to have any limits. However, that is probably for another day.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether the Minister could answer a point which my noble friend put to him and which I also attempted to put to him on behalf of the United Kingdom Independence Party. Does he agree that at the last general election no fewer than 177 commitments were given by the Labour Party? Therefore, people who voted for the Labour Party at the last election were voting en masse for 177 commitments. At the European elections, there was only one issue; that is, sending people to the European Parliament.
Does the Minister not agree that the test of opinion which should apply is the vote at the European elections, far more than the vote at the last general election. He has not addressed that point. It will need to be addressed before we finally decide this matter.
Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Referendum expenses: qualifying expenses]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 234P to 234YC:
Page 149, line 16, leave out ("120(1)") and insert ("120").
Page 149, line 24, leave out sub-paragraphs (7) to (10).
Page 149, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (11) and insert—
("(11) Transport (by any means) of persons to any place or places with a view to obtaining publicity in connection with a referendum campaign.
Expenses in respect of the transport of such persons include the costs of hiring a particular means of transport for the whole or part of the period during which the campaign is being conducted.").
Page 149, line 42, leave out ("attract national publicity") and insert ("obtain publicity in connection with a referendum campaign").
Page 149, line 45, leave out ("prominent").
Page 149, line 45, after ("events") insert (", the hire of premises for the purposes of such events").
Page 149, line 47, leave out sub-paragraphs (13) and (14).
Page 150, line 8, leave out ("permanent staff") and insert ("staff (whether permanent or otherwise)").
Page 150, line 9, leave out ("reasonable").
182
Page 150, line 11, at end insert ("to the extent that the expenses are paid by the individual from his own resources and are not reimbursed to him").
Page 150, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 151.
Page 151, leave out lines 18 to 23 and insert ("as to the kinds of expenses which do, or do not, fall within Part I of this Schedule").
Page 152, line 11, leave out ("or II").
The noble Lord said: These amendments were all previously spoken to with Amendment No. 191. I beg to move.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 107 [Notional referendum expenses]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 234YD to 234YG:
Page 67, line 41, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—

("(1) This section applies where, in the case of any individual or body—

(a) either—

(i) property is transferred to the individual or body free of charge or at a discount of more than 10 per cent. of its market value, or

(ii) property, services or facilities is or are provided for the use or benefit of the individual or body free of charge or at a discount of more than 10 per cent. of the commercial rate for the use of the property or for the provision of the services or facilities, and

(b) the property, services or facilities is or are made use of by or on behalf of the individual or body in circumstances such that, if any expenses were to be (or are) actually incurred by or on behalf of the individual or body in respect of that use, they would be (or are) referendum expenses incurred by or on behalf of the individual or body.

(1A) Where this section applies, an amount of referendum expenses determined in accordance with this section ("the appropriate amount") shall be treated, for the purposes of this Part, as incurred by the individual or body during the period for which the property, services or facilities is or are made use of as mentioned in subsection (1)(b).

This subsection has effect subject to subsection (6).

(1B) Where subsection (1)(a)(i) applies, the appropriate amount is such proportion of either—

(a) the market value of the property (where the property is transferred free of charge), or

(b) the difference between the market value of the property and the amount of expenses actually incurred by or on behalf of the individual or body in respect of the property (where the property is transferred at a discount),

as is reasonably attributable to the use made of the property as mentioned in subsection (1)(b).

(1C) Where subsection (l)(a)(ii) applies, the appropriate amount is such proportion of either—

(a) the commercial rate for the use of the property or the provision of the services or facilities (where the property, services or facilities is or are provided free of charge), or

(b) the difference between that commercial rate and the amount of expenses actually incurred by or on behalf of the individual or body in respect of the use of the property or the provision of the services or facilities (where the property, services or facilities is or are provided at a discount),

as is reasonably attributable to the use made of the property, services or facilities as mentioned in subsection (1)(b).").

Page 68, line 26, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").

183
Page 68, line 33, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

("(4) Where an amount of referendum expenses is treated, by virtue of subsection (1A), as incurred by or on behalf of an individual or body during any period the whole or part of which falls within the period which is, in relation to the referendum to which the expenses relate, the referendum period then—

(a) the amount mentioned in subsection (4A) shall be treated as incurred by or on behalf of the individual or body during the referendum period, and

(b) if a return falls to be prepared under section 115 in respect of referendum expenses incurred by or on behalf of the individual or body during that period, the responsible person shall make a declaration of that amount,

unless that amount is less than £200.

(4A) The amount mentioned in subsection (4) is such proportion of the appropriate amount (determined in accordance with subsection (1B) or (1C) as reasonably represents the use made of the property, services or facilities as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) during the referendum period.").

Page 69. line 2, at end insert—
("() Paragraph 2(3) and (4)(a) of Schedule 14 shall apply with any necessary modifications for the purpose of determining, for the purposes of subsection (1), whether property is transferred to an individual or body.").

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 234YD to 234YG have all previously been spoken to with Amendment No. 195. I beg to move.
Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 108 [Restriction on incurring referendum expenses]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 234YH:
Page 69, line 10, at end insert—
("() Where, in the case of a permitted participant that is a registered party, any expenses are incurred in contravention of subsection (1), the expenses shall not count for the purposes of sections 112 to 118 or Schedule 13 as referendum expenses incurred by or on behalf of the permitted participant.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 234YH was spoken to on 8th October. I beg to move.
Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 109 [Restriction on payments in respect of referendum expenses]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 234YHA:
Page 69, line 15, at end insert—
("() No donation received by a registered party which is a permitted participant from a permissible donor of the type specified in section 49(2)(c) shall be used to make any payment in respect of referendum expenses.").

The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 234YHA. This is beginning to sound more like a game of Scrabble than a Committee stage!
The amendment addresses the question of what the registered parties can spend. I shall not go over the previous argument. This relates to the main parties: the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party, and the Nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales.
One of the arguments used by the Home Secretary in the other place in defending the imbalance between the three parties that would be on one side of the euro
184
referendum and the Conservative Party on the other was that the Liberal Democrats would never be able to spend up to their limits. The Home Secretary stated:
"the Liberal Democrats are offered generous spending limits in the Bill, but it is a racing certainty that the party will not be able to raise money to the level of the spending limit".
Perhaps I may say to the Liberal Democrats that that shows the contempt in which they are held by the Home Secretary. He does not think that they are up to raising the money. He continued,
"So to argue that spending by the Labour and Liberal Democrats parties will be nearly equal because both parties will be able to spend up to a maximum amount fails to take into account the capacity of parties to raise money up to the maximum".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/00; co1.38.]
The Liberal Democrats have a £3 million spending limit. They may well be unable to raise the £3 million. However, if they do not, the Labour Party can give them the money they need to reach that limit. If they can raise only, say, £1.5 million, the Labour Party can give them £1.5 million. We raised this in Committee two weeks ago. I pointed out that allowing political parties to donate to other political parties under Clause 49(2)(c) would allow the Labour Party to top up the Liberal Democrats, thus proving that the Home Secretary's argument last January in the other place was bogus. The Minister responded by stating:
"It is possible that where particular parties share the same objective on an issue, one of those parties may see fit to provide some financial support to the other".—[Official Report, 12/10/00; co1.565.]
Exactly. What the Minister said last week confirms the argument I made about the Labour Party topping up the Liberal Democrats in a referendum on the single currency, or any other topping up. It might be the Labour Party topping up the Scottish Nationalists or Plaid Cymru; it does not really matter.
The Minister had other concerns about my amendment to stop all political parties donating to other parties. He said that it would adversely affect parties in a coalition or the relationship between the Labour Party and the Co-operative Party. I have drafted this amendment to meet both my concerns and those of the Minister. I hope that we may have a consensus on it.
My Amendment No. 234YHA—the Scrabble amendment—would allow the Labour Party and the Co-operative Party to donate as much money to each other as they liked. Indeed, it would allow the Labour Party to give as much money to the Liberal Democrats as it liked. We hear from Mr Ashdown's diaries that the Prime Minister has great plans for a Lib-Lab pact. However, I suspect that some members of the Labour Party would not be so keen. I shall not mention the Deputy Leader—but I have.
My amendment would stop donations from the Labour Party being used to top up the Liberal Democrats in a referendum campaign. Where parties were acting in concert and one had a low limit but lots of money to spend, the other being in the reverse position, they could easily transfer money in order to maximise advantage. I thought that the whole point of basing spending limits on individual parties and their

185
electoral success—I believe that is the phrase in fashion—at the last election was that those parties were considered distinct and were not being considered the same.
The Bill as drafted clearly allows for the situation I envisaged. If it does not, I hope that the noble Lord will tell me that I am wrong and that no money can transfer from the Labour Party to the Liberal Democrats to help that party reach the £3 million limit. If he cannot say that I am wrong, I suggest that he accepts my amendment or, if his draftsmen do not like my amendment, that he comes forward with a suitable amendment at the next stage. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the noble Lord said, this takes us back to last week's question when he took exception to the fact that one registered political party would, theoretically, be able to donate to another political party. Perhaps because he has a conspiracy theory he used the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party as examples in this debate. As he said, Amendment No. 234YHA seeks to close off that option, at least in respect of referendums.
The noble Lord clearly has in his sights the possibility that in a referendum on the euro the Labour Party, having set aside £5 million for its own campaign, might contribute to the campaign of the Liberal Democrats. I entirely accept that that is a theoretical possibility; but it is no more than that. Theory is fine; practice is different. As I explained to the Committee earlier, we fully accept that the limits on referendums expenses provided for in the Bill would not produce a wholly level playing field as between the two sides in a campaign. We do not pretend therefore that the expenditure controls represent the complete solution. However, as I argued before, the limits will ensure a more balanced campaign than would be the case if there were no limits at all.
We expect permitted participants in a referendum to campaign either under their own name, as part of an umbrella group, or as a combination of the two. If any political party or, for that matter, any individual or company sought in addition to contribute to the campaigns of other permitted participants, that would be exposed and the electorate would form a judgment on such tactics. It goes back to the issue partly rehearsed in the earlier debate.
Such a move would not necessarily be contrary to the letter of the provisions in Part VII, but it would be strongly against the spirit of the spending controls. We have not sought to close off such a tactic because any attempt to do so would come back to the Neill committee's observation on Heath Robinson's contraptions. Those comments were apposite in that context and are apposite in this.
I see no merit in singling out registered parties as Amendment No. 234YHA seeks to do. In any event, it is worth remembering that Part VII is not simply concerned with referendums held throughout the United Kingdom. What if there were to be a further
186
referendum in Northern Ireland? If this amendment were accepted, the Conservative Party registered in the Great Britain register could not contribute to any campaign mounted by the Northern Ireland Conservative Party. Likewise, the Labour Party could not contribute towards the SDLP's campaign and the Liberal Democrats would be prevented contributing to the Alliance Party's campaign.
Why should the Co-operative Party be prevented making a donation to a referendum campaign conducted by the Labour Party, or for that matter an umbrella organisation which might involve the Labour Party and other like-minded souls? There are long-standing constitutional links between the Labour Party and the Co-operative Party and if one wishes to make a donation to the other, it should be allowed to do so.
I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, does not see too many conspiracy theories in operation. He is not usually a conspiracy theoretician, but I know he can be drawn dangerously in that direction. However, on this occasion I hope that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Clearly the noble Lord has been too busy briefing himself for this Bill to read the extracts from The Ashdown Diaries in The Times over the past two days or he would see that one does not have to get up early in the morning to devise a conspiracy theory. It was clearly going on behind his and his colleague's back, both before and after the last general election.
So I am afraid that all the Minister has convinced me of is that the scenario I set out is even more likely to happen; that in fact money will be moved. If one of the parties in the coalition of parties on one side of a referendum cannot find enough money to reach its ceiling, it can be given that money by the other parties.
We have exposed a serious defect in the Bill. The noble Lord has an easy solution; that is, do not set limits. The Labour Party would not have to siphon off its extra money to the Liberal Democrats round the back door. It could spend its £5 million; the Liberal Democrats could spend as much as they could raise and the Tories could spend as much as they could raise. That is a simple solution.
The Bill has a serious loophole. We shall need to study carefully what the Minister said and find ways to address it, without damaging the close relationship between the Labour Party and the Co-operative Party. Frankly, why they have to sail under different flags nowadays beats me. They should decide to amalgamate fully and not pretend that they are two different parties.
I was not impressed by the Minister's argument in relation to a Northern Ireland referendum. I would be quite happy to close off money going that way across the Irish Sea just as he, in the Bill, wants to close off money coming the other way in terms of general elections. I would have no problem with that, and his explanation did not convince me that my amendment

187
was wrong. We shall study what he said. We may come back to this major loophole in the Bill at another stage. But I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 234YHB:
Page 69, line 15, at end insert—
("() No donation received by a registered party which is registered in the Northern Ireland register from a donor who is a permissible donor by virtue of an order made under section 65 shall be used to make any payment in respect of referendum expenses incurred in relation to Great Britain.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 234YHB, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 234YHC. This leads directly on from my closing remarks on the last amendment and concerns Northern Ireland.
These two amendments would prohibit the foreign funding of referendum campaigns. I cannot help but notice that the Minister did not answer my question, posed twice, about the rich man in Belgium or France who decides to fund the "Yes" campaign for the euro to the tune of £10 million; he funds it in Britain, well in excess of the £500,000 he would be allowed as a participating party. Who would prosecute him? How could he be stopped? The Minister did not answer that. He may answer now.
I want to explore the foreign funding which will be allowed to go into Northern Ireland. We all know that, to allow Sinn Fein/IRA to continue to receive money from America, the Bill is going to elaborate lengths to allow foreign donations in Northern Ireland, basically to one political party, when all other political parties in the UK will not be able to receive any foreign money at all.
I tabled these amendments at the end of last week. I am sorry they are late. They arose out of detailed point s in the debate instigated by my noble friend Lord Astor. Last week he asked the Minister, in relation to Amendments Nos. 177A and 178:
"In so far as the amendments allow for a complete exemption from Part IV, will they allow the foreign funding not only of political parties in Northern Ireland, but of referendum campaigns?".
My noble friend also highlighted a further loophole. He said:
"It seems possible for a political party to be set up in Northern Ireland, to receive foreign funding … and to use that funding not to contest elections in Great Britain, because that is ring-fenced under the Bill, but to campaign in a referendum in Great Britain. What is to stop that?".—[0fficial Report, 18/10/00; col. 1035.]
Eventually, after being further pressed by my noble friend, the Minister said:
"I like to be straight with your Lordships' House. The information I have from officials is that Northern Ireland parties can use the fruits of money raised abroad in a UK referendum. That may well present difficulties"—[Officia Report, 18/10/00; col. 1038.]
That is an understatement.
So considerable difficulties arise, especially for the Minister, who went on to say in a later debate—I suspect his brief had not been adjusted in the Dinner Hour—
"The Government are … committed to banning the foreign funding of political parties in the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, 18/10/00; col. 1183.]
That is stretching it. Perhaps he actually said "in Great Britain", because they are not going to ban the foreign funding of political parties in the United Kingdom; only in Great Britain. It was an interesting slip of the tongue, if that is what it was.
He went on to say
"It is right that the ban should extend to the foreign funding of participants in a referendum campaign here. The justification for that policy is that those who participate in our political processes should not be dependent upon funding from those who do not live, work or carry on business here".—[Official Report, 18/10/00; col. 1183.]
However, the Minister neglected to remind the Committee that the Government will not implement that policy when it comes to Northern Ireland.
I do not believe that people who give money to the notorious fund raiser, Martin Galvin, who was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, last week, live, work or carry on business in any part of the United Kingdom. However, as a result of the failure to ban all foreign funding, the loophole which my noble friend highlighted last week has arisen. The Minister admitted that it existed.
Under the Bill as presently drafted, in any UK referendum supporters on both sides of the argument could register a Northern Ireland political party on the Northern Ireland register. The party would have to make a declaration that it intended to stand candidates in elections in Northern Ireland. That is easy. Even if the party never did any campaigning in Northern Ireland, it would still benefit from the exemptions in the Bill in the NORAID clause, Clause 65. It could obtain money from foreign sources anywhere in the world—America, Europe, Japan or wherever—and that foreign money could then be used to fund referendum campaigning anywhere in the United Kingdom. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that.
If the Minister agrees with that argument—if he cannot counter it—and if he chooses not to close the previous loophole, he must close this one. In order to close the loopholes, my amendments would prohibit the Northern Ireland parties from spending foreign money on any referendum campaigning in Great Britain. That would address my point about the front parties. Amendment No. 234YHC would prohibit Northern Ireland parties from using foreign money to fund any referendum campaign, including a referendum campaign in Northern Ireland. I make no bones about the fact that I prefer Amendment No. 234YHC because it would prohibit all foreign funding of referendums throughout the United Kingdom. And I still believe that it is a united kingdom—I do not believe that we should be making a distinction between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The two approaches raise another question for the Minister: do the Government intend to allow foreign funding of referendum campaigning in Northern Ireland in the same way as they are to allow the foreign funding of election campaigns, or do they want to prohibit the foreign funding of referendums throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland?
I believe that the Minister should respond to those points, especially in the light of the remarks he made last Wednesday, which I quoted. It is really important that, if there ever is a referendum on the status of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom, the result should not be influenced by a vast inflow of money, largely from across the Atlantic. If the Minister says that foreign money cannot fund political parties in Great Britain—for instance, the Scottish National Party which has a legitimate desire that Scotland should be independent and pursues it in a perfectly wholly democratic manner—by Jove, the same rule should apply in Northern Ireland, especially to parties which have not pursued their aims in a wholly democratic manner.
I do not want any nit-picking about the amendments. I want the Minister to address my main question: have I identified a loophole? Will my amendment plug it? If not, will the Minister come forward at the Report stage and plug it? I do not believe that the Government really intend foreign money to come into Northern Ireland and by that route fund referendums in the United Kingdom or in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government agree with me on that in principle. If they do not like what I have proposed, I hope that they will come forward with their own amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rogan: It is with pleasure that I rise to support Amendment No. 234YHC, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay.
I, too, share the concerns with regard to referendum campaigns in Northern Ireland. Referendums have previously occurred in Northern Ireland, solely on Northern Ireland issues, notably Heath's "border poll" of 1973. Indeed, the principle of consent in the Belfast agreement allows for the possibility of another "border poll" in the future, although, with respect to a referendum under the Belfast agreement, I consider the point academic; that is to say, it is academic in the sense that I do not believe that nationalism in Northern Ireland will ever be sufficiently well supported to bring about a change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. Even if I were to be proved wrong, I do not believe that the unionist people in Northern Ireland could have their votes bought by dollars from North America, just as they were never bullied by weapons bought by dollars from North America during the 30 years of terrorism.
Returning to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, I have grave concerns about the potential for front parties, not even contesting elections in Northern Ireland, being used by larger
190
parties on the mainland as a means of processing foreign financial support for a UK-wide referendum. Clearly, that is a nonsense situation. If the provision is to remain as it is, it might as well not he present in the Bill at all.
Our nationalist friends in Scotland and Wales could potentially be in a strong position to exploit a so-called "well meaning" non-UK citizen by use of front parties in Northern Ireland, just as Sinn Fein already is, not to mention the political wings of the republican dissidents.
By way of conclusion to my brief remarks, I want to reiterate my strong support for Amendment No. 234YHC. This lacuna in election law must be bridged. However, I shall leave your Lordships in no doubt as to the best solution to this flaw in referendum law. This flaw is a problem but it is the symptom of a greater problem. I strongly urge the Government to stick to its manifesto pledge, treat all UK citizens equally and ban all foreign funding for all UK political parties.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Before replying to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, perhaps I may clarify two points which have some bearing on the matter. First, schedule 14 imposes restrictions on the acceptance by a permitted participant of donations from abroad. The referendum campaigning organisations therefore could not accept money from, for example, a wealthy Frenchman.
Secondly, Amendment No. 239 prevents a permitted participant, other than a designated organisation, from accepting a donation from any registered party. Therefore, a Northern Ireland party cannot transfer a foreign donation it receives to a referendum organisation in Great Britain. I believe that that deals with two issues which were raised by Members opposite.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The Minister told us that a Northern Ireland party could not use foreign donations to give to a UK party. However, what happens if in a referendum Sinn Fein or any other Northern Ireland party campaigns in the United Kingdom? We know that there is ring-fencing for general elections, but last week the Minister told us that no such rule related to referendums. Therefore, could Sinn Fein, the SDLP or the Ulster Unionists for that matter use foreign donations to campaign in this country during a referendum?
6 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Viscount asks the question again, and I shall provide him with a precise answer.
I should like to return to a matter raised by the noble Viscount last week in Committee in the context of Clause 65, which in a sense is the subject of this debate. That clause provides for the categories of permissible donor to be extended, or alternatively for the controls set out in Part IV to be wholly disapplied, in respect of Northern Ireland parties. It has been suggested that

191
the Bill does not appear to prevent Northern Ireland parties passing on funds received from a foreign source to referendum campaigns elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The amendment seeks to address that by placing restrictions on the purpose to which any particular donation to a Northern Ireland party is put. As I understand it, the intention is to prevent any foreign funding received by a Northern Ireland party being used to meet referendum expenses either in Northern Ireland or Great Britain.
As the Committee is aware, in the case of political parties the Bill places restrictions on the acceptance of donations rather than the use to which they are put. It would in practice be very difficult to establish that a certain item of political expenditure was financed by any particular donation. Moreover, if an order is in force under Clause 65 which exempts Northern Ireland parties from the controls in Part IV, it is not clear to me why such a party should be able to use any foreign donations on its headquarters or to fight a general election campaign but not to fight a referendum campaign. That is equally true whether the referendum is confined to Northern Ireland or is being held throughout the United Kingdom.
Although I am not persuaded of the case for preventing a Northern Ireland party using the proceeds of a foreign donation to meet its own referendum expenses, I see the need to ensure that other referendum organisations do not use a Northern Ireland party purely as a front to receive foreign funding. But the Bill already contains safeguards in Part II and Schedule 14 which would prevent a Northern Ireland party simply acting as an agent in passing on a donation from a foreign source intended for a referendum campaign group in the first place.
I accept that this is complex, and I ask the Committee to study carefully what I have said. I also accept the integrity and ferocity of the argument and the concern that has been expressed. We must try to live in the real political world. Although it is very difficult to accept some of these positions, we believe that the overall scheme of things works well. Clearly, in the case of Northern Ireland there are certain difficulties. That fact needs to inform all of our debates on this particular issue.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We need to study carefully the response of the Minister. On 18th October, the Minister appeared to say that foreign funding of a referendum campaign would not be allowed. Towards the end of his remarks I believe that he moved away from that when he said that Northern Ireland was different. It is odd that in a referendum held in the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is a part, some funding can come from foreign sources. The Minister said:
"It is right that the ban should extend to the foreign funding of participants in a referendum campaign here".—[Official Report, 18/10/00; col. 1183.]
192
I agree entirely with the noble Lord. However, I understood "here" to mean the United Kingdom. That was also the noble Lord's understanding, because a little earlier the Minister said:
"The Government are … committed to banning the foreign funding of political parties in the United Kingdom".
Is the Minister now saying that that does not include Northern Ireland and that he should not have referred to the United Kingdom but only to Great Britain? Do I correctly interpret the Minister as suggesting that in a United Kingdom referendum held in Northern Ireland as well as in Great Britain the funding of that part of it conducted in Northern Ireland could come from a foreign source?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 180 to Clause 65, which has already been debated, prevents a Great Britain party accepting any donation from a Northern Ireland party as long as an order under that clause is in force. That prevents a Great Britain party in the case of a referendum using foreign funding received via a Northern Ireland party. I hope that that answers the point. I shall study carefully what the noble Lord has said. I do not want there to be any confusion over this matter, and I shall use my best endeavours to try to clarify the position.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Minister answers a question that I have not asked. I had understood from his remarks that money which came into Northern Ireland could not cross the Irish Sea for a referendum campaign, any more than it could for a general election campaign. My question is whether in a referendum in the United Kingdom foreign money will be able to pay for that part of the referendum campaign that takes place in Northern Ireland.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that the answer is "yes". However, I shall check the matter and write to the noble Lord. I see from the indications from the Box that that is the case.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not surprised, because I did not ask the question without knowing the answer. The answer is "yes", and that is a disgrace. We shall return to this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 234 Y HC not moved.]
Clause 109 agreed to.
Clause 110 [Restriction on making claims in respect of referendum expenses]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 234YJ to 234YN:
Page 69, line 31, after ("participant") insert ("during a referendum period").
Page 69, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert ("not later than 21 days after the end of the referendum period").
Page 69, line 37, leave out from ("paid") to end of line 38 and insert ("not later than 42 days after the end of the referendum period").

193
Page 70, line 11, at end insert—
("() Subsection (2) is without prejudice to any rights of a creditor of a permitted participant to obtain payment before the end of the period allowed under that subsection.").

Page 70, line 17, at end insert ("; and
() any reference to the treasurer or deputy treasurer of the registered party were a reference to the responsible person in relation to the permitted participant.").

Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 111 [Disputed claims]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 234YP to 234YV:
Page 70, line 20, after ("participant") insert ("as mentioned in section 110(1)").
Page 70, line 24, leave out ("section 110(1)") and insert ("that provision").
Page 70, line 33, leave out subsection (3).
Page 70, line 37, leave out ("Subsections (4) to (7) of section 72") and insert ("for the purposes of this section—
(a) subsections (4) and (5) of section 110").

Page 70, line 40, after ("claim") insert ("(whether it is disputed or otherwise) which is").
Page 70, line 40, leave out (" 72(1)") and insert (" 110(1); and
(b) subsections (6) and (7) of section 72 shall apply as if any reference to subsection (4) of that section were a reference to section 110(4) as applied by paragraph (a) above.").

Clause 111, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 112 [General restriction on referendum expenses]:
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick moved Amendment No. 234YV:
Page 70, line 42, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A),").
The noble Lord said: I am aware that the Committee is anxious to make progress and I shall speak briefly to the amendments in this group. These are probing amendments which are designed to elicit a response from the Government about how the controls on the financing of propaganda in a referendum on the euro would apply to the institutions of the EU. These two amendments were part of a wider group, the main part of which was debated a couple of weeks ago. I missed that debate. I apologise to the Minister for any discourtesy in not being here on that occasion. None the less, I should be grateful to the noble Lord for some kind of statement about how far the EU, through its institutions and public relations operations, will be subject to the various caps that the Committee has debated.
A large number of the amendments debated this afternoon have been about foreign funding in relation to companies, political parties and referendums in Northern Ireland. Much of the same concern ought also to apply to any referendum on the single currency which is held in this country. It should be for the people and institutions of this country to participate in that. Mr Prodi was very wise to say that the European Union intended to keep out of the Danish referendum, notwithstanding that the result did not go the way that
194
he wanted. I believe that any attempt by the EU to intervene would be counter-productive, but it would be helpful to have a statement from the Minister on this matter.
A great deal of money is being spent at the moment by institutions of the EU. For example, organisations like the European Movement were specifically set up to receive funds from the Commission. In the UK there are 24 European information centres funded by the EU which put out views on the single currency. How will this be affected by the various caps during the period of the referendums?
The other day I came across a Commission publication called A Glossary of Euro-Sceptic Beliefs which had a large number of rather contentious pro-European statements. The most amusing of them was a denial that Brussels financed any propaganda in Britain. It did not seem to see the irony of having a publication that denied that there were any publications.
Amendments Nos. 234YV and 234YW deal with Clause 112. That clause makes it an offence for a person to incur expenditure in excess of £10,000 unless those people are permitted participants. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that no expense can be incurred by or on behalf of any institution of the EU.
Amendment No. 242M deals with Clause 120 which prohibits the Government of the day or any local authority or any other publicly-funded body displaying promotional or distributing promotional material 28 days prior to the poll. I wish to have an assurance that that will apply to the institutions of the EU in this country. These are modest amendments. They were part of a wider group in which larger points were made. I should appreciate the Minister's response to them.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have no doubt that the noble Lord tabled the amendments with an eye to a future referendum on joining a single currency. But it is worth reminding the noble Lord that we are talking here of a Bill outlining a scheme for the holding of a referendum on perhaps a multitude of things. The purpose of this part is to put in place generic arrangements for the conduct of any national or regional referendums. These arrangements may be used for a referendum on British membership of the single currency. But equally they could be used for a referendum on proportional representation, on the introduction of elected regional government in England or on any other important issues of the day.
Given that the purpose of the Bill is to establish general rules for all referendums, we do not want to add extraneous provisions which are designed with one referendum, and one referendum only, in mind. If a referendum on a particular issue warrants special rules, they can be provided for in separate legislation. That will be necessary in any event to ensure that that referendum takes place.
I am not persuaded that the noble Lord's amendments add anything to the existing provisions of the Bill. As drafted, Clause 112 provides that an

195
individual or organisation cannot incur referendum expenses in excess of £10,000 unless they are a permitted participant. Amendments Nos. 234YV and 234YW are intended additionally to prohibit the incurring of any referendum expenses by institutions of the EU during the referendum period. I say "intended" because as drafted the apparent effect of the amendment would be to prohibit any expenditure whatever by an institution of the EU during a referendum period. No doubt the noble Lord has ambitions for his amendments, but I am not quite sure that that was the real extent of his ambition. I know the noble Lord has a reputation for singing in the bathroom and perhaps generating a lot of atmosphere, but I am not sure whether he was trying to achieve that in the amendments. Perhaps the noble Lord can disabuse me of that.
If the noble Lord looks at the definition of a "permitted participant" in Clause 100, he will see that a permitted participant must be either a registered party, an individual, a company, or an unincorporated association. The European Commission or Parliament is none of those things. The amendment would therefore have no practical effect other than to prevent an institution of the EU spending up to the lower limit of £10,000. I am not persuaded that there is a case for singling out the institutions of the EU for such a marginal tightening of the scheme. As drafted, that is what its effect would be.
Amendment No. 242M would apply the restrictions on the publication of promotional material set out in Clause 120 of the Bill to European Union institutions. The effect would be to prevent the European Commission from publishing promotional material about the euro in the 28 days before the date of the poll. I assume this amendment is an alternative to Amendments Nos. 234YV and 234YW since a restriction of that kind would be unnecessary if the institutions of the EU were unable to incur referendum expenses. Again the amendment seems to miss the target. If, as the noble Lord has made clear, his objective is to prevent any involvement by the European Commission in a referendum on the euro, why place restrictions in its way that apply only in the 28 days prior to the date of the poll?
I am well aware that this debate is driven by acute sensitivities about the involvement of the institutions of the EU in the making of any decision to join the euro. The reality is that the decision to join the euro is a matter for the British people and the British people alone. My view and the Government's view is that it would be entirely counter-productive for the commission to become embroiled in a referendum campaign on this issue. That is probably something on which we could all agree. This simple truth will be far more powerful than any single provision that could be made in the Bill which would, in any event, as I see these amendments today, be of doubtful legal value. If the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, remains to be persuaded of that fact he has only to look at the example of the recent Danish referendum to see that his fears of a "Yes" campaign being funded from Brussels are entirely misplaced.
196
There is a need for some realism about the intentions of the Commission. That needs to go hand in hand with some realism about what such a prohibition could achieve. An explicit ban on referendum expenditure or the publication of referendum material by the institutions of the EU would beg the question how such a ban could be enforced. The territorial application of the Bill is confined to the United Kingdom. It could not bite upon expenditure or the publication of material on the Continent. Given the immunities for which the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities provide, the jurisdiction of our courts in relation to a breach of the provisions of this part by an institution of the Community would be extremely doubtful.
We believe that these amendments are unnecessary. They are not drafted precisely enough. I think—no doubt Members of the Committee will share this view—that any intervention in a UK referendum on an issue as sensitive as the euro would be wholly insensitive and extremely unwise. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Astor: The Minister has given an interesting answer about the European Union. If I heard him rightly, he said that the institutions of the Commission probably would not go up to £10,000. They would be unwise if they did; but however they could if they wanted to. The problem with all these institutions is that, for one reason or another and whichever side they are on, they always feel the case is not being adequately explained. Therefore, they feel that they should intervene, not because they are on one side, but because the facts are not exposed. They always find a reason for intervening. So the answer is that there are many small institutions in Europe that between them could spend quite a lot of money.
The Minister rightly said that there would be a limit unless someone was a permitted participant. Under Clause 100(1)(b) we find the definition of permitted participant. It refers to,
"any company falling within section 49(2)(b)".
One finds that that can be a company registered under the Companies Act 1985 or a company incorporated within the European Union. If there was a referendum on the euro, the European Central Bank or any other bank in Europe might decide that it was in its interests to persuade the voters of this country that it should intervene. It might be the French central bank feeling that it would be of benefit to the euro if we joined it or it might be the German central bank. Under the European Union, the European Central Bank is incorporated. Am I right in thinking that it could then use the money and become a permitted participant to help fund one or other aspect of a referendum campaign?
Lord Shore of Stepney: There really are difficulties with this issue and they arise not wholly because of the Bill itself. As matters stand, the European institutions are free to intervene in our referendum campaigns, particularly in the sensitive one, as it is bound to be, on the euro itself. Only a few hundreds yards away from

197
your Lordships' House there are the diplomatic headquarters in London of the European Union, appropriately named Jean Monnet House, in case my noble friend may have difficulty in physically identifying it. Jean Monnet was the great founder of European federalism. Jean Monnet House serves two purposes. It represents the European Union as a quasi-state, having proper diplomatic relations with us. Those relations must clearly continue when we have a referendum campaign. But it also has another and much more expensive function. It is there to propagandise; it is there to proselytise on behalf of the European Union. My noble friend cannot ignore that.
Before the founding 11 joined the single currency less than two years ago, the European Commission spent millions. A Commissioner was given the special task of proselytising in the different countries of the European Union the case for membership. Are we really to sit back and allow this to happen in our own country? The answers I have had previously from my noble friend, in so far as I can sum them up, have been embarrassed avoidance of the difficulties of answering the questions. After all, it is rather humiliating to have to say that we have no power; that the European Court of Justice has ruled; that we are the helpless dependent state in relation to the management of our own affairs, the conduct of referendums and the finance of political parties in the UK. It is shaming.
This is one of the worst Parliaments I have ever heard of or been in. We are inflicting an act of humiliation on ourselves, for which I shall never forgive the Government and for which I believe the country will never forgive them either. That is incidental to the major case against European intervention, but there is ongoing propaganda on these very matters. The immediate question is whether we can order the European Commission to stop its ongoing propaganda in our schools and universities and through all these business schools and Jean Monnet professorships up and down the land. Are we not entitled to say "Stop!" even for a mere few weeks while we have our referendum? My noble friend must find some answers. Otherwise, frankly, it is not much use speaking from the Front Bench on these issues.
Lord Norton of Louth: Perhaps I may follow that intervention but in a slightly more specific way in relation to Clause 120 and the Minister's response to my noble friend Lord Lamont on Amendment No. 242M. I am not concerned with the possibility of a referendum on any specific issue. I want to follow the Minister's point, which is that the measure sets down rules that will apply to all referendums. As he said, they are meant to be generic rules.
Clause 120 sets down rules that will apply in any context. They will apply a prohibition in terms of publication on both national and local government, whatever the topic of the referendum. But I cannot see that, in logic, one can then say that one should not also add a prohibition on supranational governmental institutions. That is quite logical; it is all-encompassing. The logic is completely on my noble
198
friend's side. The Minister said in response that the Government are precluded from doing that because the institutions of the EU have a right to pursue that course. That creates problems and will evoke the kind of response that we have heard if the position is allowed to pertain that in a referendum campaign institutions of the EU will be able to publish documents but national and local government will not be able to do so. That will cause tremendous problems.
If one cannot add the EU in the way suggested by my noble friend Lord Lamont, the logic would be to remove the prohibition on national and local government. One has either to allow all levels of government to publish or one must put a prohibition on them all. One cannot allow the present situation to be maintained because the problems that will be created, not only practically but politically, are extraordinarily severe.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I support my noble friend's amendment, which the Minister seemed to find acceptable in general but unnecessary. The Minister said that EU institutions will be allowed to spend a mere £10,000 each on the eventual exercise—we are concentrating at the moment on the question of EMU—but can he say how many institutions he has in mind? Is he just thinking of the Parliament, Commission, Council and Court? Is he aware of the colossal number of bodies under the European umbrella that could be classified as institutions? That throw away line needs some quantification from the Minister.
Can he also explain what he went on to say in a little more detail? He seemed to think that European Union interference in any referendum on our joining EMU was not very acceptable but was not much of a problem. But he then went on, rightly of course, to point out that the Bill covers other kinds of referenda that we might have—on proportional representation, elected regional government, and goodness knows what else. How does he justify that? If he is unhappy with the European Union interfering in a referendum on the single currency, surely he must be more worried about it interfering in more extraneous matters; or is he not? The noble Lord looks puzzled. But it is a perfectly sensible question and Hansard will bear me out. I shall be very interested in his reply. How many institutions are we talking about? If he is worried about EMU, why does he think it all right for the provisions of the Bill as drafted to apply to matters which concern the European Union even less than the single currency?
Lord Prior: Before the Minister replies, I wonder whether he would like to consider this further point. I really feel quite sorry for him because I know what happens on these occasions. The Minister goes through the list of amendments with civil servants, with an occasional input from the Home Secretary or the Minister of State, and then against all amendments, with very few exceptions, is put the word "resist". The pure chap is then left to resist what appear to be the very reasonable cases put to him.

199
This is a small amendment. In itself, it is not of overriding importance. However, it has served to demonstrate once more the inadequacy of our parliamentary system and how, day after day, it is being brought into disrepute. I have not been able to attend all the debates in Committee on this Bill, but I have listened to many of them. I believe that we have given the Minister an impossible task to perform. I cannot see how he has been able fully to take on board the vast number of amendments which he has needed to argue against and resist, bearing in mind the equally vast number of amendments tabled by his own Government.
This kind of atmosphere is now beginning to make people despair of Parliament. The Minister needs to think carefully about that when he is asked to reply on behalf of the Government and to resist what would appear to be perfectly reasonable suggestions and amendments. The amendment before us, which deals with what level of funding the Commission or its agents should be able to subscribe to a referendum held in the United Kingdom, covers perhaps only a minor point. However, if in this House we are not able to take a decision even on such a small matter, how on earth are we to be allowed to take decisions on matters of much greater importance which may come before us over the next few years? This exchange has provided a classic example of a Parliament that is beginning already to lose any sovereignty and any say over its own affairs.
Throughout my political career I have been a staunch supporter of the European Union. I do not support monetary union, but I remain a firm supporter of the European Union itself and the fact that Great Britain should be a part of that Union. However, I wonder whether this is not the kind of issue that is beginning to damage the whole concept of the European Union, thus bringing it into disrepute and turning the British public against it. If the Government are sincere in their wish to promote European unity, they would be well advised to think far more deeply about these affairs and not allow civil servants simply to write against an amendment the word, "Resist".
6.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Prior, for his interesting intervention. Perhaps it went rather wider than the issue we are debating here, but it did appear to bring a little sanity to the argument, which I felt was beginning to run away with itself. On occasion, I have the impression that any matter connected with the European Union attracts a degree of paranoia that it does not deserve. While I understand entirely the sincerity and integrity which lies behind some of the Euro-sceptic arguments, I believe that it is possible to overstate the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said that he thought that the Government should be worried that the institutions of the European Commission might wish to interfere in some fashion with other referendums conducted within the United Kingdom; namely, referendums on issues other than whether we should
200
adopt the euro. I think that it would he extremely unwise for the European Commission to embroil itself in the domestic politics of the United Kingdom.
I rather despair of the arguments that have been lobbed against the Government's position on this. I have tried to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, as helpfully as possible, that I have had very little difficulty in resisting his amendments because they are defective. They would not achieve their objective. Furthermore—I believe that some noble Lords will not want to hear this—so far as concerns the institutions of the European Commission, territorial constraints are in place on the application of the Bill. We cannot attempt to influence affairs outwith the United Kingdom in the way in which my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney—I say this with the greatest respect—attempted to encourage us.
That is the position as regards these amendments. This is, finally, a question of the difference between the theoretical and the practical. The Government seek to deal with these matters in the most practical way possible. To that end, I do not believe that the European Commission wishes in any way, shape or form to become involved in any attempt to slant the debate in this country.
It is perhaps worth adding a final reflection in support of my argument. During the entire course of the campaign leading up to the Danish referendum, Mr Prodi made only one visit to Denmark. I doubt whether that visit made any difference at all. Indeed, if it swayed opinion even marginally, it probably helped the "No" campaign. The Commission is intelligent enough to understand that point. What we need to do is to ensure that the sensible provisions contained in the Bill, which are generic in their effect on referendums held in the United Kingdom, make their way on to the statute book. Extraneous matters that may arise as a by-product of a referendum campaign on the euro at some point in the future can of course be dealt with in the detail of the legislation which will relate to that particular referendum. That is the correct and failsafe procedure which we should all welcome.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I am most grateful to my noble friends Lord Prior, Lord Norton and Lord Pearson, as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Shore. Through their interventions they have demonstrated that, although the amendments in themselves may be modest, a serious and substantial point lies behind them.
The Minister was right to point out that, taken by themselves, the amendments are only "tail-ends" of amendments. What is the point of restricting Commission expenditure in areas where it is limited to £10,000? I can see the force of that argument. However, as I have explained to the Minister, these proposals formed part of a wider group of amendments which attempted to place the same restrictions on the Commission in areas where it could have spent much larger sums of money; namely, areas where donations of up to £500,000 could be given to each association or institution. For that reason, I think

201
that the point is a serious one, even if the amendments are narrowly drafted and given that perhaps the drafting is not perfectly correct.
The Minister's comments on jurisdictional limits were startling. He has brought it home to us that even if we put as many caps as possible on different institutions in relation to the referendum—and even if he states categorically that it could not happen—in theory it would be possible for institutions of the European Union completely to bypass laws being put into effect through the Bill. That is something on which we all should reflect.
The Minister went on to say that we should not be paranoid about these matters. He assured the Committee that people would behave with restraint. Although I agree with the Minister that we need to be sensible, no doubt he will be aware that in Germany an investigation is currently under way into state funding from France being used in an alleged infringement of an election being held in Germany. That matter is presently being investigated and litigation may ensue. On occasion, evidence may be brought forward to suggest that such things can and do happen.
The Minister has certainly brought it home to the Committee that the powers vested in this House ultimately can exert very little control over what is done by the Commission and its institutions. As the noble Lord, Lord Shore, pointed out, a tremendous propaganda effort is being made. Indeed, recently I have read a striking book which was written by the noble Lord's son. It gives a great deal of detail on this matter.
This is an extremely important subject, but I certainly do not intend to press the amendment to a Division at this point. However, I may well return to it when we debate the Bill on Report. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 234 YW and 235 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 235A:
Page 71, line 17, at end insert—

("(5) Where—

(a) at any time before the beginning of any referendum period, any expenses within section 106(2)(a) are incurred by or on behalf of an individual or body in respect of any property, services or facilities, but

(b) the property, services or facilities is or are made use of by or on behalf of the individual or body during the referendum period in circumstances such that, had any expenses been incurred in respect of that use during that period, they would by virtue of section 106(2)(a) have constituted referendum expenses incurred by or on behalf of the individual or body during that period,

the appropriate proportion of the expenses mentioned in paragraph (a) shall be treated for the purposes of this section as referendum expenses incurred by or on behalf of the individual or body during that period.

202

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) the appropriate proportion of the expenses mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection is such proportion of those expenses as is reasonably attributable to the use made of the property, services or facilities as mentioned in paragraph (b).").

Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 113 [Special restrictions on referendum expenses by permitted participants]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 235B to 235J:

Page 71, line 27, leave out first ("treasurer") and insert ("responsible person").

Page 71, line 28, leave out ("any") and insert ("the").

Page 71, line 37, leave out ("company") and insert ("body").

Page 71, line 39, leave out ("any") and insert ("the").

Page 71, line 40, leave out ("company") and insert ("body").

Page 71, line 42, leave out ("company") and insert ("body").

Page 71, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 72.

Page 72, line 11, at end insert—
("() Section 112(5) and (6) shall apply, for the purposes of this section, sections 115 to 118 and Schedule 13, in relation to an individual or body that has become a permitted participant as they apply for the purposes of section 112 in relation to an individual or body that is not a permitted participant.
() For the purposes of this section and sections 115 to 118 and Schedule 13, any reference to referendum expenses incurred by or on behalf of a permitted participant during the referendum period includes any referendum expenses so incurred at any time before the individual or body became a permitted participant.").

Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Limits on referendum expenses by permitted participants]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 235K:
Page 152, line 18, leave out paragraph 1.
[Amendments Nos. 235L and 237 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 237A:
Page 152, line 39, leave out ("for an individual, company or unincorporated association") and insert ("in the case of a person or body").
[Amendment No. 238 not moved.]
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 114 [Control of donations to permitted participants]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 238A:
Page 72, line 14, leave out ("other than registered parties") and insert ("that either are not registered parties or are minor parties").
Clause 114, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Control of donations to permitted participants]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 238B to 239N:
Page 153, line 33, leave out ("other than registered parties") and insert ("that either are not registered parties or are minor parties").

203
Page 153, line 36, at end insert ("other than a minor party").
Page 153, line 38, leave out from ("donation") to end of line 39 and insert ("to the permitted participant for the purpose of meeting referendum expenses incurred by or on behalf of the permitted participant.").
Page 153, line 40, after ("2") insert (", 2A").
Page 153, line 40, at end insert—
("() In relation to donations received by a permitted participant other than a designated organisation, references to a permissible donor falling within section 49(2) do not include a registered party.
In this sub-paragraph "designated organisation" has the meaning given by section 105(5).").

Page 153, line 44, at end insert—
("(aa) any sponsorship provided in relation to the permitted participant (as defined by paragraph 2A);").

Page 154, line 1, leave out from ("by") to ("expenses") in line 2 and insert ("or on behalf of the permitted participant) in paying any referendum").
Page 154, line 3, leave out ("directly or indirectly by") and insert ("by or on behalf of").
Page 154, leave out line 9.
Page 154, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—

("(2) Where—

(a) any money or other property is transferred to a permitted participant pursuant to any transaction or arrangement involving the provision by or on behalf of the permitted participant of any property, services or facilities or other consideration of monetary value, and

(b) the total value in monetary terms of the consideration so provided by or on behalf of the permitted participant is less than the value of the money or (as the case may be) the market value of the property transferred,

the transfer of the money or property shall (subject to sub-paragraph (2B)) constitute a gift to the permitted participant for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a).

(2A) In determining—

(a) for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(c), whether any money lent to a permitted participant is so lent otherwise than on commercial terms, or

(b) for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(d), whether any property, services or facilities provided for the use or benefit of a permitted participant is or are so provided otherwise than on such terms,

regard shall be had to the total value in monetary terms of the consideration provided by or on behalf of the permitted participant in respect of the loan or the provision of the property, services or facilities.

(2B) Where (apart from this sub-paragraph) anything would be a donation both by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(aa) and by virtue of any other provision of this paragraph, sub-paragraph (1)(aa) (together with paragraph 2A) shall apply in relation to it to the exclusion of the other provision of this paragraph.").

Page 154, line 17, after ("member") insert (", trustee").
Page 154, line 26, at end insert—

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill

  Sponsorship
  2A.—(1) For the purposes of this Schedule sponsorship is provided in relation to a permitted participant if—

  (a) any money or other property is transferred to the permitted participant or to any person for the benefit of the permitted participant, and

  (b) the purpose (or one of the purposes) of the transfer is (or must, having regard to all the circumstances, reasonably be assumed to be)—

  204

  (i) to help the permitted participant with meeting, or to meet, to any extent any defined expenses incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the permitted participant, or

  (ii) to secure that to any extent any such expenses are not so incurred.

  (2) In sub-paragraph (1) "defined expenses" means expenses in connection with—

  (a) any conference, meeting or other event organised by or on behalf of the permitted participant,

  (b) the preparation, production or dissemination of any publication by or on behalf of the permitted participant, or

  (c) any study or research organised by or on behalf of the permitted participant.

  (3) The following do not, however, constitute sponsorship by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)—

  (a) the making of any payment in respect of—

  (i) any charge for admission to any conference, meeting or other event, or

  (ii) the purchase price of, or any other charge for access to, any publication;

  (b) the making of any payment in respect of the inclusion of an advertisement in any publication where the payment is made at the commercial rate payable for the inclusion of such an advertisement in any such publication.

  (4) The Secretary of State may by order made on the recommendation of the Commission amend sub-paragraph (2) or (3).
  (5) In this paragraph "publication" means a publication made available in whatever form and by whatever means (whether or not to the public at large or any section of the public).").
  Page 154, line 42, after ("2(1)(a)") insert ("(other than money)").
  Page 154, line 47, at beginning insert ("the total value in monetary terms of").
  Page 154, line 47, at end insert—
  ("(2A) The value of any donation falling within paragraph 2(1)(aa) shall be taken to be the value of the money, or (as the case may be) the market value of the property, transferred as mentioned in paragraph 2A(1); and accordingly any value in monetary terms of any benefit conferred on the person providing the sponsorship in question shall be disregarded.").

  Page 154, line 50, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 155 and insert—

  ("(a) the total value in monetary terms of the consideration that would have had to be provided by or on behalf of the permitted participant in respect of the loan or the provision of the property, services or facilities if—

  (i) the loan had been made, or

  (ii) the property, services or facilities had been provided,

  on commercial terms, and

  (b) the total value in monetary terms of the consideration (if any) actually so provided by or on behalf of the permitted participant").

  Page 155, line 4, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
  Page 155, line 7, leave out ("or (4)").
  [Amendments Nos. 239P to 242 not moved.]
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 242A:
  Page 157, line 8, after ("donor") insert ("(whether or not falling within paragraph (a))").
  Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 115 [Returns as to referendum expenses]:
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 242B to 242E:
  Page 72, line 21, leave out ("officer") and insert ("person").
  Page 72, line 34, leave out ("except where the permitted participant is a registered party,") and insert ("in a case where the permitted participant either is not a registered party or is a minor party,").
  Page 72, line 43, leave out ("subsection (3) of that section") and insert ("section 107(4)").
  Page 72, line 43, at end insert—
  ("() Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply to any referendum expenses incurred at any time before the individual or body became a permitted participant, but the return must be accompanied by a declaration made by the responsible person of the total amount of such expenses incurred at any such time.").

  Clause 115, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 116 and 117 agreed to.
  Clause 118 [Declaration of responsible person as to return under section 115]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 242F and 242G:
  Page 74, line 6, leave out from ("him") to end of line 9.
  Page 74, line 10, leave out ("the case of a permitted participant other than a registered party,") and insert ("a case where the permitted participant either is not a registered party or is a minor party,").
  Clause 118, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 119 agreed to.
  Clause 120 [Restriction on publication etc. of promotional material by central and local government etc.]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 242H:
  Page 75, line 3, leave out from ("to") to ("which") in line 4 and insert ("any material").
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 242J:
  Page 75, line 7, leave out paragraph (b).
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 242J, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 242L and 243 and stop the headlong dash through the Bill. Perhaps I may say how much I appreciate the noble Lord, Lord Bach, being so clear as to what is happening. It does help.
  Amendment No. 242J seeks to delete Clause 120(1)(b), which states:
  "deals with any of the issues raised by any questions on which such a referendum is being held".
  We are slightly puzzled as to what that paragraph aims to do. Perhaps the Minister will tell the Committee what kinds of material will fall inside that definition.
  Amendment No. 242L is different. It seeks to correct one of the major areas where the Government are attempting to make the playing field in a
  206
  referendum slightly uneven. I remind the Committee of recommendation 89 of the Neill committee report which states:
  "The government of the day in future referendums should, as a government, remain neutral and should not distribute at public expense literature, even purportedly 'factual' literature, setting out or otherwise promoting its case".
  Clause 120 provides that the Government should undergo a period of "purdah", if I can call it that, during which they will not be able to issue material relating to the referendum. But, while the referendum period itself can be up to six months, the purdah period for the Government is set at 28 days. So while a political party would be limited to spending up to a maximum of £5 million in the six months prior to the referendum, the government of the day could do what they liked with public funds up to 28 days before the poll. They could issue material with a Crown stamp on it; they could put up posters; they could have TV adverts advocating one way of voting in a referendum—and they would have unlimited access to public funds. That is not fair. Why should the government of the day be able to spend tens of millions of pounds during the period of a referendum campaign when other participants are tightly controlled? Clearly that is not what the Neill committee recommended.
  The amendment would mean that the restrictions on propaganda being issued by the government of the day would apply throughout the whole of the referendum period. That is what Neill recommended. It is also fair. If the Government, as they claim, want to allow the British public to get a balanced view, I hope that the Minister will support my amendment and prevent governments in future referendums wading in to skew the results in the days leading up to the 28 days of purdah.
  I turn to Amendment No. 243. The Government want to allow the continuation of "press notices" during the relevant referendum period. We wonder exactly what that means. I can understand that the Government may want to issue press notices relating to the administrative details of the referendum—that is perfectly understandable; I have no problem with that—but the provision is far too broad. It seems to me that it would allow Ministers to issue partisan propaganda in the guise of press notices—and, for example, to place it on the Internet for all to see—right up until polling day. I wonder whether government press officers would be allowed to brief journalists, even during the 28-day "purdah" period on the basis of such partisan press notices.
  What exactly is a "press notice" under the terms of the Bill? The Government could not find such a definition when the issue was raised in another place on 14th February. They have had plenty of time between then and now to find an answer. What kind of material does the sub-paragraph cover? Does it extend to websites and press officers? What does it extend to? If a referendum is to be fair and balanced—and the

  207
  Minister has been keen to emphasise his desire for that—the Government, as well as all the other participants, must play within the rules. I beg to move.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support what the noble Lord has said. I, too, wondered whether a press notice could be isolated from all the other publicity weapons which are at the disposal of a government of any complexion. A press notice would be issued, possibly in time to catch the eight o-clock news; but before that, the ''Today" programme could have an unidentified spokesman for the government initiate a debate. It might not be possible to get anyone else to give another side to the argument. I do not level this at any particular party, but with a press notice the temptation would always be for the government of the day to take advantage—to light the fuse, as it were. The controversy would then start, and government spin doctors would be the only people who really understood what was behind the press notice. We must therefore be extremely careful.
  I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said, that in that narrow band of legitimacy, it might sometimes be necessary to give straightforward information on methods of administration of the election and matters pertaining thereto, without in any way drifting into the politics of the referendum.
  Lord Norton of Louth: I support the views expressed on Amendment No. 243. On the face of it, subsection (3)(d) does appear to undermine the intention of the clause. I do not think that it can be rescued by a definition of "press notice". However it is defined, unless we change the normal use of language, that would not rescue it at all. One would have to redraw the paragraph itself. A press notice is essentially a notice that is issued to the press. I do not see how the basic definition can be changed.
  So what is to stop a government department issuing a document dealing at length with the issues raised in the referendum and simply heading the document "press notice" and releasing it to the press? That is then covered. That is surely publication by another route. It seems to offer an obvious way to circumvent the whole purpose of the clause. One cannot get round that by redefining "press notice". One either has to delete paragraph (d), or take it away and come back with a provision that is more clearly circumscribed; otherwise, unless the Minister has some compelling justification, it seems on the face of it to undermine the whole intent of the clause.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clause 120 is our discharge of the recommendation in the Neill report. It simply says that we should stand back and leave campaigning during the critical part of the referendum to the political parties and other campaign organisations. The committee was sceptical about material which in previous cases was circulated to the electorate very close to the date of a poll. Clause 120 implements the committee's recommendation by providing for a 28-day embargo on the issue to the public of government publications.
  208
  The Neill committee has endorsed the approach that we have taken in Clause 120. In a letter to the Home Secretary dated 15th October 1999, the noble Lord, Lord Neill, writing on behalf of his committee, said:
  "we welcome your proposals on the part which should be played by the government in referendum campaigns".
  The Neill committee was clear that its proposed restrictions on the distribution of government literature should extend even to purportedly factual material. Subsection (1) specifies the type of material to which Clause 120 applies. Paragraph (b), which Amendment No. 242J would remove, extends the proposed restrictions to any material which deals with any of the issues raised by any question on which a referendum is held. The provision is something of a catch-all: it is quite possible that, for example, a leaflet setting out the actions a government would take in the event of a particular outcome might not be caught by paragraphs (a), (c) or (d). Paragraph (b) would ensure that the proposed restrictions did apply to such material and would therefore appear to deal comprehensively with the Neill committee's concerns in relation to factual material. I am therefore rather puzzled as to why noble Lords opposite, who have taken a hawkish view in relation to these provisions until now, wish to see the paragraph removed.
  With Amendment No. 243 we return to ground that has been dealt with in another place. Clause 120(3)(d) exempts press notices. The Neill committee was principally concerned that the government of the day might at public expense distribute material, even factual documents, which put forward the government's case or at least would have the effect of influencing the vote. Clause 120 is intended to prohibit that sort of distribution of unsolicited material addressed directly to the public at large. The exceptions in subsection (3), including press notices, are entirely consistent with the basic proposition that the government of the day should not be able unfairly to influence the conduct of a referendum campaign.
  It was suggested in another place that the Government might be tempted to put the words "press notice" at the top of a publicity leaflet which was then posted through everyone's letterbox. That is plainly absurd. A "press notice" is a notice to the press, not to the general public. I am sure that the courts would quickly put a stop to that sort of nonsense.
  Turning to Amendment No. 242L, this is concerned with the period during which the restrictions imposed by Clause 120 are to apply. Its effect would be to apply the restrictions in Clause 120 not to the 28-day period prior to the poll, but for the full referendum period—which, as was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, could be six months. That proposition is misconceived. The 28-day period provided for in Clause 120 and the longer referendum period perform two different roles.
  The referendum period, which will usually begin on the date specified in a Bill providing for a given referendum to be held, is essentially an accounting period. It is the period during which the referendum campaigning organisations will be subject to the limits on expenditure and to the controls on donations.

  209
  Subject to the expenditure limits, campaigning organisations will be free to espouse their cause throughout the referendum period. Clause 120 imposes an absolute prohibition on the publication of the material of the kind mentioned in subsection (1). To extend this ban to cover the whole of the referendum period may mean that the period also covers that of the passage of the Bill providing for the referendum to be held. That would be absurd.
  In presenting a Bill to Parliament to provide for a referendum to be held, the government of the day must be able to explain and promote their policies. We accept that there comes a time when government should step back and leave it to the parties and others to make the running. A period of 28 days fits in well. Generally speaking, as an average—the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is probably more knowledgeable about this than I—most general election campaigns have lasted for something like 28 days; the previous one was an exception. The Neill committee made the general election campaign analogy. We believe that that is the right benchmark.
  In conclusion, it is worth nothing that, on Second Reading in another place, the honourable Member for South Norfolk (Mr MacGregor) endorsed the Government's approach. He said:
  "I am glad that the Bill includes the 28-day moratorium, which meets our point".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/00, col. 67.]
  I trust that the noble Lord will take careful note of that.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before I decide what to do, perhaps the noble Lord can help me on one point. I listened very carefully to the Minister's response. He rightly questioned what would happen if the Bill were still being passed within six months of the date of the referendum. He pointed out that the Government have to continue to argue their case for having the Bill. But if the Bill is not passed until, say, four months before the referendum, would the expenditure clock start ticking on the day that the Bill is enacted or would it look back to the six months? I hope that I am making myself clear. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could help me with that query.
  Lord Norton of Louth: Before the Minister responds, perhaps I may return to the point about a press notice. Presumably, the Government would not need to produce literature, place a heading of "Press Notice" on the top and have it put through letter boxes. All they need do is produce something that actually is a press notice and give it to a friendly tabloid that will publish it. In that way, it would reach exactly the same people for less cost.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The difference between the noble Lord and I on this issue is that I accept that that is a legitimate course of action for government to take and the noble Lord probably does not. That much is clear. There is no attempt here, by some sleight of
  210
  hand, to obfuscate the issue. However, we are saying that government ought to be free to make their views plainly known. Indeed, in order to answer factual questions, it may need to do so by way of press notice. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that point.
  Lord Norton of Louth: The way that the clause is drawn would not confine this to factual material; indeed, it could go beyond that and express an opinion, as long as it was in a document that was headed "Press Notice" and was released to the press.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall reflect further on the noble Lord's point.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, posed a fair question. I can tell him that Clause 97(4) enables the Secretary of State to make an order defining the referendum period for a Bill still before Parliament. I believe, therefore, that that will cover the point. In other words, it will be up to the Secretary of State to define the time period. Clearly, it would be rather difficult to reach back in time.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. However, I shall read it most carefully in Hansard. I am somewhat puzzled as to the press notice point. As I said in my opening remarks, I accept that a press notice explaining a referendum—the time of opening of the polling stations, and so on—is perfectly legitimate. There is no problem in that respect. However, those of us who have been in government know that government produce many more press notices than those relating to a referendum. Such notices are issued by the press office in answer to points that opponents have made, or criticisms that have been made on whatever policy the Government are pursuing. They generally make the case for the Government's position.
  As the Government will be taking up one or other side in a referendum campaign, it seems to me that they will be able to continue issuing propaganda under the guise of a press notice, with no debar on the amount of money that they can spend. However, the other campaigning organisations will be debarred. That returns us to the point that nothing can be made fair in this game. As one of the major players, the Government will be able to play without any limit on their costs up to 28 days before the election, while other organisations will have limits on their costs. That does not seem to me to be fair. I shall study the Minister's response and may return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 242K:
  Page 75, line 13, leave out (", displayed or distributed").
  [Amendments Nos. 242L and 242M not moved.]
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 242N:
  Page 75, line 25, leave out ("display or distribution").
  [Amendment No. 243 not moved.]
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 243A:
  Page 75, line 31, leave out from ("means") to end of line 34 and insert ("make available to the public at large, or any section of the public, in whatever form and by whatever means (and "publication" shall be construed accordingly);").
  Clause 120, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 243B:
  After Clause 120, insert the following new clause—

  Sponsorship

    DETAILS TO APPEAR ON REFERENDUM MATERIAL
    (" .—(1) No material wholly or mainly relating to a referendum to which this Part applies shall be published during the referendum period unless—

    (a) in the case of material which is, or is contained in, such a printed document as is mentioned in subsection (3), (4) or (5), the requirements of that subsection are complied with; or

    (b) in the case of any other material, any requirements falling to be complied with in relation to the material by virtue of regulations under subsection (6) are complied with.

    (2) For the purposes of subsections (3) to (5) the following details are "the relevant details" in the case of any material falling within subsection (1)(a), namely—

    (a) the name and address of the printer of the document;

    (b) the name and address of the promoter of the material; and

    (c) the name and address of any person on behalf of whom the material is being published (and who is not the promoter).

    (3) Where the material is a document consisting (or consisting principally) of a single side of printed matter, the relevant details must appear on the face of the document.
    (4) Where the material is a printed document other than one to which subsection (3) applies, the relevant details must appear either on the first or the last page of the document.
    (5) Where the material is an advertisement contained in a newspaper or periodical—

    (a) the name and address of the printer of the newspaper or periodical must appear either on its first or last page; and

    (b) the relevant details specified in subsection (2)(b) and (c) must he included in the advertisement.

    (6) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the Commission, by regulations make provision for and in connection with the imposition of requirements as to the inclusion in material falling within subsection (1)(b) of the following details, namely—

    (a) the name and address of the promoter of the material; and

    (b) the name and address of any person on behalf of whom the material is being published (and who is not the promoter).

    (7) Regulations under subsection (6) may in particular specify—

    (a) the manner and form in which such details must be included in any such material for the purpose of complying with any such requirement;

    (b) circumstances in which—

    (i) any such requirement does not have to be complied with by a person of any description specified in the regulations, or

    (ii) a breach of any such requirement by a person of any description so specified is not to result in the commission of an offence under this section by that person or by a person of any other such description;

    212

    (c) circumstances in which material is, or is not, to be taken for the purposes of the regulations to be published or (as the case may be) published by a person of any description so specified.

    (8) Where during the referendum period any material falling within subsection (1)(a) is published in contravention of subsection (1), then (subject to subsection (10))—

    (a) the promoter of the material,

    (b) any other person by whom the material is so published, and

    (c) the printer of the document,

    shall be guilty of an offence.
    (9) Where during the referendum period any material falling within subsection (1)(b) is published in contravention of subsection (1), then (subject to regulations made by virtue of subsection (7)(b) and to subsection (10))—

    (a) the promoter of the material, and

    (b) any other person by whom the material is so published,

    shall be guilty of an offence.
    (10) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove—

    (a) that the contravention of subsection (1) arose from circumstances beyond his control; and

    (b) that he took all reasonable steps, and exercised all due diligence, to ensure that that contravention would not arise.

    (11) In this section—

    "print" means print by whatever means, and "printer" shall be construed accordingly;

    "the promoter", in relation to any material falling within subsection (1), means the person causing the material to be published;

    "publish" means make available to the public at large, or any section of the public, in whatever form and by whatever means.").

    Clause 121 [Other publications to contain details of printer and publisher]:
    On Question, Whether Clause 121 shall stand part of the Bill?
    Clause 121 negatived.
    Clauses 122 and 123 agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 244 not moved.]
    Clause 124 [Orders regulating conduct of referendums]:
    [Amendments Nos. 245 and 246 not moved.]
    Clause 124 agreed to.
    Clause 125 [Control of donations to candidates]:
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 246A:
    Page 78, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—

  Control of donations to candidates.
  71A.—(1) In the case of any candidate at an election, any money or other property provided (whether as a gift or loan)—

  (a) by any person other than the candidate or his election agent, and

  (b) for the purpose of meeting election expenses incurred by or on behalf of the candidate,

  must be provided to the candidate or his election agent.
  (2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to any money or other property so provided for the purpose of meeting any such expenses which may be lawfully paid by a person other than the candidate, his election agent or any sub-agent (in the case of an election where sub-agents may be appointed).
  (3) A person who provides any money or other property in contravention of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of an illegal practice.
  (4) Schedule 2A to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of controlling donations to candidates.
  (5) In this section and that Schedule "property" includes any description of property, and references to the provision of property accordingly include the supply of goods."").
  The noble Lord said: This group of amendments relates to the control on donations made to candidates at parliamentary and local government elections. I intend to be short in my opening remarks.
  It may assist Members of the Committee if I say a few words about Clause 125 and Schedule 15, which are the targets of these amendments. The Representation of the People Act 1983 already requires that a return as to a candidate's election expenses includes a statement of all money, securities and the equivalent of money received by the election agent for the purpose of meeting election expenses. It is desirable that a candidate's return should include clearer information about the source and amount of donations equivalent to that which political parties, and other regulated donees, will be required to disclose. It is also right and proper that all candidates are subject to the prohibition on the acceptance of foreign donations.
  In placing these new requirements on candidates, we want to go with the grain of the 1983 Act. Under the Act, it is a candidate's election agent who has overall responsibility for ensuring compliance with the controls on the candidate's election expenses. It is the agent who, after the election, submits a return as to those expenses. It follows that it should be the election agent who is similarly held responsible for ensuring that any donations received by or on behalf of the candidate are from a permissible donor and that the relevant details of the donor are properly recorded. The key amendment in this group is Amendment No. 250B, which achieves just that.
  The effect of that amendment is as follows. Where a candidate has appointed an election agent, any donation that he receives should immediately be passed to the agent who will undertake the necessary checks. Where a candidate has either not yet appointed an agent or is acting as his own agent, it will obviously need to fall to him to undertake the required checks. I can deal with the other minor amendments in this group, if noble Lords wish to press me on them. But, in the meantime, I beg to move.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 247:
  Page 78, line 14, leave out subsection (4).
  The noble Lord said: This group deals with government amendments as well as several tabled in my name. My object is to probe the Scottish position to determine the application of this Bill to local government elections in Scotland and to probe the position regarding the donations of money to candidates in local government elections in Scotland. It seems to me that there are no powers in the Bill for
  214
  Scottish Ministers to opt Scotland into this part of the legislation. Therefore, I wonder about the relationship between Scotland and parts of the Bill.
  I also wanted to probe the position of those convicted of offences in Scotland as regards holding public and judicial office. However, I believe that the government amendments address some of my concerns. I shall, therefore, leave the matter there and simply await the Minister's response. I beg to move.
  Lord Bach: This group of amendments relates to Part VIII of the Bill, which makes a number of amendments to the Representation of the People Act 1983. As drafted, the Bill provides that these changes should not apply in respect of local government elections in Scotland. The probing amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, would delete the provisions excepting Scottish local government elections from the scope of these changes.
  The scope of this Bill in relation to local government elections in Scotland has been addressed—dare I say it?—a number of times during its passage. Nevertheless, I must again make the point that the conduct of local government elections in Scotland is a devolved matter. Therefore, it will be for the Scottish Parliament to decide whether the changes made to the 1983 Act by Clauses 125 to 128 and Clause 131 should also apply in respect of local government elections there. The Bill as drafted reflects that position and, therefore, we urge the withdrawal of the probing amendments.
  However, consideration of these provisions in another place raised the question of whether such an exception should apply in the case of incapacities consequent upon conviction for a corrupt or illegal practice. On reflection, it is clear that the changes made by Clauses 129 and 130 are not confined to devolved matters. Whether a person convicted of a corrupt or illegal practice at a Scottish local government election, or reported guilty of such a practice by an election court, may be elected to the House of Commons or indeed vote in a local government election in Scotland is a reserved matter. In those circumstances, the incapacities effected by Clause 29 and paragraph 6 of Schedule 16 should apply and it is for this Parliament to apply them. Accordingly, as we have already indicated by putting our names to them, we support Amendments Nos. 257 and 258. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drafting them. Amendment No. 258B is consequential upon the removal of Clause 130(2).
  Those incapacities applied by Clause 129 and Schedule 16 would include the holding of elective office. However, the definition of "elective office" as inserted into the 1983 Act by paragraph 8 of Schedule 16, is confined to those offices to which a local government election is held in England and Wales. We need to continue to make provision for Scotland.
  Amendment No. 258C and Amendments Nos. 258E to 258G effectively plug that gap. They would specify that a person convicted or reported guilty of a corrupt or illegal practice would be prohibited from holding

  215
  local government, public or judicial office in Scotland for a specified period. I hope that the other amendments speak for themselves and that the noble Lord will be satisfied with my response.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am indeed satisfied. When we come to them, I shall remember to move the amendments to which noble Lords have added their names. It is with some gratitude that one realises that one's drafting is not always imperfect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 125, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 15 [Control of donations to candidates: New Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 247A:
  Page 158,1ine 2, leave out from ("donation") to end of line 4 and insert ("to the candidate or his election agent for the purpose of meeting election expenses incurred by or on behalf of the candidate").
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 247B:
  Page 158, line 4, at end insert—
  ("() In sub-paragraph (3) above the reference to a donation for the purpose of meeting election expenses incurred by or on behalf of a candidate includes a reference to a donation for the purpose of securing that any such expenses are not so incurred; and a donation shall be taken to be a donation for either of those purposes if, having regard to all the circumstances, it must be reasonably assumed to be such a donation.").

  The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to and debated on 12th October. I beg to move.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 247C and 248:
  Page 158, line 5, after ("2") insert (", 2A").
  Page 158, line 7, at end insert—
  ("() Where—

  (a) at a time when any order is in force under section 65(1) of the 2000 Act a donation is received by a candidate at an election in Great Britain, and

  (b) the order provides for this sub-paragraph to apply to any such donation,

  references to a permissible donor falling within section 49(2) of that Act shall be construed, in relation to the donation, as not including a registered party which is registered in the Northern Ireland register maintained by the Commission under Part II of that Act.").
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 248A:
  Page 158, line 9, at end insert—

  ("(7) Any reference to a donation received by a candidate when he is (or is deemed to be) his own election agent includes a reference to a donation received by a candidate on a list of candidates to be London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election who is, or is deemed to be, the election agent of all the candidates on the list.

  (8) Any donation which is received by a candidate as mentioned in sub-paragraph (7) above shall be regarded as received by him in his capacity as election agent.").

  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 248B to 248P:
  Page 158, line 13, at end insert—
  ("(aa) any sponsorship provided in relation to the candidate (as defined by paragraph 2A below);").

  Page 158, line 14, leave out ("as permitted by section 73 above)") and insert ("by the candidate, his election agent or any sub-agent)").
  Page 158, line 15, leave out from ("by") to end of line 16 and insert ("or on behalf of the candidate;").
  Page 158, line 19, leave out ("goods,").
  Page 158, leave out line 22.
  Page 158, line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—

  ("(2) Where—

  (a) any money or other property is transferred to a candidate or his election agent pursuant to any transaction or arrangement involving the provision by or on behalf of the candidate of any property, services or facilities or other consideration of monetary value, and

  (b) the total value in monetary terms of the consideration so provided by or on behalf of the candidate is less than the value of the money or (as the case may be) the market value of the property transferred,

  the transfer of the money or property shall (subject to sub-paragraph (2B) below) constitute a gift to the candidate or (as the case may be) his election agent for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a) above.

  (2A) In determining—

  (a) for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(c) above, whether any money lent to a candidate or his election agent is so lent otherwise than on commercial terms, or

  (b) for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(d) above, whether any property, services or facilities provided for the use or benefit of a candidate is or are so provided otherwise than on such terms,

  regard shall be had to the total value in monetary terms of the consideration provided by or on behalf of the candidate in respect of the loan or the provision of the property, services or facilities.

  (2B) Where (apart from this sub-paragraph) anything would be a donation both by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(aa) above and by virtue of any other provision of this paragraph, sub-paragraph (1)(aa) (together with paragraph 2A below) shall apply in relation to it to the exclusion of the other provision of this paragraph.

  (2C) The reference in sub-paragraph (1)(b) above to money spent as mentioned in that provision is a reference to money so spent by a person, other than the candidate, his election agent or any sub-agent, out of his own resources (with no right to reimbursement out of the resources of any such other person.); and where, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, money so spent constitutes a donation to the candidate, the candidate shall he treated as receiving an equivalent amount on the date on which the money is paid to the creditor in respect of the expenses in question.").

  Page 158, line 31, at end insert—

  Sponsorship
  2A.—(1) For the purposes of this Schedule sponsorship is provided in relation to a candidate if—

  (a) any money or other property is transferred to the candidate or to any person for the benefit of the candidate, and

  (b) the purpose (or one of the purposes) of the transfer is (or must, having regard to all the circumstances, reasonably be assumed to be)—

  (i) to help the candidate with meeting, or to meet, to any extent any defined expenses incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the candidate, or

  (ii) to secure that to any extent any such expenses are not so incurred.

  (2) In sub-paragraph (1) above "defined expenses" means expenses in connection with—

  (a) any conference, meeting or other event organised by or on behalf of the candidate,

  (b) the preparation, production or dissemination of any publication by or on behalf of the candidate, or

  (c) any study or research organised by or on behalf of the candidate.

  (3) The following do not, however, constitute sponsorship by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above—

  (a) the making of any payment in respect of—

  (i) any charge for admission to any conference, meeting or other event, or

  (ii) the purchase price of, or any other charge for access to, any publication;

  (b) the making of any payment in respect of the inclusion of an advertisement in any publication where the payment is made at the commercial rate payable for the inclusion of such an advertisement in any such publication.

  (4) The Secretary of State may by order made on the recommendation of the Commission amend sub-paragraph (2) or (3) above.
  (5) Any order under sub-paragraph (4) above shall be made by statutory instrument; but no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
  (6) In this paragraph "publication" means a publication made available in whatever form and by whatever means (whether or not to the public at large or any section of the public).").
  Page 158, line 45, after ("above") insert ("(other than money)").
  Page 159, line 1, at beginning insert ("the total value in monetary terms of").
  Page 159, line 2, at end insert—
  ("(2A) The value of any donation falling within paragraph 2(1)(aa) above shall be taken to be the value of the money, or (as the case may be) the market value of the property, transferred as mentioned in paragraph 2A(1) above; and accordingly any value in monetary terms of any benefit conferred on the person providing the sponsorship in question shall be disregarded.").

  Page 159, leave out lines 5 to 8 and insert—

  ("(a) the total value in monetary terms of the consideration that would have had to be provided by or on behalf of the candidate or his election agent in respect of the loan or the provision of the property, services or facilities if—

  (i) the loan had been made, or

  (ii) the property, services or facilities had been provided,

  on commercial terms, and

  (b) the total value in monetary terms of the consideration (if any) actually so provided by or on behalf of the candidate or his election agent").

  Page 159, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
  Page 159, line 13, leave out ("or (4)").
  [Amendments Nos. 249 and 250 not moved.]
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 250A and 250B:
  Page 160, line 27, leave out from ("to") to end of line 29 and insert—

  ("(a) a relevant donation received by a candidate or his election agent, and

  (b) the candidate or (as the case may be) the election agent,

  as they apply in relation to a donation received by a registered party and the registered party.").
  218
  Page 160, line 43, at end insert—

  Transfer of donations received by candidate to election agent
  6A.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) below applies in relation to any relevant donation received by a candidate after the deadline for appointing an election agent (unless the candidate is, or is deemed to be, his own election agent at the time of receipt of the donation).
  (2) The candidate shall, on receipt of any such donation as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above, forthwith deliver to his election agent—

  (a) the donation,

  (b) where paragraph 5(4) or (5) above applies in relation to the donation, the information provided to the candidate in pursuance of that provision, and

  (c) any other information which the candidate has about the donation and its donor which might reasonably be expected to assist the election agent in the discharge of any duties imposed on him, in relation to the donation, under this Part or Part III of this Schedule.

  (3) Where a donation is delivered to an election agent in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) above, the donation shall be treated for the purposes of paragraph 5(1) to (3) above and the provisions applied by paragraph 6 above as if it had been—

  (a) originally received by the election agent, and

  (b) so received by him on the date on which it was received by the candidate.

  (4) Where a candidate receives a relevant donation before the deadline for appointing an election agent but at a time when an appointment of a person (other than the candidate himself) as election agent is in force he shall either—

  (a) forthwith deliver the donation and the information mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b) and (c) above to the agent, or

  (b) (if he fails to do so) deal with the donation in accordance with section 51 of the 2000 Act.

  (5) Sub-paragraph (3) above shall have effect in relation to any relevant donation delivered to an election agent in accordance with sub-paragraph (4)(a) above as it has effect in relation to a donation delivered to him in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) above.
  (6) Sub-paragraph (7) below applies where—

  (a) a relevant donation received by a candidate before the deadline for appointing an election agent has been dealt with by the candidate in accordance with section 51 of the 2000 Act either because—

  (i) it was received by him at a time when no appointment of another person as his election agent was in force, or

  (ii) although such an appointment was in force, he was by virtue of sub-paragraph (4)(b) required to deal with the donation; and

  (b) an appointment of a person (other than the candidate himself) as election agent is in force at, or at any time after—

  (i) the deadline for appointing an election agent, or

  (ii) if later, the time when the candidate has dealt with the donation in accordance with section 51 of the 2000 Act.

  (7) Subject to sub-paragraph (9) below, the candidate shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the relevant time, deliver to the election agent—

  (a) the donation (if it has been accepted by him), and

  (b) any information which he has about the donation and the donor which might reasonably be expected to assist the election agent in the discharge of any duties imposed on him, in relation to the donation, under Part III of this Schedule.

  (8) The relevant time for the purposes of sub-paragraph (7) above is—

  (a) the time mentioned in sub-paragraph (6)(b)(i) or (ii) (as the case may be) if the appointment of another person as election agent is in force at that time, or

  (b) otherwise, the time when any such appointment subsequently comes into force.

  (9) The duty imposed on a candidate by sub-paragraph (7)(a) above does not apply to any relevant donation to the extent to which it has been lawfully used by the candidate for the purpose of paying election expenses.
  (10) In this paragraph—

  (a) any reference to the deadline for appointing an election agent is a reference to the latest time by which an election agent may in accordance with section 67(1) or (1A) of this Act be named as election agent—

  (i) by the candidate, or

  (ii) in the case of a candidate on a list of candidates submitted by a registered political party to be London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, by the party; and

  (b) any reference to any provision of section 51 of the 2000 Act is a reference to that provision as applied by paragraph 6 above.").

  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 250C to 250E:
  Page 160, line 47, leave out ("or to the treasurer of a registered party").
  Page 160, line 49, at end insert ("; and
  (c) any reference in subsection (2) to the treasurer of a registered party were, in relation to a relevant donation, a reference to either the candidate or his election agent (or both).").

  Page 161, line 5, leave out ("prepared") and insert ("delivered").
  Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 250F:
  Before Clause 126, insert the following new clause—

  Transfer of donations received by candidate to election agent

    ELECTION EXPENSES INCURRED OTHERWISE THAN BY CANDIDATE
    (".—(1) Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (no election expenses to be incurred by persons other than candidate, election agent or persons authorised by him) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (1)(ii) (exception for expenses not exceeding £5 in aggregate incurred by individual backer or disparager), for "not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of £5 which may be incurred by an individual and are not incurred in pursuance of a plan suggested by or concerted with others," there shall be substituted "incurred by any person which do not exceed in the aggregate the permitted sum (and are not incurred by that person as part of a concerted plan of action),".
    (3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
    "(1ZA) For the purposes of subsection (1)(ii) above, "the permitted sum" means—

    (a) in respect of a candidate at a parliamentary election, £500;

    (b) in respect of a candidate at a local government election, £50 together with an additional 0.5p for every entry in the register of local government electors for the electoral area in question as it has effect on the last day for publication of notice of the election;

    220
    and expenses shall be regarded as incurred by a person "as part of a concerted plan of action" if they are incurred by that person in pursuance of any plan or other arrangement whereby that person and one or more other persons are to incur, with a view to promoting or procuring the election of the same candidate, expenses which (disregarding subsection (1)(ii)) fall within subsection (1) above."
    (4) At the end of subsection (1A) there shall be added "; and in the application of subsection (1ZA) above in relation to such an election the reference to the same candidate includes a reference to all or any of the candidates of the same registered political party."
    (5) Subsections (1B) and (1C) (special provision for Greater London Authority elections) shall be omitted.").
    The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 252A, 259N, 322D and 322N. Amendment No. 250F is an important addition to the Bill. It amends Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which is concerned with election expenditure by persons other than a candidate or an election agent—that is, expenditure by third parties. Under the provisions of Section 75 as it stands, a third party may spend no more than £5 either promoting or denigrating a candidate at an election.
    The £5 limitation on third party expenditure has been held by the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Bowman v the United Kingdom to be tantamount to a total ban and as such constituted an unjustifiable restriction on a person's right to freedom of expression. I could tell the Committee the facts of that case, but I am not going to unless I am specifically asked to do so. It was not the principle of the limit that offended against Article 10, but the particular limit of £5.
    The Neill committee considered at some length the implications of the judgment. I shall quote part of paragraph 10.64 of the report which states,
    "We suggest for consideration by the Government that the amended figure to be inserted in section 75(1)(ii) should be more than £100 and should be of the order of £500. We believe that this would provide an allowance sufficient to cover, for example, the production and distribution of a leaflet throughout a constituency or the publication of an advertisement in a local newspaper".
    In its recommendation no. 54, the committee came down even more firmly in favour of a third party limit of £500. Accordingly, we have adopted that figure for parliamentary elections. We believe that it is too high for local government elections. New subsection (1ZA) of Section 75 therefore provides that for such elections the limit shall be £50 together with an additional 0.5 pence for every elector. This formula will result in limits for local government elections ranging from about £51 for the smallest ward which is in Chiltern District Council, having fewer than 200 electors, to £180 for the largest ward with over 25,000 electors. That is the Mossborough ward in Sheffield.
    I can deal with the details as regards the Greater London Authority Act 1999. By removing the two subsections, the general formula of £50 plus 0.5 pence per elector will apply instead of the present subsections. That would produce a limit for London mayoral elections of about £25,000 which was in fact the figure that applied to the first mayoral election in May of this year.
    I should emphasise that it would continue to be an offence for a third party to incur election expenses as part of a concerted plan of action with others. The new limits on third party expenditure would be undermined if a number of individuals or organisations in a constituency could each pool their £500 in order to achieve the required result. Such concerted action could well distort the electoral process.
    With the agreement of the Scottish Executive and Parliament, the revised limits will apply to local government elections in Scotland as well as to those in England and Wales. Ordinarily, it would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to legislate in respect of the third party limit for local government elections in that country. The Scottish Parliament has agreed that, exceptionally, it would be appropriate for the UK Parliament to legislate in respect of this devolved matter given the need to make Section 75 ECHR compliant as soon as possible.
    I turn to the second proposed new clause in the group (Amendment No. 252A). This would amend Section 76A of the 1983 Act. Section 76A enables the Secretary of State by statutory instrument to vary the various monetary limits relating to election expenses set out in the 1983 Act, but such variations may only be to the extent necessary to take account of changes in the value of money; in other words, to keep pace with inflation. From time to time more significant variation may be justified; the £5 limit in Section 75 being a case in point. The revised Section 76A will enable above inflation increases, or indeed reductions, in the monetary limits to be made on the recommendation of the electoral commission. A similar approach is adopted in Clause 145 in respect of the various monetary limits set out in the Bill and fits in with the wider role of the electoral commission in keeping electoral law under review.
    The other amendments in this group are essentially consequential. I beg to move.
    Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I very much welcome the proposed new clause. On Second Reading some of us expressed concern that the draft Bill contained such a clause but that it was omitted from the final Bill. At that time the Minister indicated that the Government would bring forward such a measure. Since Second Reading enormous amounts of money have been spent in the Ayr by-election and £1 million on the referendum in Scotland on Section 28. The proposed new clause is therefore particularly important. We should not deny the right of people to intervene in elections or referendums, even if we sometimes do not agree with what they say. They have the democratic right to intervene. I believe that the balance of £500 is about right, provided that we address the problems of abuse, as the Bill does. It is absolutely essential that there is no possibility of a large number of people each adding their permitted expenditure to a common pot. As that objective has been achieved, I am sure that we shall all welcome the proposed new clause.
    Clause 126 [Financial limits applying to candidates' election expenses]:
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 250G:
    Page 78, leave out lines 21 to 24 and insert ("or on behalf of a candidate at an election").
    The noble Lord said: This group contains 28 government amendments. I know that the Committee will have studied each one with some care. Therefore, I do not intend to go through each one, or, indeed any of them, but to tell the Committee what their effects are.
    This group of amendments makes a number of changes to the Representation of the People Acts 1983 and 2000. They are in large part concerned with the regulation of candidates' election expenses and essentially they simply follow on from the existing provisions of the Bill. If any Member of the Committee has any specific questions on any of the amendments, I shall be happy to try to answer them. I beg to move.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord will be delighted to hear that I do not intend to quiz him on each amendment. However, someone has drawn my attention to a problem which may arise as a result of some of the proposed changes. However, I shall wait until I see them in the reprinted Bill. Then I may either mention them or write to the noble Lord.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 250H:
    Page 78, line 31, leave out from ("by") to ("must") in line 33 and insert ("or on behalf of any of those candidates").
    Lord Rennard Lord Rennard moved Amendment No. 251:
    Page 79, line 6, leave out ("£100,000") and insert ("£75,000").
    The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to reduce the limit proposed for spending in parliamentary by-elections from £100,000 to £75,000. The proposed limit of £100,000 originated in the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Neill. I understand that the proposal was based on a BBC report of Mr Michael Crick who said that there was convincing evidence of overspending by major parties in parliamentary by-elections and that sums approaching £100,000 might have been spent by some parties in by-elections immediately prior to the previous general election campaign.
    However, it seems to me that political parties have been treating the issue of spending limits in parliamentary by-elections rather as some motorists treat speeding limits. However, if traffic is regularly spotted travelling at 50 miles per hour in a 30-mph zone, on the basis of the kind of proposal put forward in the Bill, the response would be to introduce a 100-mph speed limit to ensure that no one breached it. I believe that such a measure would be excessive.
    A limit of £75,000 in parliamentary by-elections seems sufficient to me. I believe that I can substantiate that as that figure is more than twice the sum spent by the Liberal Democrats in winning the Romsey

    223
    parliamentary by-election in May of this year. A £100,000 constituency limit in a parliamentary by-election, compared with the £8,000 or so constituency limit in a general election, is just too great a gulf to justify with the argument that by-elections are national campaigns. It would be somewhat perplexing for the electorate to have a parliamentary by-election, in which perhaps £100,000 is spent by each of the parties, and then a few weeks later a general election campaign in the same constituency in which only about £8,000 can be spent by each of the parties.
    As regards the £100,000 limit proposed for constituencies, if one were to aggregate it for all the constituencies across the UK, it would amount to a general election expense limit of between £64 million and £65 million. That is far in excess of the £20 million limit proposed for general election expenditure by the Neill committee. Why, then, is the £100,000 limit proposed? The Minister in another place, Mr Paddy Tipping, said,
    "If we are honest, there is no real rationale. One simply has to take a stab at the matter and I invite my honourable friends to take a stab at what is in the Bill".
    As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has pointed out on many occasions during the Committee stage of the Bill, we are a revising Chamber. Let us therefore suggest that this total be revised and invite the Government to take a further stab at the matter. In due course the electoral commission may make recommendations, but there may be important parliamentary by-elections before it has time to consider the matter. Let us consider doubling the existing limits before we consider trebling them. I beg to move.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I drag myself to my feet on this issue simply to congratulate the Liberal Front Bench on breaking a vow of silence that I thought was turning them into Trappist monks. As regards being a revising Chamber, it is a good job that the revising Chamber is not dependent on Liberal Democrat intervention on this Bill as we would be doing little revision. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on the amendment.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Minister has little to say except to acknowledge that the Bill as drafted gives effect to one of the Neill committee's recommendations. The Government wish to adhere to the figure proposed by the Neill committee. If there were cross-party consensus on the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, we might reconsider our view. However, as the noble Lord has recognised, this matter may be reviewed by the commission. At this stage we resist the amendment and stick with what we have.
    Lord Rennard: I thank the Minister for those comments. I note that the electoral commission may consider the matter. I believe that it should, given the wide disparity between the sum of £8,000 in regard to a general election and the sum of £ 100,000 in regard to
    224
    a parliamentary by-election. I hope that the electoral commission will consider the matter seriously. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 252 not moved.]
    Clause 126, as amended, agreed to.
    7.30 p.m.
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 252A:
    After Clause 126, insert the following new clause—

    POWER TO VARY PROVISIONS ABOUT ELECTION EXPENSES
    (".—(1) For section 76A of the Representation of the People Act 1983 there shall be substituted—

  Power to vary provisions about election expenses.
  76A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument vary any of the sums to which this section applies—

  (a) where he considers that the variation is expedient in consequence of changes in the value of money, or

  (b) in order to give effect to a recommendation of the Electoral Commission.

  (2) This section applies to any of the sums for the time being specified in—

  (a) section 73(2) above;

  (b) section 74(1)(a), (b), (c) or (d) above;

  (c) section 75(1ZA) above; or

  (d) section 76(2) above.

  (3) An order under subsection (1)(19) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
  (2) Section 76A of that Act, as substituted by subsection (1) above, shall be taken to be a pre-commencement enactment for the purposes of the Scotland Act 1998.").
  Lord Carter: It may be helpful if I tell the Committee the plans for this evening. It has been agreed through the usual channels that there should not be a dinner break and that there should be every intention to complete the Committee stage of this Bill by 9 p m. to allow us to make some progress on the FoI Bill.
  Clause 127 [Meaning of "election expenses"]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 252B:
  Page 79, line 40, leave out ("expenses which") and insert ("facilities in respect of which expenses").
  The noble Lord said: There is little to say about the amendment save that it tidies up the drafting of new Section 90A(3)(c) of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
  The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has rather more substance to it. If the noble Lord wishes to speak to his amendment now, I shall attempt to reply to it.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I speak to Amendment No. 253 which is grouped with the government amendment. It seeks to replace £50 with £100. We are discussing here the amount of election expenditure which can be incurred by a candidate or his agent without the need for receipts and invoices

  225
  and all the regulations which go with that. Prior to the drafting of the Bill, the limit in the Representation of the People Act was £20. The Government have increased that to £50; and that is welcome.
  My reason for raising the limit to £100 is that it would bring it into line with the receipts and invoices mentioned in Clause 71(2): that is, in line with the requirements for expenditure incurred on behalf of the party as a whole, not the constituency party, for election purposes. I suggest that it makes for consistency of approach. It might be helpful to the parties, the candidates and others involved to be able to remember the one figure of £100 rather than that £100 counts for national and £50 for constituency election expenses.
  Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Lord. His amendment would increase the figure to £100. We have shown some flexibility. The figure in the Bill as originally introduced in another place was £20. This was in line with the threshold in the 1983 Act above which election expenses must be vouched for by an invoice and a receipt. The figure was raised to £50 by a government amendment on Report in another place. This brought the figure into line with the de minimis limit in relation to donations to candidates. In raising the figure we were receptive to concerns that the original figure was too low and risked catching benefits in kind in circumstances such as giving a candidate a lift to a meeting where it would occur to no one that notional expenditure was in fact being incurred.
  We are not inclined to agree that the figure should be raised any further. The equivalent figure in relation to notional election expenses incurred by political parties is £200. But that is against a spending limit of up to nearly £20 million. The average spending limit for a parliamentary candidate is some £8,000. In this context benefits in kind to the value of £50 or more are sufficiently significant to warrant being declared. During Committee stage in another place the Official Opposition put forward an amendment similar to this one but suggested—I remind the noble Lord of this in the most gentle of spirits—that £50 would be a suitable compromise. I hope that he may agree.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am content with that explanation. My honourable friends in another place did what the Minister suggests. I sought to consider the Bill as a whole. I accept the explanation.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 252C to 252E:
  Page 80, line 4, at end insert—
  ("(4A) For the purposes of this Part of this Act—

  (a) election expenses are incurred by or on behalf of a candidate at an election if they are incurred—

  (i) by the candidate or his election agent, or

  (ii) by any person authorised by the candidate or his election agent to incur the expenses; and

  226

  (b) any reference to election expenses incurred by or on behalf of a candidate at an election includes expenses which are incurred as mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) or (ii) above before the date when he becomes a candidate at the election but which by virtue of subsection (1) and (2) above fall to be regarded as election expenses.").

  Page 80, line 5, after ("reference") insert ("(in whatever terms)").
  Page 80, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 81 and insert—

  Property, goods, services etc. provided free of charge or at a discount.
  90C.—(1) This section applies where, in the case of a candidate at an election—

  (a) either—

  (i) property or goods is or are transferred to the candidate or his election agent free of charge or at a discount of more than 10 per cent. of the market value of the property or goods, or

  (ii) property, goods, services or facilities is or are provided for the use or benefit of the candidate free of charge or at a discount of more than 10 per cent. of the commercial rate for the use of the property or for the provision of the goods, services or facilities, and

  (b) the property, goods, services or facilities is or are made use of by or on behalf of the candidate in circumstances such that, if any expenses were to be (or are) actually incurred by or on behalf of the candidate in respect of that use, they would be (or are) election expenses incurred by or on behalf of the candidate.

  (1A) Where this section applies—

  (a) an amount of election expenses determined in accordance with this section ("the appropriate amount") shall be treated, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, as incurred by the candidate, and

  (b) the candidate's election agent shall make a declaration of that amount,

  unless that amount is less than £50.
  This subsection has effect subject to section 90A(3) above.
  (1B) Where subsection (1)(a)(i) above applies, the appropriate amount is such proportion of either—

  (a) the market value of the property or goods (where the property or goods is or are transferred free of charge), or

  (b) the difference between the market value of the property or goods and the amount of expenses actually incurred by or on behalf of the candidate in respect of the property or goods (where the property or goods is or are transferred at a discount),

  as is reasonably attributable to the use made of the property or goods as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above.
  (1C) Where subsection (1)(a)(ii) above applies, the appropriate amount is such proportion of either—

  (a) the commercial rate for the use of the property or the provision of the goods, services or facilities (where the property, goods, services or facilities is or are provided free of charge), or

  (b) the difference between that commercial rate and the amount of expenses actually incurred by or on behalf of the candidate in respect of the use of the property or the provision of the services or facilities (where the property, goods, services or facilities is or are provided at a discount),

  as is reasonably attributable to the use made of the property, goods, services or facilities as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above.").
  The noble Lord said: These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 195D. I beg to move.
  [Amendment No. 253 not moved.]
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 253A to 235F:
  Page 81, line 11, after ("use") insert ("or benefit").
  Page 81, leave out lines 19 to 26.
  Page 81, line 28, after ("property") insert ("or goods").
  Page 81, line 29, after ("property") insert ("or goods").
  Page 81, line 30, at end insert ("; and paragraph 2(3)(a) of Schedule 2A to this Act shall apply with any necessary modifications for the purpose of determining, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, whether property or goods is or are transferred to a candidate or his election agent."").
  Page 81, line 30, at end insert—

  Modification of sections 90A to 90C in relation to election of London members of the London Assembly.
  90D.—(1) Sections 90A to 90C above shall have effect, in their application in relation to candidates at an election of London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, subject to the following modifications.
  (2) In relation to any such candidates included in a list of candidates submitted by a registered political party in connection with the election—

  (a) references to anything done by or on behalf of, or in relation to, a candidate at the election shall be construed as a reference to any such thing done by or on behalf of, or in relation to, all or any of the candidates on the list; and

  (b) "for the purposes of the candidate's election" shall (instead of having the meaning given by section 90A(4) above) be construed as meaning with a view to, or otherwise in connection with promoting or procuring electoral success for the party, that is to say, the return at the election of all or any of the candidates on the list.

  (3) Section 90A above shall have effect with the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (5)—
  "(5) In this Part, and in Part III of this Act, any reference (in whatever form) to promoting or procuring a candidate's election at an election, or to promoting or procuring electoral success for a party, includes doing so by prejudicing the electoral prospects of other candidates or parties at the election."." ").
  The noble Lord said: These amendments have all been previously spoken to with Amendment No. 195D. I beg to move.
  Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 128 [Meaning of "candidate"]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 253G:
  Page 81, leave out lines 36 to 47 and insert—
  ("""candidate" shall be construed in accordance with section 118A below;".

  () After section 118 of that Act there shall be inserted—

  Meaning of candidate.
  118A.—(1) References to a candidate in this Part of this Act shall be construed in accordance with this section (except where the context otherwise requires).
  (2) A person becomes a candidate at a parliamentary election—

  (a) on the date of—

  (i) the dissolution of Parliament, or

  (ii) in the case of a by-election, the occurrence of the vacancy,

  228
  in consequence of which the writ for the election is issued if on or before that date he is declared by himself or by others to be a candidate at the election, and

  (b) otherwise, on the day on which he is so declared by himself or others or on which he is nominated as a candidate at the election (whichever is the earlier).

  (3) A person becomes a candidate at an election under the local government Act—

  (a) on the last day for publication of notice of the election if on or before that day he is declared by himself or by others to be a candidate at the election, and

  (b) otherwise, on the day on which he is so declared by himself or by others or on which he is nominated as a candidate at the election (whichever is the earlier),

  or, in the case of a person included in a list of candidates submitted by a registered political party in connection with an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, on the day on which the list is submitted by the party."").
  The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak to Amendment No. 256A and opposition Amendments Nos. 254 and 255.
  Clause 128 amends the definition of a "candidate" in Section 118 of the 1983 Act. The definition of a candidate is relevant to determining, among other things, the date from which the restrictions on incurring election expenses apply.
  The new definition as set out in the Bill makes two substantive changes. First, in relation to the definition of both a parliamentary and local government candidate, the reference to a candidate who is elected is omitted. This will ensure that sitting MPs and councillors are treated on an equal footing with other candidates. The second change is that the definition of a local government candidate now includes a starting time for a person's candidature; namely, the last day for the publication of the notice of election—that is, 25 working days before the date of the election.
  However, we believe that a further refinement to the definition of a candidate is needed. The definition as set out both in the existing Section 118 of the 1983 Act and in that section as amended by Clause 128 provides that a person becomes a parliamentary candidate either when he is nominated as a candidate or when he is declared by himself or by others to be a candidate following the issue of the writ or following dissolution, whichever is the earlier. But what about a person who declares himself to be a candidate before the date of the dissolution? As the definition stands, such a person would be deemed to be a candidate only from the date of his formal nomination whereas he ought to be treated as a candidate with effect from the date of the dissolution. Amendment No. 253G makes this adjustment to the definition.
  The new Section 118A of the 1983 Act also incorporates a modification to the definition of a local government candidate to fit the circumstances of the election of the London members of the GLA. Amendment No. 256A makes a consequential drafting change.
  Opposition Amendments Nos. 254 and 255 would restrict the definition of a candidate to a person nominated as a candidate. This has the advantage of simplicity but at the price, we think, of weakening the controls on candidates' election expenses. The amendments could have the effect of reducing the period during which the limits on a candidate's expenses would apply. Clearly the more a person can spend on his election campaign before he formally becomes a candidate the less he will be constrained by the expenditure limits. In the case of a by-election, a declared candidate could spend freely on his campaign for some three months following the occurrence of the vacancy and be bound by the expenditure controls on nominated candidates only in the final two weeks before the date of the poll. We do not think that that is the right approach. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have tabled two amendments in this group. As the Minister rightly said, they delete the new words which have appeared. I understood what the noble Lord said and why these words appear. I understand the argument if someone who has been declared by his party as the candidate starts to spend money.
  My other worry is the use of the words,
  "is declared by others to be a candidate"
  and what we mean by "others". Perhaps I may give an example although it may be slightly flippant. Let us say that in an election people know that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, is likely to be the Labour candidate. He cannot be now but let us allow a little fiction. Let us say that the party believes in some underhand methods of electioneering—I shall not name them; it could say, "We are the others and we declare Lord Bassam will be the Labour Party candidate", and his expenses clock then starts ticking. That is a possibility as the Bill stands and perhaps we should look at it to prevent unfair tactics being used by opponents—or by the candidate whom the noble Lord has beaten in the selection process.
  Lord Bach: Perhaps I may make an arrangement with the noble Lord; I do not want to call it a deal. If he withdraws his amendments, I promise to look at the point that he has raised.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am happy to do that.
  [Amendments Nos. 254 to 256 not moved.]
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 256A:
  Page 82, line 1, leave out ("amendment made by this section does") and insert ("amendments made by this section do").
  Clause 128, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 129 [Corrupt and illegal practices: consequences for persons convicted of such practices]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 256B:
  Page 83, line 42, at end insert—

  Incapacity to hold public or judicial office in Scotland.
  173A.—(1) Subject to section 174 below, a person convicted of a corrupt practice—

  (a) shall for the period of five years beginning with the date of his conviction, be incapable of holding any public or judicial office in Scotland, and

  (b) if already holding such an office, shall vacate it as from that date.

  (2) Subsection (1) above applies in addition to—

  (a) any incapacity or other requirement applying to the person by virtue of section 173 above, and

  (b) any punishment imposed on him under section 168 above."").

  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 257:
  Page 83, line 43, leave out subsection (2).
  Clause 129, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 130 [orrupt and illegal practices: election petitions etc]:
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 258:
  Page 84, line 4, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Lord said: With the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I beg to move.
  Clause 130, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 16 [Amendments relating to election petitions]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 258A to 258G:
  Page 162, line 9, at end insert—
  (".—(1) For section 137 there shall be substituted—

  Petition at issue.
  137.—(1) The petition shall be at issue as from the relevant time, as defined by subsection (2) below.
  (2) In this section "the relevant time" means—

  (a) where the petitioner gives the security for costs required by section 136 above by a deposit of money equal to the amount of the security so required, the time when the security is so given; and

  (b) in any other case, the time when—

  (i) the time prescribed for the making of objections under section 136(4) above expires, or

  (ii) if such an objection is made, that objection is disallowed or removed,

  whichever happens later."

  (2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) does not have effect in relation to election petitions in respect of local government elections in Scotland.
  . In section 138(1) (list of petitions) the words from ", a copy of which" onwards shall be omitted.").

  231
  Page 162, line 10, at end insert—
  ("(2) The repeals made by sub-paragraph (1) do not have effect in relation to election petitions in respect of local government elections in Scotland.").
  Page 162, line 14, leave out paragraph 5 and insert—
  (". In section 159 (candidate reported guilty of corrupt or illegal practice) —

  (a) subsection (2) shall be omitted, and

  (b) for subsection (3) there shall be substituted—

  "(3) A candidate at a local government election in Scotland who is reported personally guilty or guilty by his agents of any corrupt or illegal practice shall also be incapable from the date of the report of holding the office of councillor of any local authority in Scotland—

  (a) for ten years, if reported personally guilty of a corrupt practice,

  (b) for three years, if reported guilty by his agents of a corrupt practice, or

  (c) during the period for which the candidate was elected to serve or for which if elected he might have served, if reported personally guilty or guilty by his agents of an illegal practice,

  and if at the date of the report he holds any such office, then the office shall be vacated as from that date." ").
  Page 162, line 29, at end insert ("as from the date of the report").
  Page 162, line 35, at end insert—
  ("(5A) Subject to the provisions of section 174 but in addition to any incapacity arising by virtue of subsection (4) above, a candidate or other person reported by an election court personally guilty of a corrupt practice—

  (a) shall for the period of five years beginning with the date of the report, be incapable of holding any public or judicial office in Scotland, and

  (b) if already holding such an office, shall vacate it as from that date.").

  Page 162, line 38, at end insert ("or to any public office in Scotland"").
  Page 162, leave out line 44 and insert—
  ("(b) in the definition of "public office" for " "public office" means any office—" substitute " "public office" in relation to Scotland means any office held in Scotland—".").

  Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 131 [Election campaigns and proceedings: miscellaneous amendments]:
  [Amendment No. 259 not moved.]
  Clause 131 agreed to.
  Schedule 17 [Election campaigns and proceedings: miscellaneous amendments]:
  Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 259A to 259V
  Page 163, line 6, at end insert—

  Payment of election expenses
  2A.—(1) Section 73 (payment of expenses through election agent) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) For subsection (1) there shall be substituted—
  "(1) Subject to subsection (5) below, no payment (of whatever nature) shall be made by—

  (a) a candidate at an election, or

  (b) any other person,

  in respect of election expenses incurred by or on behalf of the candidate unless it is made by or through the candidate's election agent."
  (3) Subsection (4) shall be omitted.
  (4) For subsection (5) there shall be substituted—
  "(5) This section does not apply to—

  (a) any expenses which are, in accordance with section 74(1) or (1B), 78(5) or 79(2) below, paid by the candidate;

  (b) any expenses which are paid in accordance with section 74(3) below by a person authorised as mentioned in that provision;

  (c) any expenses included in a declaration made by the election agent under section 74A below; or

  (d) any expenses which are to be regarded as incurred by or on behalf of the candidate by virtue of section 90A(4A)(b) below."

  (5) In subsection (6)—

  (a) for "any payment, advance or deposit" there shall be substituted "any payment (of whatever nature)"; and

  (b) the words from ", or pays" to "as mentioned above," shall be omitted."

  2B.—(1) Section 74 (candidate's personal expenses, and petty expenses) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) For the sidenote there shall be substituted "Expenses which may be paid otherwise than by election agent."
  (3) After subsection (1A) there shall be inserted—
  "(1B) The candidate at an election may also pay any election expenses (other than expenses falling within subsection (1) above) which were incurred by him or on his behalf and in respect of which payment falls to be made before the date on which he appoints (or is deemed to have appointed) an election agent."
  (4) In subsection (2), for "personal expenses paid as mentioned above" there shall be substituted "expenses paid as mentioned in subsection (1) or (1B) above".
  (5) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
  "(5) Sections 78 and 79 below do not apply to expenses which, in accordance with any provision of this section, are paid otherwise than by the candidate's election agent."
  2C. After section 74 there shall be inserted—

  Expenses incurred otherwise than for election purposes.
  74A.—(1) Neither section 73 above nor sections 78 and 79 below shall apply to election expenses—

  (a) which are incurred by or on behalf of a candidate otherwise than for the purposes of the candidate's election, but

  (b) which by virtue of section 90A(1) below fall to be regarded as election expenses by reason of the property, services or facilities in respect of which they were incurred being used for the purposes of the candidate's election.

  (2) The candidate's election agent shall make a declaration of the amount (determined in accordance with section 90B below) of any election expenses falling within subsection (1) above.
  (3) In this section "for the purposes of the candidate's election" has the same meaning as in sections 90A to 90C below."
  2D.—(1) Section 78 (time for sending in and paying claims) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsections (1) and (2) for "within" wherever it occurs there shall be substituted "not later than".").
  Page 163, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert —
  ("(2) In subsection (1) for the words from "in the form" onwards there shall be substituted "containing as respects that candidate—

  (a) a statement of all election expenses incurred by or on behalf of the candidate; and

  233

  (b) a statement of all payments made by the election agent together with all bills and receipts relating to the payments." ").

  Page 163, line 18, after ("(3)") insert—

  ("(a) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—

  "(a) a statement of all payments made—

  (i) by the candidate in accordance with section 74(1) or (1B) above, or

  (ii) by any other person in accordance with section 74(3) above,

  together with all bills and receipts relating to any such payments made in accordance with section 74(1B) or 74(3);", and.

  (b)")

  Page 163, line 20, leave out ("90C(3)") and insert ("74A(2) above or 90C(1A)").
  Page 163, line 20, at end insert—
  ("(da) a declaration of the amount of expenses which are to be regarded as election expenses incurred by or on behalf of the candidate by virtue of section 90A(4A)(b) below;").

  Page 163, line 23, at end insert ("; and
  ("(f) a statement of the amount, if any, of money provided by the candidate from his own resources for the purpose of meeting election expenses incurred by him or on his behalf." ").

  Page 163, line 23, at end insert—
  ("() Subsection (4) shall be omitted.").
  Page 163, line 23, at end insert—
  ("() In subsection (7), the words from "; and" onwards shall be omitted.").
  Page 163, line 24, leave out from ("subsection") to ("The") in line 25 and insert ("(10) there shall be inserted—
  "(10A)").
  Page 163, line 26, leave out second ("the") and insert ("any (or any description of)").
  Page 163, line 27, at end insert—
  ("() Subsection (11) shall be omitted.").
  Page 163, line 36, leave out (", and any accompanying documents, to the Electoral Commission") and insert ("to the Electoral Commission and, if so requested by the Commission, he shall also deliver to them a copy of any accompanying documents.").
  Page 164, line 11, at end insert—
  ("() In section 90 (election expenses at elections where election agent not required)—

  (a) in subsection (1)(a), for "section 76(1) above has" there shall be substituted "section 76(1B) above and sections 90A(4A) and 90C below have";

  (b) in subsection (1)(b), for "sections 72 to 75 and 78 to 89 above" there shall be substituted "sections 71 A to 75 and 78 to 89 above, and Schedule 2A to this Act.";

  (c) for subsection (1)(c) there shall be substituted—

  "(c) section 76A(2) has effect as if it referred, in substitution for the provisions set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection, to paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to this Act.";
  and
  (d) in subsection (2) for "sections 72 to 89" there shall be substituted "sections 71A to 89".").

  Page 164, line 17, leave out paragraph 9 and insert—
  (". For section 110 there shall be substituted—

  Details to appear on election publications.
  110.—(1) This section applies to any material which can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure the election of a candidate at an election (whether or not it can be so regarded as intended to achieve any other purpose as well).
  (2) No material to which this section applies shall be published unless—

  (a) in the case of material which is, or is contained in, such a document as is mentioned in subsection (4), (5) or (6) below, the requirements of that subsection are complied with; or

  (b) in the case of any other material, any requirements falling to be complied with in relation to the material by virtue of regulations under subsection (7) below are complied with.

  (3) For the purposes of subsections (4) to (6) below the following details are "the relevant details" in the case of any material falling within subsection (2)(a) above, namely—

  (a) the name and address of the printer of the document;

  (b) the name and address of the promoter of the material; and

  (c) the name and address of any person on behalf of whom the material is being published (and who is not the promoter).

  (4) Where the material is a document consisting (or consisting principally) of a single side of printed matter, the relevant details must appear on the face of the document.
  (5) Where the material is a printed document other than one to which subsection (4) above applies, the relevant details must appear either on the first or the last page of the document.
  (6) Where the material is an advertisement contained in a newspaper or periodical—

  (a) the name and address of the printer of the newspaper or periodical must appear either on its first or last page; and

  (b) the relevant details specified in subsection (3)(b) and (c) above must be included in the advertisement.

  (7) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the Electoral Commission, by regulations make provision for and in connection with the imposition of requirements as to the inclusion in material falling within subsection (2)(b) above of the following details, namely—

  (a) the name and address of the promoter of the material; and

  (b) the name and address of any person on behalf of whom the material is being published (and who is not the promoter).

  (8) Regulations under subsection (7) above may in particular specify—

  (a) the manner and form in which such details must be included in any such material for the purpose of complying with any such requirement;

  (b) circumstances in which—

  (i) any such requirement does not have to be complied with by a person of any description specified in the regulations, or

  (ii) a breach of any such requirement by a person of any description so specified is not to result in the commission of an offence under this section by that person or by a person of any other such description;

  (c) circumstances in which material is, or is not, to be taken for the purposes of the regulations to be published or (as the case may be) published by a person of any description so specified.

  (9) Where any material falling within subsection (2)(a) above is published in contravention of subsection (2), then (subject to subsections (11) and (12) below) —

  (a) the promoter of the material,

  235

  (b) any other person by whom the material is so published, and

  (c) the printer of the document,

  shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a tine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
  (10) Where any material falling within subsection (2)(b) above is published in contravention of subsection (2), then (subject to regulations made by virtue of subsection (8)(b) above and to subsections (11) and (12) below)—

  (a) the promoter of the material, and

  (b) any other person by whom the material is so published,

  shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
  (11) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove—

  (a) that the contravention of subsection (2) above arose from circumstances beyond his control; and

  (b) that he took all reasonable steps, and exercised all due diligence, to ensure that that contravention would not arise.

  (12) Where a candidate or his election agent would (apart from this subsection) be guilty of an offence under subsection (9) or (10) above, he shall instead be guilty of an illegal practice.
  (13) In this section—

  "print" means print by whatever means, and "printer" shall be construed accordingly;

  "the promoter", in relation to any material to which this section applies, means the person causing the material to be published;

  "publish" means make available to the public at large, or any section of the public, in whatever form and by whatever means.

  (14) For the purpose of determining whether any material is material such as is mentioned subsection (1) above, it is immaterial that it does not expressly mention the name of any candidate."").
  Page 164, line 32, leave out ("90C") and insert ("90D").
  Page 164, line 32, at end insert (", and
  (b) in the definition of "money", for "sections 113 and 114 above" there shall be substituted "sections 71A, 113 and 114 above and Schedule 2A to this Act".").

  Page 164, line 32, at end insert—
  (" . In Schedule 3, in the form of declarations—

  (a) in paragraph 3, the words "in relation to my [the candidate's] personal expenses", and

  (b) paragraph 4,

  shall be omitted.").
  Page 164, line 43, after ("Order") insert ("1980").
  Page 165, line 2, at end insert—
  ("() For section 86(10) and (11) there shall be substituted—
  "(10) Article 60 of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (appeals from county courts) shall apply in relation to any order of a county court in Northern Ireland made by virtue of this section as it applies in relation to any such decree of a county court as is mentioned in paragraph (1) of that Article."

  () For section 106(9) there shall be substituted—
  "(9) Article 60 of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (appeals from county courts) shall apply in relation to any order of a county court in Northern Ireland made by virtue of subsection (3) above as it applies in relation to any such decree of a county court as is mentioned in paragraph (1) of that Article."

  () For section 167(5) there shall be substituted—
  "(5) Article 60 of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (appeals from county courts) shall apply in relation to any order of a county court in Northern Ireland made by virtue of this section as it applies in relation to any such decree of a county court as is mentioned in paragraph (1) of that Article."").

  236
  Page 165, line 2, at end insert—

  References to documents used in legal proceedings
  .—(1) In section 69 (office of election agent and sub-agent)—

  (a) in subsection (1), for "writs, summonses and" substitute "legal process and other"; and

  (b) in subsection (3), for "writ, summons or" substitute "legal process or other".

  (2) In section 85(4) (penalty for sitting or voting where no return and declarations transmitted), for—

  (a) "the writ or other process" (in both places), and

  (b) "a writ or other process",

  substitute "legal process".
  (3) In section 121(5) (presentation and service of parliamentary election petition), for the words from "as nearly" to "such other" substitute "in such".
  (4) In section 136(2) (security for costs), in paragraphs (a) and (b), for "on summons, directs" substitute "directs on an application made by the petitioner".
  (5) In section 184(1) (service of notices), for 'summons, notice or" substitute "notice, legal process or other".
  (6) In section 202(1) (general provisions as to interpretation), after the definition of "legal incapacity" insert—
  ""legal process" means a claim form, application notice, writ, summons or other process;".
  (7) In Schedule 4 (election expenses at certain local elections in England and Wales), in paragraph 4(3) (penalty for sitting or voting where no return and declarations transmitted), for "a writ or other process" substitute "legal process".").
  Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 132 agreed to.
  7.45 p.m.
  Schedule 18 [Control of political donations by companies: new Part XA of Companies Act 1985]:
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 260:
  Page 165, line 8, at end insert ("qualifying cash donations and qualifying non-cash donations made by companies to registered parties and to other EU political parties").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I may indicate that we are prepared to take away the fourth of the amendments relating to the de minimis threshold and bring back our own similar amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his first three amendments.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is a good try by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I shall try to be brief in exchange for that but I have two or three points that I want to make. In fact, I shall be content if they are answered by letter but I believe that the points should be answered.
  With this series of amendments, I am looking at Schedule 18. It is essential that it is clear and transparent as to which donations constitute political donations and which do not. The scope of the meaning of an EU political organisation is, I suggest, too wide and too uncertain. For example, does that include the Industry Forum of the Labour Party, the Enterprise

  237
  Forum of the Conservative Party, think tanks like the IPPR or the Institute of Economic Affairs? Similarly, what is the standing of NGOs like Friends of the Earth?
  Lord Eatwell: As chairman of IPPR, I should point out that the IPPR is a charity.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I take that back, but I am making a point about think tanks and the donations from companies to think tanks. If the noble Lord waits for a few seconds, he will see the point that I am coming to.
  If the scope of the new regime is not clear, there is every likelihood that there may be problems with the donations to those bodies. Companies may not wish to fall foul of the legislation because they have failed to receive prior shareholder approval for a donation to a body which they do not believe is a political organisation but they are concerned about it. So we are seeking clarification on that. In fact, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has underlined the need for clarification on the subject.
  That is the first point. My second point relates to Amendment No. 264. I am sorry that my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie cannot be here but this issue has arisen in particular with regard to the Parliamentary Group for Energy Studies. The chairman of the group, Mr Ashok Kumar, the MP, wrote to Mr Paddy Tipping on 4th February seeking clarification as to whether those all-party groups would be treated as political organisations. Some all-party groups receive donations from companies and so on. Of course, if they are considered to be political groups, they would fall within the provisions of the Bill and would require prior shareholder approval.
  In his reply on 24th March, Mr Tipping confirmed that, as the Bill was worded, all-party groups would be affected and the definition would be looked at afresh. My information is that that decision was taken last Easter, and that would exclude all-party groups from the Bill. My noble friend was told by the Minister that the Government intended to clarify the scope of Schedule 18 so that all-party groups would not be considered. But nothing much has happened and here we are, in Committee, and no amendment seems to be forthcoming.
  I hope that I have made my points as quickly as possible. Schedule 18 needs a little thought and some clarification. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thought that this might be simpler than it has turned out to be. The amendments would narrow the definitions used in Part IX to exclude from the provisions of the Bill donations to political organisations other than political parties and company expenditure on advertising or promotional material. The second objective is to introduce a de minimis threshold, which we agree with in part.
  238
  We need to remind ourselves what this part of the Bill is about. The Neill committee said that it wanted a broad definition of political organisations, because otherwise companies would have undesirable scope to evade the legal requirements on political donations. We cannot support the amendments on that point.
  I am not sure that we can deal with the noble Lord's points because of the way in which the amendments have been set out, but we agree that there is a good case for a de minimis threshold. We should like to introduce an amendment on Report to exclude all-party groups from Part IX. That might help. We will deal with the issue in Amendment No. 280 of a de minimis limit for company authorisation, not for disclosure. That probably addresses the issue.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister. We shall read what he has said and look forward to an amendment on Report, as well as any clarification that he can give on any of my other points, including the de minimis point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 261 to 264 not moved.]
  Lord Blackwell Lord Blackwell moved Amendment No. 264A:
  Page 165, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert—
  ("(b) any organisation whose intention is to affect public support for a registered political party or referendum campaign, where intention to affect support is indicated by the criteria set out below—

  (i) whether the organisation gives financial support to registered parties or referendum campaigns,

  (ii) whether the organisation undertakes activities that are specifically aimed at canvassing support for registered parties or referendum campaigns as opposed to influencing the overall political and policy debate,

  (iii) whether the organisation is constrained to support policies endorsed by one political party or is free actively to develop and promote ideas independently of any political party.

  (iv) whether membership, subscription or equivalent status is restricted according to political affiliation or is open to all,

  (v) whether political parties have any role in appointing officers of the organisation.").

  The noble Lord said: The aim of the amendment is to provide a possible solution to some of the issues that my noble friend Lord Mackay has just raised. I declare an interest as the chairman of the Centre for Policy Studies, which is a think tank that may be affected in some of the ways that my noble friend suggested.
  There is still uncertainty about the definition of an "EU political organisation" and what requirements there might be on forward permission from shareholders. The Bill defines an EU political organisation as a registered party or,
  "any other organisation which carries on … activities of any political nature in the United Kingdom or any other member State".
  "Activities of any political nature" is a broad definition. As my noble friend suggested, a number of other organisations apart from think tanks could be

  239
  caught, including pressure groups or trade associations. Indeed, it is difficult to think of many organisations with a role in public life that could not be described as carrying out activities of a political nature in some way.
  If the definition is not clear, it will be left to companies and their boards to decide on a case-by-case basis whether they believe that theirs is a political organisation under the terms of the Bill. If they decide on the evidence available that it is not, they lay themselves open to challenge. That creates unhelpful uncertainty and may, on the margins, discourage corporations from giving to organisations to which we might wish them to donate. The onus is on the Government to clarify the issue by setting out their intentions rather than leaving it to other organisations, and ultimately the law, to interpret.
  The amendment puts forward one way of drawing the line between political organisations and others. The issue is open to considerable debate. Our intention was to include those organisations that are fronts for registered political parties, by which I mean organisations that seek to persuade people to vote for a party or candidate, but to exclude organisations that are independent of political parties and seek merely to develop policies or pursue political debate. That seems to be a clear possible dividing line. The formulation has been discussed by various think tanks and is broadly supported by, among others, the Centre for Reform, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the New Policy Institute and the Social Market Foundation and it has been discussed in broad terms with officials. The question is whether the amendment, which is meant to be helpful by setting out some criteria to define the amorphous term "political organisation", is an acceptable way of drawing the line and giving greater certainty.
  Charities were mentioned earlier. Some organisations are charities and some are not. That would be one way of drawing a line, but the criteria by which the Charity Commissioners decide on charities are not necessarily the right ones in this case, any more than they are necessarily the right people to ask to delineate what is a political organisation. That is a side issue to the Government providing a clearer definition of an EU political organisation. I ask the Government to look at the words that I have used. I hope that they, or some similar form of words, will be acceptable. If the Government do not accept them, I should like to hear that they are prepared to put forward an alternative form of words to meet the same objective. I beg to move.
  Lord Harris of High Cross: Before I launch into a formidable speech in support of the amendment, may I ask the Minister whether the Government intend to table an amendment to meet the anxiety that the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, has expressed and which is shared by many people, including by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and me? I understood the Minister to say that earlier.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes, that is our intention. We want to retain the principles of accountability and
  240
  transparency that Neill has rightly set down on this tricky set of issues. The amendment is very helpful. We cannot sign up to the wording and there are complexities, which the noble Lord has acknowledged, about what is charitable or non-charitable work. I am sure that other noble Lords will also acknowledge those problems. We should like to consider the points that have been made so far and table a government amendment to address them. I am confident that we will provide a working definition of what is "political" in these circumstances.
  Given that there are three or four think tanks considering the issue, together we might come up with a workable solution that will give effect to the noble Lord's intentions, although think tanks do riot always solve problems, do they?
  8 p.m.
  Lord Eatwell: I hope that they do. I should like to address this issue, first, specifically with regard to think-tanks. The development of think-tanks in the UK has proceeded apace over the past decade. Some venerable think-tanks—for example, the Fabian Society and the Institute of Economic Affairs, with which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was connected—have existed since the 1950s or even earlier and have made a major contribution to British political life.
  Over the past 10 or 20 years a number of other think-tanks have developed and have, I believe, contributed significantly to British political debate. They are a positive element and most are funded by voluntary contributions of one form or another. It would be unfortunate if voluntary contributions to thinking about policy and policy affairs were limited in some way by this Bill.
  Therefore, I urge the Government to consider think-tanks, which of course are necessarily political. I refer not only to think-tanks such as the Centre for Policy Studies, which is not a charity, the Institute of Economic Affairs, which, I believe, is, and the IPPR, which I chair and which is a charity. Those are clearly interested in political issues and policy. I think also perhaps of Amnesty International or even the British Red Cross, which occasionally take strong political positions and which might be caught if the Government are not terribly careful in their drafting of the Bill.
  The main division which exists in the Bill at present is between charities and non-charities. Of course, a clear divide within the remit of the Charity Commission is that an organisation can be political but it must not be party political. Whether or not that is an appropriate divide, I am not sure. I am clear that think-tanks and other organisations which are not party political should not be included within the restrictions which are imposed on political funding in this Bill. That would be entirely inappropriate and the Charity Commissioners give us a clear solution to that problem.
  However, some organisations are, in a way, party political. They develop ideas within a very party political context but can also provide an important

  241
  spark in political debate in this country. For example, after the Second World War, the allies established think-tanks for each of the main German political parties as an important part of the democratisation process in Germany. Those research organisations, including Stiftung, with which we are all familiar, have played a tremendously important part in the development of German democracy, even though they are party political.
  Therefore, I ask the Government to accept that the Charity Commissioners provide us with one step along the road to defining clearly the position of think-tanks as non-party political. I also ask them to be sensitive to the role of more party-political think-tanks, which can play an important role in our democracy today and whose funding may be placed in jeopardy if we take too hard a line on this Bill.
  Lord Newby: I declare an interest as a trustee at the Centre for Reform, which, like all think-tanks, is engaged in policy development. I believe that it is important to stress that all think-tanks, particularly as they have developed, have shown an increasing willingness and enthusiasm to involve in their work people who are not members of a party, even if they come from a party background.
  The Centre for Reform, for example, which not surprisingly is run by and serves to promote principally ideas which Liberal Democrats find acceptable, has recently published a book about EU enlargement. Most of the people who contributed to that publication were academics. So far as I know, they had no particular party allegiance. They were specialists in agricultural policy, foreign policy and so on. We like to think that the book that they produced helps to develop public debate on a major political issue. Therefore, I believe that it is important that think-tanks are given every opportunity to raise funds and to develop without being constrained in the same way as political parties.
  The Centre for Reform was established after the last general election. We had to make a choice as to whether or not to become a charity. We decided that we would not do so on the basis that we were not absolutely sure how the Charity Commissioners would view us and that it would be easier not to be because we would be less constrained in what we did. We try very hard to carry out a great deal of work with a small amount of resource. I suspect that in that we have much in common with every think-tank in the land.
  Therefore, I am wary of any proposal that will make it less easy for us to raise funds. Often we are talking about relatively small amounts of money. The Centre for Reform often approaches individuals or organisations and asks for small numbers of thousands of pounds to produce a publication, or possibly £10,000 or £20,000 to help to support a little research. In my view, anything that makes that type of fund-raising more difficult diminishes not only our ability but the ability of those who are thinking about public policy in this country to help in the development of public policy.
  242
  I, and no doubt other Members of the Committee, were heartened by what the Minister said. We look forward to discussing with him the possibility of another amendment. I believe that this is an important issue. I hope that on Report an amendment will be tabled on which we can all agree. I hope that such an amendment will make it absolutely clear that people who want to give money to think-tanks can do so without the constraints which understandably are placed on the giving of funds to political parties.
  Lord Howe of Aberavon: I wish to make one comment on behalf of another comparable organisation which next year will have been founded 50 years ago to,
  "combat the influence of the Fabian Society";
  namely, the Bow Group. It is characteristic of an organisation drawn from every wing of the scattered Conservative Party and makes contributions to a wider debate in exactly the same way as the Fabian Society has done. I do not believe that it has quite the same claim to some of the more high-sounding institutions. I am not even sure if it has the same intellectual distinction as, for example, the Institute of Economic Affairs. However, it is one of many which one should handle with care.
  When I spoke months ago on the Second Reading of this Bill, I was deeply apprehensive about the intrusion of this type of legislation into what I might call the "nooks and crannies" of political life and thought in this country. This is a very good example of it. Therefore, I am delighted to know that the Minister is considering all those organisations.
  Lord Blackwell: I am grateful for and encouraged by the support for this amendment around the Chamber. I am also grateful for and encouraged by what the Minister said and I look forward to hearing what he has to say on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 265 to 267 not moved.]
  Schedule 18 agreed to.
  Clause 133 [Disclosure of political donations and expenditure in directors' report]:
  [Amendments Nos. 268 to 276 not moved.]
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 277:
  Page 86, leave out lines 9 to 36.
  The noble Lord said: I can be brief. This may well lead back to the previous discussion. I have a question. Here we find charitable donations, in the midst of a Bill whose Long Title does not seem to include anything to do with charitable donations. I wonder why that is here and if it is consistent with the Long Title of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Bach: The speaking note states that I can quickly settle the issue here. That is always rather a hostage to fortune. At present, Part I of Schedule 7 to

  243
  the Companies Act, which requires the disclosure of political and charitable donations by a company in the directors' report, is framed as an integral whole dealing with both types of donation. Clause 133 redrafts that part to amend and expand the provisions relating to political donations. In doing so, it was necessary to restate separately the existing provisions relating to charitable donations. No changes of substance have been made.
  The effect of the amendment would be to repeal the existing requirements on the disclosure of charitable donations by companies without replacing them. It may be that the noble Lord thought that we were imposing new charitable disclosure requirements; we are not. This is only to make the new part of the Companies Act look as it should.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, which I understand. Perhaps I may suggest that he does not give me an answer now but that he considers with his officials whether this is legitimate within the Long Title of the Bill. I understand what the Minister is doing but I wonder whether it is legitimate. However, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 278 and 279 not moved.]
  Clause 133 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 280 not moved.]
  8.15 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 280A:
  Before Clause 134, insert the following new clause—

  References to documents used in legal proceedings

    REGISTRATION OF OVERSEAS ELECTORS
    (" .—(1) In section 2 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 (Registration of British citizens overseas), at the beginning of subsection (1) there is inserted "Subject to subsections (1A) and (1B),".
    (2) After subsection (1) there is inserted—

    "(1A) A person may not be registered in a register of parliamentary electors for any constituency or part of a constituency in pursuance of an overseas elector's declaration unless he has been so registered within the previous 12 months.

    (1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply to a person who qualified as an overseas elector in relation to parliamentary election within the previous 5 year period, and such a person may be registered in accordance with subsection (1) above if—

    (a) during that 5 year period they have been registered at least once in a register of parliamentary electors for any constituency or part of a constituency in pursuance of an overseas elector's declaration (whether or not that registration has subsequently lapsed), and

    (b) they register within 12 months of the end of that 5 year period."").

    The noble Lord said: At the risk of putting down a hostage of fortune, this is the last major amendment in the Committee stage of the Bill. The Ministers are probably delighted; frankly, so am I. Amendment No. 280A deals with the provision for overseas electors. As Members of the Committee know, the Bill, as drafted, seeks to reduce the qualifying period to register as an overseas elector from 20 years to 10 years. I believe
    244
    that this is the first law since universal franchise which seeks to disenfranchise those who are eligible to vote at present.
    My amendment seeks to do something very different. Roughly speaking, it is the "use it or lose it" concept. I believe that I have considerable support for this around the Chamber. Clause 134 proposes to reduce the qualifying period during which British citizens living overseas can vote in UK elections to 10 years. That was not a recommendation of the Neill Committee, nor was it in the Government's White Paper.
    There are roughly 3 million British citizens living abroad. I believe that their views in this matter have not been taken into account. Like many noble Lords, I have had a great deal of correspondence in this matter. I shall not bore Members of the Committee with this, but they will recall from other Bills that I have a daughter who lives in Italy, and so on and so forth. I am not principally pursuing their interests, although I am their proxy, so their votes arc pretty safe. It also allows me to go to a polling station and remember the days before I was elevated to this place.
    In evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee in 1998, the Home Office stated that nearly all the representations it has received on this issue wish to keep and, indeed increase, the qualifying period. When the 20 year limit was introduced in 1989, Alistair Darling, now the Secretary of State for Social Security, speaking on behalf of the then Opposition, said that 20 years was a sensible compromise. He argued that,
    "it is now clear that a number of people will leave this country … but will still maintain a lively interest in the affairs of the country".
    I believe that remains the case.
    In the other place there was cross-party consensus that the Bill, as drafted, was unacceptable and that something should be done which would enable voters to have an enduring connection with the United Kingdom and to continue to have a right to vote for as long as they continue to register each year; that is, the "use it or lose it" part.
    My amendment will enable those British citizens living abroad to continue indefinitely to vote and participate in the electoral processes of the United Kingdom. Each overseas elector would need to register during, and at any time during, his or her first five years of living abroad. But to maintain their voting rights they would have to continue to register after the five-year period in each subsequent year. If they failed to register in any year after that, they would lose the right to vote.
    I hope that that gives some comfort to those who wish to see the 20-year period remain in place or be extended. I hope that it will also please those who think that giving people 20 years in which they could register—for the first time, I suppose—is far too liberal. I believe that this is a reasonable compromise.
    I have consulted widely and been lobbied fairly extensively on this matter. I believe that my amendment has cross-party support. I have had support from surprising quarters. In a fax dated 17th October, Labour International stated:
    "No doubt the letterhead is unexpected but, on behalf of the overseas members of the Labour Party, please let me express our sincere thanks for your stand on the issue of overseas voting. We fully support your amendment and would be pleased to join in a world-wide cross-party lobbying effort in this connection".
    Indeed, Labour International goes further and states that my amendment is superior to the Government's proposals. I have a number of other letters on the subject. Some are from Brussels. A number of people who work for the Community in various aspects have lifelong connections with this country and feel that they would be disfranchised. I know that some people think that perhaps we should narrow this down to include only people working in Brussels and for official bodies. However, I believe that is unfair and wrong. Many other British citizens may be working for companies abroad, but indirectly they may still be working for Great Britain or the United Kingdom plc. I am not in favour of making any distinction. We should treat all our citizens living abroad in the same way.
    I shall not continue at any length. Global economy, increasing travel and the free flow of people around the world suggest that we should not go back 10 years and reduce the period to the first 10 years. We should extend it on the "use it or lose it" principle. Many people from other countries who come to this country can register to vote here and vote. I refer to the Commonwealth, for example. It seems to me to be wrong to treat British citizens who go abroad in such a negative way and not accept that, if they are interested enough to keep registering year on year, they should continue to be allowed to participate in our democratic process. I beg to move.
    Lord Goodhart: I shall shortly speak to Amendment No. 280E in this group, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord McNally and myself. However, before I do so, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 280A. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, pointed out, this matter was not considered by the Neill Committee. Therefore, in this short debate I speak on behalf of my party and do not in any sense wear a Neill Committee hat.
    The view of the Liberal Democrats was that we originally put forward a proposal that the vote should be retained for a period of only five years.
    We accepted that 10 years was a reasonable compromise. We voted for 10 years in the other place and have not tabled any amendment to propose a reduction in that period. But 20 years is too long. It amounts to nearly half of an average working life. Those who are out of this country for a continuous period of 20 years have generally lost contact with what goes on here to a degree that makes it inappropriate that they should play a part in parliamentary elections.
    246
    Many people are employed commercially overseas and a large proportion of them will not be abroad continuously for 20 years or indeed 10 years. They will normally serve a period abroad and then return to this country for a while and perhaps go abroad again if they are working for a multi-national. But that is a commercial decision to make a career overseas with a commercial organisation.
    The purpose of Amendments Nos. 280E and the similar Amendment No. 280EA, is to exempt a small group of people from the time limit. At present Section 14 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 allows people to register without time limit if they are serving abroad as members of the Armed Forces, in other positions in the service of the Crown—mostly in the Diplomatic Service—or as employees of the British Council. We believe that that provision should be extended to cover those who are employed by various institutions of the European Union and other international organisations to which the United Kingdom belongs. Some Members of your Lordships' Committee—they were present earlier but are no longer in their places—regard service with a European Union institution as being virtually akin to treachery. We do not; in fact, we regard them as serving the United Kingdom by serving as employees of an organisation to which the United Kingdom belongs.
    But this issue goes wider than the European Union. We believe that similar treatment should be given to those who serve the United Nations or any of its various agencies; and those who serve the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund or the other smaller and less well-known international organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member. On the grounds that those people are in public service to a public which includes the United Kingdom, they should be entitled to maintain their place on the register of electors in the United Kingdom.
    Lord Dubs: I should like to comment briefly on the general context in which these amendments are being considered before going on to speak to the specific amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Gould, Amendment No. 280EA.
    I have some sympathy with the comment "use it or lose it", used by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. It has a certain integrity and ensures that people who are interested in retaining a commitment to voting are able to retain the right to vote. However, at the time when the 20-year period was introduced, I wondered whether that was the right way to go. In that regard I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
    The right to vote is a responsibility and a privilege. It surely ought not to be given to those who have thrown their lot in with another country. Those who are committed to this country and are abroad for reasons of service to this country or as employees of international organisations of which this country is a member, have not actually cut their ties with this country. But I do not know whether an individual who has cut all his ties with this country should continue to have the privilege of being able to vote in our elections.

    247
    After all, how will those who have no residence in this country and who have been away for 10 years or more know what the election issues are? Presumably they do not pay taxes here and therefore will not be involved in some of the real subject matter of an election. So I worry about giving people who are away for such long periods the right to vote when they no longer have any links with this country beyond originating here. They have thrown their lot in with another country and are no longer part of our political system.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may make two points and ask the noble Lord if he would like to address them. First, if a person has no links and no interest, he will probably not continue to register to vote every year. That was my reason for saying that they must register every year. They cannot suddenly think, "Oh there's an election coming up. I'd better register". If they missed registering last year, then they have missed out forever.
    Secondly, the noble Lord obviously has not heard of the Internet where people abroad can now read British newspapers and watch the BBC as quickly and as readily as can we who live here. So I can assure the noble Lord that their interest can be maintained on a day-to-day basis.
    Lord Dubs: That is why I said I had some sympathy with the "use it or lose it" point. And it is certainly possible, even if one has not heard of the Internet—I actually use it quite frequently—to obtain newspapers originating in this country. However, that is not the same as playing a part in the political life of this country. Those people do not pay taxes in this country; they have no day-to-day involvement with the issues that affect us, whether it is the health service, public transport or whatever. That is why I ask whether people who have cut their ties with this country should be entitled to the privilege of taking part in our elections? I believe that if they have cut those ties for quite some time they should not.
    That brings me to Amendment No. 280EA, which is similar to Amendment No. 280E. They seek to make an exception for those people from this country who work for international organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member. In doing that, they are continuing to retain their links with this country and are therefore entitled to say that they have not thrown their lot in with another country; they are still committed to the political process of this country.
    That is why it is anomalous that British subjects who work for the European Commission or the European Parliament and are based in Brussels or Strasbourg should lose their right to vote, when those who work for the Foreign Service or the British Council do not. There is an inconsistency in that and both amendments seek to put that right. I hope the Government will consider them sympathetically.
    Lord Williamson of Horton: I rise to support firmly but briefly Amendment No. 280A moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
    248
    The only reason that the Government could propose, as they do in this Bill, to change the current situation is that they believe that British citizens living abroad effectively lose their links with the United Kingdom after a shorter period than is provided for under the current rules. My experience, including 19 years working outside the United Kingdom, does not support that view. British citizens abroad generally consider the political situation in the United Kingdom to be either interesting or inspiring, or sometimes otherwise, roughly in the same proportion as British citizens in the United Kingdom.
    The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, effectively responds to the Government's concern because if a United Kingdom citizen resident abroad must make the effort to register every year after his first five years abroad, he demonstrates his continued concern as a United Kingdom elector. I like the amendment because it is generally applicable.
    I could also support Amendment No. 280E tabled by the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Goodhart, because it seems to me desirable that British citizens working in international, including EU, institutions should continue to feel concerned about national elections. However, I should prefer a rule of general application to all British citizens resident abroad as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. But I do not agree with the text of the Bill as it stands. It is not satisfactory and we must go in a direction which to some degree maintains the position of those who already have rights abroad. I am generally against measures which disfranchise United Kingdom citizens.
    8.30 p.m.
    Lord Bowness: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mackay and I hope that the Government will reconsider the position. Overseas voters are overseas for a variety of reasons, not necessarily because they have thrown in their lot with another country. People go abroad for employment, to be near their family and for health reasons. The fact that people live in other countries does not mean that they want to cut their ties with the United Kingdom. I do not believe that we should be seeking to withdraw from citizens of the United Kingdom one of their rights; namely, to vote in a parliamentary election.
    Indeed, it would be somewhat anomalous for those of our citizens who went to live within the European Union because, if they were deprived of a right to vote in a parliamentary election, they would be deprived of a vote at a particular level of election within the EU. Member states still play an important part within the EU.
    When fewer people want to be involved in the democratic process, I do not believe that we should be reining in our citizens' rights. If we do, we shall be joining a minority of countries. I am grateful to the Library for carrying out some research for me. I shall not take up the Committee's time by going through it in detail but perhaps I may examine the provisions of the other members states of the EU. Italy allows its

    249
    citizens to keep their rights to vote even when living permanently abroad. When looking at the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Spain, Austria and Belgium, which gave the right to vote abroad in 1998, one sees a general acceptance of that provision. I understand that Germany allows its citizens to vote if they are resident within any state of the Council of Europe. Denmark is more limited and, according to the information I was given, France and Portugal make provision for overseas citizens within their parliaments. It seems that only Greece, Ireland and Luxembourg have no provisions.
    If we begin to restrict the right in the way suggested by the Government, we shall be moving to the end of the spectrum where countries are less generous towards their citizens rather than to the end where they are more generous. That would be a matter of great regret.
    Lord Tomlinson: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. There is a strange paradox because, at a time when the Home Office is conducting all kinds of experiments in local government elections to try to persuade electors in this country to use their votes in greater abundance, the Home Office is trying to reduce the right to vote of those who are not only working abroad serving their country but who are vigorously fighting to retain their right to vote. It is not a sign that people have cut themselves off from their country, but the noble Lord's evidence from New York illustrates the pressure that is being put on both the public and private sectors.
    Many of the 3 million citizens who live abroad choose not to exercise their votes. Those who feel themselves alien from the process do not participate in it now and there is no reason to believe that they will in future. But to reduce the qualifying period from 20 years to 10 is about as retrograde a step as one could imagine a Parliament taking in the name of democracy.
    If there is nothing wrong with the present system, do not seek to change it. I should be happy if my noble friend said that he has thought again, that 10 years is a silly provision and that a longer period will suffice. The longer period should be that which we already have and my noble friend must establish a case for changing what exists. But if he is insistent on changing the system, the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is eminently reasonable. It applies to both the public and private sectors; those who serve their country in the public sector and those who serve the interests of this country by working in British companies abroad. I do not see the distinction; it is entirely artificial.
    On that basis, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is preferable to that which seeks to limit the provision to people working in the public sector. I hope that my noble friend will realise that it is not an issue about which a few people have suddenly become concerned; there has been a long-standing expression of concern. I hope that he recognises that three is disquiet in the Committee that after so much
    250
    concern being expressed so publicly over such a long period the Home Office has been so slow to react. I hope he will reassure us tonight that serious thought has been given to the matter and that he has proposals which will allay some of the anxiety. If he does not, I shall find the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, vastly preferable to that which is in the Bill.
    Lord Howe of Aberavon: I want to speak in support of both amendments. To some extent, each has its own merits, which have been well canvassed.
    Perhaps I may start from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. The existing provisions have not been used by 3 million people; they have been used by a much smaller number. It is not as though out system is about to be overwhelmed by hoards of quasi-aliens, cut-off Britons, voting in unpredicted numbers. Therefore, any move which restricts those who are entitled to exercise the right is entirely negative.
    I can support the Liberal Democrat amendment because it extends provisions which already exist in relation to British Crown servants, British Council people and one other category to other people in public service overseas in all the international organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, as a creature of that kind, is Exhibit A in tonight's debate. He has done immense service to this country in his work in the European Commission. We had to work very hard to secure people in that position and we did it in the national interest.
    Moreover, as regards the European Community, Members of the Committee will know of the European fast stream provisions which are designed to secure long career-running British public servants in the European institutions. It would be foolish not immediately to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
    However, one is then left with the discrimination not only between the public service, however widely one defines it, and business but between the public service and worthy, often young, people in nongovernmental, charitable organisations working overseas for long periods of time. I was struck by the somewhat diffident rejection of the case I put to the Home Office prior to the Recess. I expect that other Members of the Committee have received the same response. The letter that I received from Mr Mike O'Brien, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, concluded, rather encouragingly:
    "As you say, the Government has indicated that it is ready to consider amendments to clause 134 if there was a consensus in favour of an alternative proposal. I have yet to see signs of such a consensus emerging".
    Listening to tonight's debate, the consensus that I support is that both amendments cover the entire field of deserving characters. Mr O'Brien goes on to say:
    "This is particularly so in the case of the proposal that existing arrangements for Crown servants … be extended to cover those employed by international organisations".

    251
    I believe that the use of the expression "particularly so" means that the Government are anxious to achieve a solution for those in international organisations. He goes on to say:
    "In the Commons there was some sympathy for the view that it would be difficult to argue that similar treatment should not also be afforded to those employed overseas by, for example, British businesses or charities".
    The letter appears to solve its own problem. The Government say that they seek consensus. They would be happy to have an arrangement for those in the public sector. However, they would be a little hesitant about it because it would discriminate, for example, against those working for British businesses or charities. If I may be allowed to use Latin in this place rather than in the law courts, cadit quaestio: the question falls because it answers itself. If the Minister indicated a willingness to accept both amendments, that would go even further in the direction of common sense than the alternative proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that there should be a return to square one. I hope that the Committee will demonstrate a massive consensus, sufficient to satisfy the Home Office in its tentative search for such a thing, by accepting both amendments without hesitation. I very much look forward to hearing exactly how the Minister can possibly rebut that clutch of arguments.
    8.45 p.m.
    Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I am in such agreement with the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken that I need not repeat many of the points that he made. What we have before us is a package, and both amendments can be seen in that light. Perhaps the fact that they are all grouped together for one debate identifies that fact. I hope my noble friend will say that the Government will go away and look at this as a package and return with relevant amendments.
    Electoral registration officers have pointed out to me one or two technical problems about the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, which I am sure they would want to put right. However, in the other place the Government said that if there was consensus, they would give this matter serious consideration. I have read the debate in the other place, and the objection appeared to be that if one extended the categories as outlined in the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dubs, the provision would relate only to Crown servants who now have that facility. That is not true. British Council staff are not Crown staff and yet that extension has been made in their case. It has also been said that the "use it or lose it" argument does not apply to those who work in the commercial field. I believe that it can and should. That argument is also unacceptable. However, I do not believe that in any of the amendments before us we have the ideal. I hope that the Minister will go away and think about this again.
    Lord Grenfell: I believe that the proposal to treat this as a package by my noble friend Lady Gould is
    252
    eminently sensible. My sympathies are with the "use it or lose it" amendment, but even more so with the two Liberal Democrat amendments. Having served for 30 years in an international organisation, those amendments have a special appeal to me. From my experience, the British members of staff never lost interest in what was going on back in their own country. Although some of my noble friends on these Benches may suggest that I should have my head examined, in my 10th year at the World Bank I became a founder member of the supporters group of the New York City Social Democrat Party. We took a very great interest in what went on in United Kingdom politics.
    I should not like people to believe that the amount of time spent abroad working for an international institution automatically reduces someone's interest in his home country. I cannot say that I have received any correspondence from Conservatives abroad: all of it has gone to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. However, I have received a great deal of correspondence from Labour supporters abroad who have a very good point. I very much hope that my noble friend will look at this as a package and see whether something can be done to produce a better arrangement than that which is now in the Bill.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, a hero of Socialist International, and we have Exhibit A on the Benches behind me. I am confounded by all of the responses. In this matter we responded to the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on electoral law and administration in October 1998. We said in another place that we sought consensus on this matter. Originally, we believed that 10 years would attract consensus. Clearly, that is not so.
    Although I have particular difficulty with the amendments before us, I believe that the "use it or lose it" approach may turn out to be very complex and administratively difficult for electoral registration officers, as my noble friend Lady Gould hinted. If one adopts a class exemption and says that certain categories of UK citizens abroad will have an entitlement to vote but others will not, that leads us into difficulties in terms of discrimination. Where does one draw the boundary as to who should be included in any amendment to what is offered at the moment?
    Having made those observations, I am content to go away and contemplate this matter further. My own preference is to continue to have a qualifying period. Having heard the arguments in Committee this evening, I accept that both five years and 10 years are unacceptable periods. However, a qualifying period is at least a clean, neat solution. I am tempted to believe that there should be some kind of compromise. I should like to consult on the possibility of having an extended qualifying period of, say, 15 years. That is perhaps on the generous side of a compromise between 20 years as originally proposed and five years as suggested by the Home Affairs Select Committee.

    253
    I do not want to extend the debate any further. I have heard the powerful voices in the Committee on this matter. I am not sure that we can achieve a solution in the form of a package, given some of the complications involved in the various amendments. I should like Members of the Committee to reflect on that. However, we shall return with an amendment which is rather more generous in terms of its qualification than that which is currently before the Committee. With that, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment so that we can give the matter further consideration.
    Lord Goodhart: Having opposed the first amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I have been impressed by the degree of support for it expressed on all other sides of the Committee. We should be prepared to consider a package, provided that it included both something in the form of our amendment, or the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the "use it or lose it" amendment. Obviously, we should like to see the detail of what is proposed before we commit ourselves to supporting it, but in principle we should look favourably on a package.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken the trouble to add their voices in support of the principles involved in this issue. The Minister recognises that he has no friends for the position in which he currently finds himself. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that my amendment would cater for all the people he is concerned about. I am not one of those people who think that working for a European institution is treachery; nor do I think that working for private enterprise in any of its forms abroad as a British citizen is treachery. I should be very reluctant to sign up to anything which differentiated between various classes of British citizens. I have a friend—
    Lord Goodhart: Does the noble Lord accept that under Section 14 of the Representation of the People Act there is differentiation between Crown servants and others?
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, indeed, the noble Lord is correct. But that probably has a long historical connection back to the days of the Empire, military serving abroad, the diplomatic corps and so on.
    I have a friend who has taught English to Italians in Piacenza for the past 40 years or so. His interest in this country is as great as it was the day he left. Indeed, in order to find gossip about our mutual friends I usually have to phone Italy to receive the news about what is happening around me. Usually he is astonishingly accurate. I had better not go into what he tells me about friends. But he certainly keeps me right about who is married to whom or who is still married to whom, which is perhaps more important these days.
    254
    I think there is general agreement which the Minister has taken on board. I am content to listen to points and have discussions about the complexities of my amendment. But I am attracted to the two principles: first, you have to establish your interest reasonably soon after you leave this country; and, secondly, you must keep up that interest year on year. There is also a third point, if I may add that. You can actually have your interest for as long as the job takes, because increasingly people are working on these posts for a very long time. I mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and there are many people who work in Europe and other parts of the world. They work away for quite a long time because it is part of their career. But they never actually lose contact with this country.
    I am grateful to the Minister for listening to us attentively and carefully. I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 134 agreed to.
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 280B:
    After Clause 134, insert the following new clause—

  Pre-consolidation amendments

    PRE-CONSOLIDATION AMENDMENTS
    .—(1) Schedule 1 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 (system of election etc.) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In paragraph 5 (disqualification for office of Member of the European Parliament), in sub-paragraphs (4)(a) and (4A)(a), after "section 3" there shall be inserted "or 3A".
    (3) In paragraph 6 (judicial proceedings as to disqualification under paragraph 5), in sub-paragraph (1)(b), after "section 3" there shall be inserted "or 3A".").
    The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 280B, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 325. The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 280B makes some technical adjustments to Schedule 1 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978. The need for these adjustments has arisen in the process of drafting a Bill to consolidate the European Parliamentary Elections Acts of 1978, 1993 and 1999. That Bill was given a Second Reading in your Lordships' House on 15th June.
    Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 1 to the 1978 Act are concerned with the disqualification of MEPS. In each case they refer to an MEP returned under Section 3 of the 1978 Act. That section is concerned with elections in Great Britain. We need to add a reference to Section 3A, which is concerned with elections in Northern Ireland. This is a small but important defect which it would be timely to correct in advance of the consolidation of the European Parliamentary Elections Acts.
    To accommodate the new clause, a change to the Long Title of the Bill is needed, hence Amendment No. 325. I beg to move.
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 280C:
    After Clause 134, insert the following new clause—

  Election material

    DETAILS TO APPEAR ON ELECTION MATERIAL
    .—(1) No election material shall be published unless—

    (a) in the case of material which is, or is contained in, such a printed document as is mentioned in subsection (3), (4) or (5), the requirements of that subsection are complied with; or

    (b) in the case of any other material, any requirements falling to be complied with in relation to the material by virtue of regulations under subsection (6) are complied with.

    (2) For the purposes of subsections (3) to (5) the following details are "the relevant details" in the case of any material falling within subsection (1)(a), namely—

    (a) the name and address of the printer of the document;

    (b) the name and address of the promoter of the material; and

    (c) the name and address of any person on behalf of whom the material is being published (and who is not the promoter).

    (3) Where the material is a document consisting (or consisting principally) of a single side of printed matter, the relevant details must appear on the face of the document.
    (4) Where the material is a printed document other than one to which subsection (3) applies, the relevant details must appear either on the first or the last page of the document.
    (5) Where the material is an advertisement contained in a newspaper or periodical—

    (a) the name and address of the printer of the newspaper or periodical must appear either on its first or last page; and

    (b) the relevant details specified in subsection (2)(b) and (c) must be included in the advertisement.

    (6) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the Commission, by regulations make provision for and in connection with the imposition of requirements as to the inclusion in material falling within subsection (1)(b) of the following details, namely—

    (a) the name and address of the promoter of the material; and

    (b) the name and address of any person on behalf of whom the material is being published (and who is not the promoter).

    (7) Regulations under subsection (6) may in particular specify—

    (a) the manner and form in which such details must be included in any such material for the purpose of complying with any such requirement;

    (b) circumstances in which—

    (i) any such requirement does not have to be complied with by a person of any description specified in the regulations, or

    (ii) a breach of any such requirement by a person of any description so specified is not to result in the commission of an offence under this section by that person or by a person of any other such description;

    (c) circumstances in which material is, or is not, to be taken for the purposes of the regulations to be published or (as the case may be) published by a person of any description so specified.

    (8) Where any material falling within subsection (1)(a) is published in contravention of subsection (1), then (subject to subsection (10))—

    (a) the promoter of the material,

    (b) any other person by whom the material is so published, and

    256

    (c) the printer of the document, shall be guilty of an offence.

    (9) Where any material falling within subsection (1)(b) is published in contravention of subsection (1), then (subject to regulations made by virtue of subsection (7)(b) and to subsection (10))—

    (a) the promoter of the material, and

    (b) any other person by whom the material is so published,

    shall be guilty of an offence.
    (10) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove—

    (a) that the contravention of subsection (1) arose from circumstances beyond his control; and

    (b) that he took all reasonable steps, and exercised all due diligence, to ensure that that contravention would not arise.

    (11) In this section—

    "election material" has the meaning given by section 80(2A);

    "print" means print by whatever means, and "printer" shall be construed accordingly;

    "the promoter", in relation to any election material, means the person causing the material to be published;

    "publish" means make available to the public at large, or any section of the public, in whatever form and by whatever means.").

    Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 280D:
    After Clause 134, insert the following new clause—

    BROADCASTING OF LOCAL ITEMS DURING ELECTION PERIOD
    (" . For section 93 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 there shall be substituted—

  Broadcasting of local items during election period.
  93.—(1) Each broadcasting authority shall adopt a code of practice with respect to the participation of candidates at a parliamentary or local government election in items about the constituency or electoral area in question which are included in relevant services during the election period.
  (2) The code for the time being adopted by a broadcasting authority under this section shall be either—

  (a) a code drawn up by that authority, whether on their own or jointly with one or more other broadcasting authorities, or

  (b) a code drawn up by one or more other such authorities;

  and a broadcasting authority shall from time to time consider whether the code for the time being so adopted ray them should be replaced by a further code falling within paragraph (a) or (b).
  (3) Before drawing up a code under this section a broadcasting authority shall have regard to any views expressed by the Electoral Commission for the purposes of this subsection; and any such code may make different provision for different cases.
  (4) The Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority shall each do all that they can to secure that the code for the time being adopted by them under this section is observed in the provision of relevant services; and the British Broadcasting Corporation and Sianel Pedwar Cymru shall each observe in the provision of relevant services the code so adopted by them.
  (5) For the purposes of subsection (1) "the election period", in relation to an election, means the period beginning—

  (a) (if a parliamentary general election) with the date of the dissolution of Parliament or any earlier time at which Her Majesty's intention to dissolve Parliament is announced,

  257

  (b) (if a parliamentary by-election) with the date of the issue of the writ for the election or any earlier date on which a certificate of the vacancy is notified in the London Gazette in accordance with the Recess Elections Act 1975, or

  (c) (if a local government election) with the last date for publication of notice of the election,

  and ending with the close of the poll.
  (6) In this section—

  "broadcasting authority" means the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority or Sianel Pedwar Cymru;

  "candidate", in relation to an election, means a candidate standing nominated at the election or included in a list of candidates submitted in connection with it;

  "relevant services"—

  (a) in relation to the British Broadcasting Corporation or Sianel Pedwar Cymru, means services broadcast by that body;

  (b) in relation to the Independent Television Commission, means services licensed under Part I of the Broadcasting Act 1990 or Part I of the Broadcasting Act 1996; and

  (c) in relation to the Radio Authority, means services licensed under Part III of the Broadcasting Act 1990 or Part II of the Broadcasting Act 1996."").

  The noble Lord said: These amendments reform the out-moded restrictions on broadcasting during an election, contained in Section 93 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, spoke eloquently on this matter at Second Reading. I trust that the Government's proposals will be to her liking.
  As Section 93 stands, a single candidate can effectively block coverage of local issues by agreeing not to be in a broadcast during an election period. Amendment No. 280D will replace the existing restrictions with a requirement on the broadcasting authorities to draw up a cost of practice with respect to the participation of candidates in terms of dealing with a constituency or election in question.
  There would be a requirement on the broadcasting authorities to have regard to the views of the electoral commission when drawing up or reviewing their code of practice. The replacement Section 93 is, as I understand it, supported by the broadcasting authorities and by a number of opposition parties.
  I think our consultation is complete on this. I am not entirely sure that that is the case. But I believe that this series of government amendments currently attracts broad support. Of course we shall continue to ensure that there is active consultation and that we have it right. I do not wish to say anything more about the detail of the amendments. They speak for themselves. I beg to move.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I had rather hoped that my noble friend Lady Fookes would have dealt with this amendment. I understand that we are content with it and are grateful to the Government for bringing it forward.
  [Amendments Nos. 280E and 280EA not moved.]
  Clause 135 [General function of Commission with respect to monitoring compliance with controls imposed by the Act etc.]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 280F:
  Page 87, leave out lines 10 to 12 and insert—
  ("(b) the restrictions and other requirements imposed by other enactments in relation to—

  (i) election expenses incurred by or on behalf of candidates at elections, or

  (ii) donations to such candidates or their election agents.").

  The noble Lord said: These are government amendments which relate to the general enforcement powers of the electoral commission. They establish the enforcement machinery set out in Clauses 135 to 138 of the Bill. Without these amendments, the legislation will not work. They are there to give it teeth. I hope these amendments will find favour with the Committee. Perhaps the best way to proceed is for me to answer particular points where Members of the Committee are uncertain of the effect of the amendments.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 281 and 281A:
  Page 87, line 14, at end insert ("unless and to the extent that the Scottish Ministers by order so provide.
  (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the reference in subsection (1)(b) to any enactment shall include a reference to any enactment comprised in or in an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
  (4) Section 146(5) shall apply to an order made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (2) as it applies to an order made by the Secretary of State under this Act and the reference in that section to enactments shall include a reference to any enactment comprised in or in an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
  (5) The power of the Scottish Ministers to make an order under subsection (2) shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.
  (6) The Scottish Ministers shall reimburse the Commission for any expenditure incurred by them which is attributable to the exercise of any function conferred by virtue of an order made under subsection (2).").
  Page 87, line 14, at end insert—
  ("() In this section and sections 136 and 138—

  "election" means a relevant election for the purposes of Part II;

  "election agent" includes a sub-agent.").

  Clause 135, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 136 [Supervisory powers of Commission]:
  9 p.m.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 281B and 281C:
  Page 88, line 34, leave out from ("to") to ("as") in line 35 and insert ("the income and expenditure of candidates within paragraph (b) of that subsection and their election agents").
  Page 88, line 37, leave out from ("with") to end of line 39 and insert ("restrictions and other requirements falling within section 135(1)(b)").
  Clause 136, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 137 [Civil power for failure to deliver documents etc.]:
  [Amendment No. 281D not moved.]
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 282 to 285:
  Page 89, line 9, at end insert—
  ("(za) the requirements of section (Notification of changes in party's officers etc.)(4) or (Registration of minor parties)(3) are not complied with in relation to any notification required to be given by the treasurer or (as the case may be) registered leader of a registered party;").

  Page 89, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert ("any notification required to be given by the treasurer of a registered party;").
  Page 89, leave out lines 34 to 38 and insert—
  ("(a) the end of the period within which—

  (i) the notification mentioned in subsection (1)(za) or (c) was required to be given to the Commission, or

  (ii) the document mentioned in subsection (1)(a), (b), (d), (e) or (f) was required to be delivered to them,").

  Page 90, line 7, leave out from ("subsection") to ("a") in line 9 and insert ("(3)(a)").
  The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
  [Amendment No. 286 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 286A and 287:
  Page 90, line 21, leave out ("(3)(a)(i) shall be read as referring to") and insert ("(3)(a) shall be read as referring to the end of").
  Page 90, line 32, leave out ("(1)(a)") and insert ("(1)(za) or (a)").
  The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
  Clause 137, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 138 [General offences]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 287A to 287L:
  Page 90, line 43, after ("individual") insert ("which is or is liable to be required to be produced for inspection under section 136(1), and does so").
  Page 91, line 15, at end insert—
  ("() In subsections (1) to (3) any reference to a supervised organisation or individual includes a reference to a former supervised organisation or individual.").
  Page 91, line 15, at end insert—
  ("() Subsections (1) and (3) shall apply in relation to a person who is (or has been)—

  (a) a candidate at an election (other than a local government election in Scotland), or

  (b) the election agent for such a candidate,

  as they apply in relation to a supervised individual (or a former supervised individual), except that in their application in relation to any such person any reference to any of the provisions of this Act includes a reference to any other enactment imposing any restriction or other requirement falling within section 135(1)(b).").
  Page 91, line 17, after ("is") insert ("a regulated donee,").
  260
  Page 91, leave out line 21 and insert ("or (in the case of such a party with accounting units) the central organisation of the party or any of its accounting units;").
  Page 91, line 21, at end insert—
  ("() a regulated donee which is a members association,").

  Page 91, line 24, at end insert ("a person who is (or has been)").
  Page 91, line 25, after ("party") insert ("(other than a minor party)").
  Page 91, line 25, leave out from ("or") to end of line 26 and insert ("the central organisation of such a party, the treasurer of the party,
  () in relation to any accounting unit of such a party, the registered treasurer of the unit,").

  Page 91, line 26, at end insert—
  ("() in relation to a regulated donee which is a members association, the responsible person for the purposes of Schedule 6,").

  Page 91, line 30, at end insert—
  ("() "regulated donee" and "members association" have the same meaning as in Schedule 6;").

  The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
  Clause 138, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 139 [Inspection of Commission's registers etc.]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 288:
  Page 91, line 36, leave out ("21") and insert "(The new registers)").
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 288A:
  Page 92, line 14, at end insert—
  ("() Where any register falling within subsection (1) or any document falling within subsection (6) is held by the Commission in electronic form, any copy—

  (a) made available for public inspection under subsection (2), or

  (b) supplied under subsection (4),

  must be made available, or (as the case may be) supplied, in a legible form.").

  The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may tell the Committee that I am speaking also to Amendment No. 318A. These are two technical amendments to Clauses 139 and 150. Amendment No. 288A simply ensures that, where the electoral commission holds its various registers—for example, the registers of political parties—in electronic form, they must be made available to the public in a legible format. The Committee may think that that is rather a statement of the obvious but we place a similar requirement on political parties and other regulated organisations. Amendment No. 318A adds the definition of a local government election. The definition as it stands essentially covers the election of councillors. As such, it does not take into account directly elected mayors whose election is provided for in Part II of the Local Government Act 2000. The amendment plugs the gap. The principal effect of the amendment will be to apply the restrictions on the use of candidates' descriptions contained in Clause 20 to elections for the return of an elected mayor. As we discussed earlier in the

  261
  Committee's proceedings, these restrictions are an essential mechanism for bringing all organisations which put up candidates at an election within the controls on parties' income and expenditure. I beg to move.
  Clause 139, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 140 agreed to.
  Schedule 19 [Penalties]:
  [Amendments Nos. 289 to 307 not moved.]
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 307A to 307C:
  Page 174, leave out lines 21 to 24.
  Page 175, line 20, column 1, leave out from ("Section") to ("without") in line 21 and insert ("(Details to appear on referendum material) (8) or (9) (printing or publishing referendum material").
  Page 175, line 22, at end insert—

  ("Section (Details to appear on material) (8) or (9) (printing or publishing election material without details of printer or publisher)

  On summary conviction: election Level 5")

  The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
  [Amendments Nos. 308 to 313 not moved.]
  Schedule 19, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 141 to 145 agreed to.
  Clause 146 [Orders and regulations]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 313A:
  Page 95, line 4, leave out ("15(6)") and insert ("(Transfer of functions of Boundary Commissions)(3)").
  [Amendments Nos. 314 and 315 not moved.]
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 315A to 316A:
  Page 95, line 7, at end insert—
  ("() section (Sponsorship)(4),").

  Page 95, line 8, at end insert—
  ("() section 65(1),").

  Page 95, line 12, at end insert—
  ("() paragraph 2A(4) of Schedule 6,").

  [Amendment No. 317 not moved.]
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 317A and 317B:
  Page 95, line 13, leave out ("or paragraph 7 of Schedule 12,") and insert—
  ("() paragraph 2A(4) of Schedule 10,
  () paragraph 7 of Schedule 12,").

  Page 95, line 14, at end insert ("; or
  ( ( ) paragraph 2A(4) of Schedule 14;").

  Clause 146, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 147 agreed to.
  Clause 148 [Minor and consequential amendments, repeals and savings]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 317C and 317D:
  Page 95, line 37, after ("elections)") insert (", or
  (b) of provisions amending any of those provisions,").

  Page 95, line 39, leave out subsection (4).
  Clause 148, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 149 agreed to.
  Clause 150 [General interpretation]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 317E to 319A:
  Page 96, line 12, at end insert—
  (""body", without more, means a body corporate or any combination of persons or other unincorporated association;").

  Page 96, line 13, at end insert—
  (""business" includes every trade, profession and occupation;").

  Page 96, line 24, at end insert—
  (""the Great Britain register" and "the Northern Ireland register" mean the registers of political parties referred to in section (The new registers)(2)(a) and (b) respectively;").

  Page 96, line 30, at end insert ("or an election under Part II of the Local Government Act 2000 for the return of an elected mayor").
  Page 96, line 33, at end insert—
  (""minor party" means (in accordance with section (Registration of minor parties)(1)) a party registered in the Great Britain register in pursuance of a declaration falling within section 25(1A)(d);").

  Page 97, line 7, at end insert—
  ("() References in this Act (in whatever terms) to payments out of public funds are references to any of the following, namely—

  (a) payments out of—

  (i) the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Consolidated Fund or the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland, or

  (ii) money provided by Parliament or appropriated by Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly;

  (b) payments by—

  (i) any Minister of the Crown, the Scottish Ministers or any Minister within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,

  (ii) any government department (including a Northern Ireland department) or any part of the Scottish Administration, or

  (iii) the National Assembly for Wales;

  (c) payments by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body or the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission; and

  (d) payments by the Electoral Commission;

  and references in this Act (in whatever terms) to expenses met, or things provided, out of public funds are references to expenses met, or things provided, by means of any such payments.").

  The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
  Clause 150, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 319B:
  After Clause 150, insert the following new clause—

  Broadcasting of local items during election period.

    INTERPRETATION: DONATIONS
    (" .—(1) This section has effect for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to donations.
    (2) Where any provision of this Act refers to a donation for the purpose of meeting a particular kind of expenses incurred by or on behalf of a person of a particular description—

    (a) the reference includes a reference to a donation for the purpose of securing that any such expenses are not so incurred; and

    (b) a donation shall be taken to be a donation for either of those purposes if, having regard to all the circumstances, it must be reasonably assumed to be such a donation.

    (3) Subsections (4) and (5) apply to any provision of this Act which provides, in relation to a person of a particular description ("the donee"), that money spent (otherwise than by or on behalf of the donee) in paying any expenses incurred directly or indirectly by the donee is to constitute a donation to the donee.
    (4) The reference in any such provision to money so spent is a reference to money so spent by a person, other than the donee, out of his own resources (with no right to reimbursement out of the resources of the donee).
    (5) Where by virtue of any such provision any amount of money so spent constitutes a donation to the donee, the donee shall be treated as receiving an equivalent amount on the date on which the money is paid to the creditor in respect of the expenses in question.").
    Clause 151 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 319C:
    Page 97, line 13, leave out ("Apart from the provisions mentioned in subsection (3),") and insert ("Subject to subsections (3) and (3A),").
    [Amendments Nos. 319D and 320 not moved.]
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 320A to 320E:
    Page 97, line 16, leave out ("provisions referred to in subsection (2) are") and insert ("following provisions come into force on the day on which this Act is passed").
    Page 97, line 18, at end insert ("and paragraph 10(1) and (4) of Schedule 20,").
    Page 97, line 19, after ("section") insert ("and Part II of Schedule (Transitional provisions)").
    Page 97, line 21, at end insert—
    ("(3A) The following provisions come into force at the end of the period of two weeks beginning with the day on which this Act is passed—

    (a) section 32,

    (b) Part I of Schedule (Transitional provisions), and

    (c) any provision of Part II of this Act so far as necessary for the purposes of the operation of any provision of Part I of that Schedule.").

    Page 97, line 29, at end insert—
    ("() The transitional provisions contained in Schedule (Transitional provisions) shall have effect.").

    [Amendment No. 321 not moved.]
    Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 321A:
    Page 97, line 32, after ("11") insert ("and paragraphs 12 and 13 of Schedule (Transitional provisions)").
    Clause 151, as amended, agreed to.
    Schedule 20 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
    Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 321B:
    Page 177, line 22, at end insert—
    ("() In section 29 (payments by and to returning officer), for subsections (3) to (9) substitute—

    "(3) A returning officer shall be entitled to recover his charges in respect of services properly rendered, or expenses properly incurred, for or in connection with a parliamentary election if—

    (a) the services or expenses are of a kind specified in regulations made by the Electoral Commission ("the Commission") with the consent of the Treasury; and

    (b) the charges are reasonable.

    (4) Regulations under subsection (3) above may specify a maximum recoverable amount for services or expenses of any specified description and, subject to subsection (5) below, the returning officer may not recover more than that amount in respect of any such services or expenses.

    (5) In a particular case the Commission may, with the consent of the Treasury, authorise the payment of more than the specified maximum amount for any specified services or expenses if satisfied—

    (a) that it was reasonable for the returning officer concerned to render the services or incur the expenses; and

    (b) that the charges in question are reasonable.

    (6) Any regulations under subsection (3) above which specify a maximum amount for services or expenses of a particular description may provide for that amount to increase at prescribed dates, or after prescribed periods, by reference to such formula or other method of determination as may be specified in the regulations.

    (7) The amount of any charges recoverable in accordance with this section shall be paid by the Commission on an account being submitted to them; but if the Commission think fit they may, before payment, apply for the account to be taxed under the provisions of section 30 below.

    (8) Where the superannuation contributions required to be paid by a local authority in respect of any person are increased by any fee paid under this section as part of a returning officer's charges at a parliamentary election, then on an account being submitted to the Commission a sum equal to the increase shall be paid to the authority by the Commission.

    (9) On the returning officer's request for an advance on account of his charges, the Commission may make such an advance on such terms as they think fit.

    (10) The Commission may by regulations make provision as to the time when and the manner and form in which accounts are to be rendered to the Commission for the purposes of the payment of a returning officer's charges.

    (11) Any sums required by the Commission for making payments under this section shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund."

    () In section 47(1) (loan of equipment for local elections), for "the Secretary of State" substitute "the Electoral Commission".").

    The noble Lord said: This amendment provides for the transfer to the electoral commission of the Home Secretary's functions as regards the reimbursement of expenses to returning officers. I do not believe that this amendment is controversial. I beg to move.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 321C to 322B:
    Page 177, line 22, at end insert—
    ("() In section 52 (discharge of registration duties), after subsection (1) insert—
    "(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the directions which may be given under subsection (1) include directions requiring a registration officer to maintain his registers in a specified electronic form; and any such directions may in particular specify—

    (a) the software which is to be used in connection with the maintenance of the registers in that form;

    (b) the standards in accordance with which that software is to be maintained and updated;

    (c) how information required (by or under any enactment) to be included in the registers is to be recorded and stored in that form."").

    Page 177, line 24, at end insert—
    ("() In section 201 (regulations)—

    (a) in subsection (1), omit the words from "and except" to "section 29(8)";

    (b) in subsection (2), for "section 29(8)" substitute "section 110(7)";

    (c) after subsection (2) insert—

    "(2A) Any regulations under section 110(7) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."; and.
    (d) in subsection (3), after "the Secretary of State" insert ", or the Electoral Commission (in the case of any regulations made by them),". ").

    Page 177, line 34, at end insert—

  Representation of the People Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/1081) and Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/1111)
  .—(1) In regulation 99 of the Representation of the People Regulations 1986 and in regulation 97 of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1986 (modification of provisions about expenses in the Act of 1983) —

  (a) in paragraph (1), for "subsections (3), (4), (4A), (4B), (5), (7) and (8) of section 29" substitute "subsections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9) and (10) of section 29"; and

  (b) in paragraph (3), for "the Secretary of State" substitute "the Electoral Commission".

  (2) The amendments made by sub-paragraph (1) shall not be taken to prejudice the power to make regulations varying or revoking the amended provisions.").
  Page 179, line 30, at end insert—
  ("This paragraph does not include the funding of political parties for the purpose of assisting members of the Northern Ireland Assembly connected with such parties to perform their Assembly duties.").

  Page 180, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("at") in line 24 and insert ("—(1) Section 11 of that Act (revision of procedures in the light of pilot schemes) is amended as follows.
  (2)").

  Page 180, line 26, at end insert—
  ("(3) In subsection (4), for the words from "the report" onwards substitute "every report under section 10 which relates to a scheme making provision similar to that made by the order."").

  Schedule 20, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 21 [Repeals]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 322C to 322K:

  Page 180, line 45, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In section 73, subsection (4), and in subsection (6) the words from ", or pays"to "as mentioned above,".")

  Page 180, line 45, column 3, at end insert—

  ("Section 75(1B) and (1C).")

  Page 181, column 3, leave out lines 2 to 4.

  Page 181, line 4, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In section 81, subsection (4), in subsection (7) the words from "; and" onwards, and subsection (11).")

  Page 181, column 3, leave out lines 10 and 11.

  Page 181, line 12, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In section 138(1), the words from ", a copy of which" onwards.")

  Page 181, line 12, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In section 138(1), the words from ", a copy of which" onwards.")

  Page 181, line 15, column 3, leave out ("to (4)").

  Page 181, leave out lines 18 to 20.

  Page 181, line 20, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In section 201(1), the words from "and except" to "section 29(8)".")

  [Amendment No. 322L had been renumbered as Amendment No. 322FA.]
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 322M to 322V:

  Page 181, line 25, column 3, at end insert—

  (", and (b) in the form of declarations, the words in paragraph 3 "in relation to my [the candidate's] personal expenses" and paragraph 4.")

  Page 181, line 26, column 3, leave out ("and (4)") and insert ("to (5)").

  Page 181, line 26, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 3, paragraphs 6 and 7.")

  Page 181, line 26, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 4, paragraph 35.")

  Page 181, line 29, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 2, in paragraph 8, the words "for which there is a Boundary Commission".")

  Page 181, line 32, at end insert—

  ("1991 c. 11.

  Representation of the People Act 1991.

  The whole Act.")

  Page 181, line 38, column 3, leave out from ("2(1)") to end of line 42 and insert ("to (3).").

  Page 181, line 43, at end insert—

  ("1996 c. 55.

  Broadcasting Act, 1996.

  In Schedule 10, paragraph 29, and in paragraph 30 "or 29".")

  Page 181, line 52, at end insert—

  ("1999 c. 29.

  Greater London Authority Act 1999.

  In Schedule 3, paragraphs 16, 19(4), 21, 24(5), 28, 31 and 35.

  2000 c. 2.

  Representation of the People Act 2000.

  In Schedule 6, paragraph 4.")

  Schedule 21, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 322W:
  After Schedule 21, insert the following new schedule—

  Representation of the People Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/1081) and Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/1111)

  Interpretation of Part I
  1. In this Part of this Schedule—

  "the 1998 Act" means the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998;

  "the appointed day" means the appointed day for the purposes of Part II of this Act;

  "the compliance period" means the period of six weeks beginning with the initial date;

  "emblem", in relation to a party, means an emblem to be used by the party on ballot papers;

  "the initial date" means the date falling 14 days after the day on which this Act is passed;

  "the new registers" means the Great Britain register and the Northern Ireland register.

  Declaration for purposes of section 25
  2.—(1) This paragraph applies to any party registered under the 1998 Act on the initial date.
  (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (7), the party must within the compliance period send to the Commission a declaration falling within section 25(1A).
  (3) In connection with any such declaration, any reference in section 25(1A) or (1B) to a party's applying to be registered shall have effect in relation to the party making the declaration as a reference to its seeking to be registered under Part II of this Act in accordance with paragraph 4(2).
  (4) Where the party sends the Commission a declaration falling within section 25(1A)(a), the party must at the same time send to them, with a view to the registration in the Northern Ireland register of a separate Northern Ireland party—

  (a) such information as would, by virtue of Schedule 1 to the 1998 Act, be required to be provided in connection with an application by the Northern Ireland party to be registered under that Act;

  (b) a notification as to whether the party wishes to be registered in the Northern Ireland register under its existing registered name or under that name with an addition permitted by sub-paragraph (5); and

  (c) a notification as to whether the party wishes—

  (i) any emblem or emblems already registered in respect of it under the 1998 Act to be registered in respect of the Northern Ireland party in that register,

  (ii) any emblem or emblems not so registered under the 1998 Act, but shown in the notification, to be registered in respect of the Northern Ireland party in that register (whether in addition to any emblem or emblems falling within sub-paragraph (i) or otherwise).

  (5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(b) any one of the following, namely "Northern Ireland", "Northern Irish", "Ulster", "Ireland" or "Irish" may be added to a party's existing registered name, at such point as the party may specify in its notification.
  (6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(c) the total number of emblems whose registration may be sought in a notification under that provision is three.
  (7) If the party within the compliance period sends to the Commission a declaration that the party does not intend to contest any relevant election on or after the appointed day—

  (a) nothing in sub-paragraphs (2) to (6) or in paragraphs 3 to 5 shall have effect in relation to the party; and

  (b) the party's registration under the 1998 Act shall terminate on the appointed day.

  (8) References to a party of any description in paragraph 3(1), 4(1) or 5(1) accordingly do not include a party falling within subparagraph (7).

  Draft scheme for purposes of section 23
  3.—(1) This paragraph applies to any party registered under the 1998 Act on the initial date.
  (2) The party must within the compliance period send to the Commission—

  (a) a copy of the party's constitution (within the meaning of section 23); and

  (b) a draft of the scheme which the party proposes, to adopt for the purposes of section 23 if approved by the Commission under that section;

  and subsections (2) to (6) of that section shall apply in connection with any such scheme and its approval by the Commission.
  (3) The party must also within the compliance period give a notification to the Commission under this sub-paragraph.
  (4) A notification under sub-paragraph (3) must—

  (a) give the name and home address of a person to be registered under Part II of this Act as the party's treasurer; and

  (b) be signed by the person registered under the 1998 Act as leader or nominating officer of the party and by the proposed registered treasurer mentioned in paragraph (a).

  (5) Where the party would on registration under Part II of this Act be a party with accounting units, a notification under subparagraph (3) must also give in relation to each accounting unit—

  (a) the name of the accounting unit and of its treasurer, and

  (b) the address of its headquarters or, if it has no headquarters, an address to which communications to the accounting unit may be sent.

  (6) A notification under sub-paragraph (3) may be signed by the same person in his capacity as registered leader or nominating officer and in his capacity as proposed registered treasurer, but in that case it must be apparent from the notification that he is signing it in both of those capacities.
  (7) Where the party sends the Commission a declaration falling within section 25(1A)(a), the provisions of sub-paragraphs (2) to (6) shall be read as applying separately in relation to—

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

  (b) the party to be registered in the Northern Ireland register.

  Registration under Part II of this Act as from appointed day
  4.—(1) This paragraph applies where a party registered under the 1998 Act has complied with the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 so far as applicable to the party.
  (2) The Commission shall secure that, as from the appointed day, one (or each) of the new registers contains such entry in respect of the party (or the two parties mentioned in paragraph 3(7)) as the Commission consider appropriate to reflect—

  (a) the party's existing entry in the register maintained under the 1998 Act and the date when the party was first registered under that Act;

  (b) the declaration sent to the Commission by the party in pursuance of paragraph 2(2);

  (c) any information or notification sent to them in pursuance of paragraph 2(4); and

  (d) the notification given to them in pursuance of paragraph 3(3).

  (3) In connection with the registration in the Northern Ireland register (in accordance with sub-paragraph (2)) of any emblem shown in a notification by a party in pursuance of paragraph 2(4)(c)(ii)—

  (a) section 26(2) shall apply (with any necessary modifications) as it applies in connection with the registration of any emblem in pursuance of a request under section 26, but

  (b) for this purpose any emblem which on the initial date is registered under the 1998 Act in respect of any other party (except one falling within paragraph 2(7)) shall be treated as if it were already registered in the Northern Ireland register.

  (4) As from the appointed day the draft scheme sent to the Commission in pursuance of paragraph 3(2) shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as if it were a scheme approved by the Commission and adopted by the party under section 23 until—

  (a) such time as the scheme, or any revised scheme submitted under subsection (6) of that section, is in fact approved by the Commission under that section, or

  (b) the end of the period of nine months beginning immediately after the end of the compliance period (or such longer period as the Commission may determine in relation to the party),

  whichever is the earlier.
  (5) If the draft scheme, or any such revised scheme, has not been so approved by the end of the period which applies for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(b) —

  (a) the Commission shall forthwith send the party a copy of the scheme incorporating such modifications as the Commission consider appropriate; and

  (b) the scheme, as so modified, shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as if it had been approved by the Commission, and adopted by the party, under section 23.

  (6) Sections 27(1)(d) shall apply in relation to a party registered in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) as if the reference to the time when the party applied for registration were a reference to the appointed day.

  Failure to comply with paragraph 2 or 3
  5.—(1) This paragraph applies where a party registered under the 1998 Act on the initial date fails to send or give to the Commission by the end of the compliance period one or more of the following things, namely—

  (a) any declaration required under paragraph 2(2);

  (b) any information or notification required under paragraph 2(4);

  (c) any document required under paragraph 3(2);

  (d) any notification required under paragraph 3(3).

  (2) In this paragraph—

  (a) "the outstanding material" means the thing or things which as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) was or were not sent or given to the Commission by the end of the compliance period;

  (b) "the transitional period" means the period of three months beginning immediately after the end of the compliance period;

  (c) "the protected period" means the period beginning with the appointed day and ending—

  (i) at the end of the transitional period, or

  (ii) in a case where sub-paragraph (4) applies, on the date determined by the Commission under that sub-paragraph.

  (3) During so much of the transitional period as falls before the appointed day, the party shall be treated for all purposes relating to elections or referendums as if it were not registered under the 1998 Act; and on that day the party's registration under that Act shall terminate without being replaced by any such registration under Part II of this Act as is mentioned in paragraph 4(2).
  (4) However, if the Commission receive the outstanding material before the end of the transitional period, paragraph 4(2) shall have effect so as require the Commission to secure that any such entry as is mentioned in that provision is made in one (or each) of the new registers with effect from such date (not earlier than the appointed day) as they may determine.
  (5) During the protected period sections 25(2) and 26(2) shall have effect as if—

  (a) the name of the party registered under the 1998 Act on the initial date and any emblems so registered in respect of it were registered in respect of the party in each of the new registers, and

  (b) any such registration in the Great Britain register was in respect of each of England, Scotland and Wales.

  (6) In a case where sub-paragraph (4) applies—

  (a) section 23(5) and (6) shall apply in connection with the approval of the party's draft scheme by the Commission; and

  (b) paragraph 4(4) and (5) above shall also so apply, except that in paragraph 4(4)(b) the reference to nine months beginning immediately after the end of the compliance period shall be read as a reference to six months beginning immediately after the end of the protected period.

  Exercise of functions by person appointed as Commission's chief executive
  6. In relation to any time when the functions of the Commission with respect to the receipt of documents or information falling to be sent or given to the Commission under this Schedule are being exercised by a person appointed as the Commission's chief executive under paragraph 11(7) of Schedule 1, references in this Schedule to the Commission, in the context of the sending or giving of such documents or information to them, shall be construed as references to the person so appointed.

  Termination of registration functions of registrar of companies
  7.—(1) The registration functions of the registrar under the 1998 Act shall terminate on the initial date.
  (2) Accordingly, as from that date, the registrar shall not—

  (a) make any new entry in his register, or

  (b) alter or remove any entry already contained in his register,

  and no application or notice may be made or given to him under any provision of that Act.
  (3) Where an application has been made to the registrar under any such provision before the initial date and the application has not been determined by that date, the registrar shall not take any steps (or, as the case may be, any further steps) on or after that date to deal with the application.
  (4) Nothing in section 7 of the 1998 Act shall apply at any time on or after the initial date in relation to a party registered under that Act; and in particular a party's registration under that Act shall not lapse at any such time by virtue of that section.
  (5) The registrar shall provide the Commission with such information and assistance as they reasonably require for the purpose of discharging their duty under paragraph 4(2); and where any information relating to a party registered under the 1998 Act—

  (a) is held by the registrar in connection with the registration of the party under that Act, but

  (b) is not contained in the party's entry in his register,

  the registrar shall provide the Commission with that information in order that it may be held by them, as from the appointed day, in connection with the registration of the party in one or other of the new registers.
  (6) In this paragraph "the registrar" means the registrar of companies (within the meaning of Part II of this Act), and any reference to "his" register is a reference to the register maintained by the registrar under the 1998 Act.

  Termination of registration functions of registrar of companies

  Appointment of Electoral Commissioners
  8. For the purposes of section 3(2)—

  (a) any agreement to a proposed motion for an Address under section 3(1) which has been signified by the Speaker of the House of Commons before the day on which this Act is passed shall be as effective as if signified on or after that day; and

  (b) any consultation with respect to such a motion which has been carried out before that day with such a person as is mentioned in section 3(2)(b) shall be as effective as if carried out on or after that day.

  Orders specifying organisations which are not to count as accounting units
  9. The requirement in section 23(8)(c) for any order under that provision to be made on the recommendation of the Commission shall not apply in relation to any such order which is made before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
  Orders prohibiting use of certain words in parties' registered names
  10. The requirement in section 25(2)(f) for any order under that provision to be made after consultation with the Commission shall not apply in relation to any such order which is made before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

  Confirmation of registered particulars
  11.—(1) This paragraph applies to a party which is registered under Part II of this Act at the end of the period of nine months beginning with the appointed day.
  (2) The treasurer of the party shall deliver to the Commission a notification which—

  (a) complies with the requirements of section 28(2) and (3) (as modified by sub-paragraphs (3) and (4)), and

  (b) is accompanied by any fee prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State,

  within the period beginning one month before and ending three months after the first anniversary of the appointed day.
  (3) In the application of section 28(2)(a) in accordance with sub-paragraph (2), the reference to the relevant time shall be read as a reference to the time when the party applied for registration or, in the case of a party registered by virtue of paragraph 4(2), the appointed day.
  (4) In the application of section 28(3) in accordance with subparagraph (2), the reference to the relevant time shall be read as a reference to the time when the party applied for registration or, in the case of a party registered by virtue of paragraph 4(2), the time when the documents required under paragraph 3(2) were sent to the Commission.
  (5) If the notification required by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) is not delivered before the end of the period mentioned in that subparagraph, the person who was the treasurer of the party immediately before the end of that period shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to the same punishment as if he were guilty of an offence under section 43(1)(b).
  (6) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under sub-paragraph (5) to prove that he took all reasonable steps, and exercised all due diligence, to ensure that the notification required by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) would be delivered before the end of the period mentioned in that sub-paragraph.
  (7) Any notification delivered under sub-paragraph (2) shall be treated, for the purposes of section 28(4)(b), as a notification given under section 28.
  (8) In this paragraph "the appointed day" means the appointed day for the purposes of Part II of this Act.

  Control of political donations by companies
  12.—(1) The provisions of Part XA of the Companies Act 1985 inserted by section 132(1) of this Act shall not apply to a company (within the meaning of that Act) in relation to any time falling before the relevant date for the company.
  (2) For the purposes of this paragraph the relevant date for a company is—

  (a) if an annual general meeting of the company is held within the first commencement year, the date of that meeting; and

  (b) otherwise, the date immediately following the end of that year.

  (3) In sub-paragraph (2) "the first commencement year" means the period of 12 months beginning with the date of the commencement of section 132(1).

  Disclosure of political donations and expenditure in directors' report
  13. The provisions of Schedule 7 to the Companies Act 1985 substituted by section 133 of this Act shall, in the case of any company (within the meaning of that Act), apply only in relation to directors' reports for financial years beginning on or after the first anniversary of the date which is the relevant date for the company for the purposes of paragraph 12.").
  In the Title:
  [Amendments Nos. 323 and 324 not moved.]
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 325:
  Line 8, after ("1985;") insert ("to make pre-consolidation amendments relating to European Parliamentary elections;").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 280B. I beg to move.
  Title, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, before we move on to the next business, 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, which leaves us time to make progress on the next Bill. I am truly grateful for the cooperation that has been demonstrated by the whole House.

Freedom of Information Bill
9.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Elton) in the Chair.]
Clause 28 [Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities]:
9.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 15, line 42, leave out ("in the United Kingdom or elsewhere").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 157, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 158.
Amendment No. 158 would add both,
"proceedings on dealing summarily with a charge"
under the three service Acts referred to, and,
"proceedings before a court established by",
specified sections of those Acts, to the definition of "criminal proceedings".
The amendments are necessary to deal with the provisions of the Armed Forces Discipline Act. That Act amends the three service Acts to provide for summary appeal courts, which will hear appeals from findings made and punishments awarded by commanding officers on dealing summarily with charges. The amendments ensure that such proceedings are covered by Clause 28.
I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words about Clause 28(1)(b). In our discussions last Thursday, I made the point that non-criminal investigations into safety matters or accidents, for example, were not covered by the class exemption in Clause 28. That is, of course, correct. However, subsection (1)(b) includes investigations by an authority into matters which may lead to a decision being taken by that authority to institute criminal proceedings, even if no such proceedings are eventually taken. To cite two examples: accident investigations where criminal proceedings are a possible outcome, or environmental health reports into compliance with food safety, would fall within this subsection.
Concern has been expressed that this would mean that the public may be denied information about serious health issues or the causes of accidents, even where criminal proceedings are not taken. I do not believe that this will be the case as the public interest test in new Clause 2 of the Bill would come into play. If there were no criminal prosecution in the case, I am sure that the public interest in knowing of health risks or the causes of accidents would outweigh the public interest in maintaining exemption. I am satisfied that the Bill will provide the correct outcome in such cases. But, in the spirit of the debate on this clause, I shall reflect further on this point.
While the Bill was in Committee in another place on Clause 28, a list of public authorities with a duty to conduct prosecutions was placed in the House of Commons Library. I shall place a similar list in the Library here.
Returning to this group of amendments, Amendment No. 157 would remove the term,
"in the United Kingdom or elsewhere",
from the part of the definition which deals with courts martial. It is clear from the context that proceedings cannot be limited to those in the United Kingdom, and so the words are unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 15, line 46, at end insert—
("() proceedings on dealing summarily with a charge under the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955 or on summary trial under the Naval Discipline Act 1957,
() proceedings before a court established by section 83ZA of the Army Act 1955, section 83ZA of the Air Force Act 1955 or section 52FF of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (summary appeal courts),").

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Law enforcement]:
[Amendments Nos. 159 to 163 not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Court records, etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 164 and 165 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Audit functions]:
[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 166A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Formulation of government policy, etc.]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 18, line 34, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A),").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 167, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 169 to 171 and 175.
At the moment the Bill makes provision for a class exemption on policy formulation. This means that any information that falls within this category is covered by the exemption whether or not its release would be harmful. As the decision on whether exempt information should be released in the public interest is ultimately made by the public authority or the Minister, this exemption would mean that access to this kind of information could be severely limited.
Indeed, Clause 33 is a sweeping exemption for all information relating to the formulation of any policy. It is not restricted to Civil Service advice but includes the background information used in preparing policy, including the underlying facts and their analysis. There will be no right to know about purely descriptive reports of existing practices, research reports, evidence of health hazards, assumptions about wage or inflation levels used in calculating costs, studies of overseas practices, consultants' findings or supporting data showing whether official assertions are realistic or not. Departments would not have to confirm even whether any such information existed. Any request for information about the justification for a government policy could be refused under this exemption.
In contrast, the openness code, to which I have referred on previous occasions, introduced by the Conservative government in 1994, contains three relevant positions. It requires departments to publish an analysis of the facts underlying policy decisions and proposals once decisions are announced; it allows policy-related material to be held only if disclosure would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion; and it requires information, the disclosure of which could harm frank discussion, to be disclosed if that harm is outweighed by the public interest in openness. However, under the Bill, there is no requirement to publish the facts and analysis behind government decisions. The relevant exemption contains no test of harm. The sole basis for any disclosure will be the Bill's public interest test. Under the code, this is a further obstacle to the withholding of information. Under the Bill, it may allow objections to be raised to the most elementary disclosure. These amendments introduce a harm test, changing the exemption from a class exemption to a context exemption. This means that information would be covered by the exemption only if it was proved that release would cause harm.
It seems surprising that the Government are backing away from the code of practice and from their own White Paper. But that is usual when we are discussing this Bill. It gives the Minister carte blanche to deny access to information that is innocuous and uncontroversial. It could also mean that information that is currently available would actually be made secret. That is unacceptable. With this Bill the Government are taking away rights to information rather than ensuring them. I have no doubt that other Members of the Committee will wish to speak to this important series of amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: The comments of the noble Lord were remarkable in their moderation in relation to Clause 33.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is probably because I have been speaking on the political parties Bill for the past six hours!
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My noble and learned friend must be thankful for small mercies!
In its present form, the clause falls foul of virtually every principle in the book. It is not wholly clear why the various amendments relating to Clause 33 are not grouped together. It fails as a package, and addressing its defects one at a time—as we are condemned to do—is rather like trying to remove a pile of dead leaves with chopsticks.
Clause 33 has the rubric:
"Formulation of government policy, etc."
The exemption is of a number of categories. The one that possibly attracts the greatest criticism is that contained in subsection (1)(a). There is room for argument about the others, but they are marginal to what is at issue. Subsection (1)(a) sits rather oddly with the other paragraphs, (b) to (d). They are about the kinds of information which relate to the formulation of policy. But paragraph (a) relates to all information regarding policy. It is a blanket exemption, as the noble Lord said—and in three ways.
First, there is no distinction as to the source of the information, whether it is information about what happened in the department during the policy discussions, or information about the state of affairs in the industry, area or social situation which is the subject of the policy. Any information, whatever its nature or source, is within the net if it is held by a government department and if it relates to the formulation or development of policy. A letter to a Minister from a non-governmental organisation or a trade association containing information about the need for a certain course of action, or asking the Minister to take the action, all fall within the blanket exemption.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, pointed out, there is no harm test. Information is exempt whether or not its publication would damage the policy-making process.

277
Thirdly, there is no attempt to distinguish between the kinds of information. There is a whole history of distinctions between information about recommendations and factual information, statistics, analysis and all other forms of information, as we shall discuss shortly. So I am slightly surprised that the criticisms are not grouped for the purpose of the debate, because they are very much a package.
If the distinction is made about the kind of information, it is easier to discuss whether harm will result from its publication. However, it seems that we are to debate the criticisms in isolation. For the present, we are debating the absence of a harm test. This is a long way from the White Paper, which expressly said:
"We are prepared to expose government information at all levels to freedom of information legislation".
It went on to add that information about policy discussions would be disclosed, subject to a harm test.
In our report, the Select Committee addressed the whole principle of providing exemptions by category, instead of by reference to the damage that would follow from the disclosure. We pointed out that this is a retreat from the White Paper, and even, as the noble Lord pointed out, from the existing code. If the Government really intend to let go of nurse's hand and stride out into a world of openness and transparency, this clause is their opportunity to send out that signal.
Lord Norton of Louth: I rise to reinforce the points made by my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. Rather like the noble and learned Lord, I am at a loss to understand why all the amendments under this clause have not been grouped together and why they have been disaggregated in this way. It strikes me that there is a clear and logical connection between them and, therefore, it would be appropriate to speak to them at the same time.
I wish to speak to Amendment No. 169. As the noble and learned Lord said, the present clause moves away from both the White Paper and the existing code of practice, which I understand has been working rather well. Therefore, can the Minister tell us to what extent the present clause is an improvement on the situation created under the code? In what way does the clause improve it? As I read it, the clause actually represents a step backwards from the code. Amendment No. 172, tabled in the name of the Minister, does not bring the situation up to the present level.
As far as I can see, the code appears to have worked reasonably well. However, if I am wrong, perhaps the Minister can explain in what way it is not working. As has been mentioned, this is a class exemption; the only test will be the public interest test. I should have thought that there is a particular problem here in that respect. If you raise that, it will take some time if you appeal the public interest test. Therefore, it may perhaps be some way down the road before you receive the information, by which time the decision may have been taken and the material will not be of as much use
278
as it would have been if it had been available at the time it was researched. I cannot see how the clause represents an improvement; I believe that it represents a step backwards. I completely agree with what has been said by noble friend and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell.
Lord Goodhart: I shall speak very briefly on this issue. I support the remarks made by previous speakers. I, too, echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that it would have been more appropriate to discuss all the amendments to Clause 33 together, because they make up a package. Indeed, I shall be brief on this group because I shall have rather more to say on the next group of amendments dealing with factual information.
It is quite clear that Clause 33 as it now stands is one of the most objectionable provisions left in the Bill. It plainly requires a harm test to make it acceptable, as well as other changes that we shall be considering shortly. It seems to me that this represents a step backwards, both from the code and from the White Paper. Therefore, I very much hope that the Government will see their way to changing their view on the subject of these amendments.
Lord Williamson of Horton: We are dealing here with a most important point, which deals specifically with the class exemption in Clause 33 for information held by a government department, if it relates to the formulation or the development of government policy. It cannot be disputed that this is a very wide exemption. Indeed, it has been described by the Campaign for Freedom of Information as, "a gigantic class exemption" because, as the Bill currently stands, it is not limited to Civil Service advice but covers all information relating to policy.
I understand that there is a safety valve in that under Clause 13(4)(b), the public authority will make the information available if it decides that the public interest, in disclosing the information, outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption in question. Clause 13(5) requires the public authority to,
"have regard to the public interest in communicating to the applicant factual information which has been used, or is intended to be used, to provide an informed background to decision-taking".
I should like to see the class exemption in Clause 33 more restricted so that more information would be available to the public. I believe that my views are rather liberal and perhaps even more so than those of the Liberal Democrats, although my views are not more democratic. I do not wish to go into the general point about exemption as a whole. In such a contest between David and Goliath, Goliath is odds-on to win.
I return to the amendments themselves and follow the grouping, which has been the subject of some complaint. The exemption amendments deal with the harm or prejudice test. The question is whether or not we should have a harm test. We should have one. I believe that it can be operated successfully. Of the

279
various amendments in the Marshalled List from the noble Lord. Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I favour a harm test which relates to the phrase,
"would, or would be likely to, prejudice".
I do not know how one would build that in from the present Amendment No. 170. I prefer that to the harm test which states that it,
"would harm the frankness and candour of … discussion".
I make that point because I believe that it would be easier to operate such a system if it were based on the word "prejudice" rather than on "frankness and candour" which seems to me to leave a certain amount of room for manoeuvre and which could be exploited in the use of that amended exemption.
Of the proposed amendments, I assume that they have been tabled on the same principle used in the football pools; namely, perm three of any four. I would perm them in favour of those which relate to the harm test based on prejudice in one way or another. I am sure that we shall return shortly to the other question as to whether there will be a specific arrangement for factual material, but I leave that to the second group of amendments.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: Surely this is the absolute heart of the Bill. Here we have a Government who say that they want much more openness in public affairs, but when we reach the part of the Bill where their own affairs are concerned, they are quite clearly determined to stay rooted to the spot and even to go backwards. It is all part of the code of practice, particularly the second paragraph, which is a wonderful piece of "Sir Humphreyism", expressing in every word the image of moving forward, but clearly remaining absolutely where the Government stand at the moment and putting off the possibility of any change into the far distant future.
If the Government wish to be taken seriously on this Bill and want the support of their own Back-Benchers, let alone that of Members of the Committee on these Benches, they must show that they are prepared to lead by example. We must have recognition by the Government that freedom of information means greater openness. In the operation of this part of the Bill, it must be clear that there is the prospect of getting better information, certainly information on which the Government are basing their decisions and government decisions generally.
It is a subject to which we shall return to as a House on Thursday when we debate the BSE report. We see from that the consequences of the Government remaining closed to the inspection of so much of their decision-making and the basis on which they made their decisions was not made available to the public. Ministers must have access to the information. Surely, they must see from that that it is essential for greater openness to flow from this Bill.
Certainly this Chamber understands that if we do nothing else with the Bill, that is what we must achieve. We must make government information more open and more available so that the decisions which
280
government take are better informed and more accountable. There are, of course, various ways of doing this. It may be that a harm test in some form is part of it. It may be that the amendments we are to debate in the next group form part of it. But one way or another we must move; otherwise, we are leaving a Bill in which the lead horse is facing the wrong direction. That really will not do.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I intervene only to say that I think that the clause as it stands is about as good as you can get it in this respect. I think that phrases such as,
"harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion"
leave a great deal too much open to argument and doubt. I remain strongly of the view which I expressed before in debates on the Bill; namely, that it is not possible to conduct government business as it were in a goldfish bowl. Therefore I support the clause as drafted.
Lord Brennan: Many on this side of the Committee have approached the Bill in the hope that it would improve the level of public knowledge on matters concerning their health and safety. It is in that arena that I share the concern expressed by many of my noble friends about subsection (1)(a). If I understand it correctly, it means that there will be no right to know about the purely descriptive reports of existing practice, to find out about research reports or to gain access to evidence on health hazards and therefore no means of testing the validity of government and Civil Service conclusions on matters concerning the safety and health of the public. I invite the Minister either on this occasion or at Report stage to indicate in what regards the existing code under which these 'natters are open has not worked. If it has worked, why change it?
I invite the Government to note—furnished as I am with information provided by the Campaign for Freedom of Information—the paradoxes that are likely to arise under subsection (1)(a). The information I mentioned gives three examples which I believe merit debate in the Chamber. First, since the Government came to office they have continued to publish the minutes of monthly meetings between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Bank of England. One cannot imagine any more sensitive area of economic and financial information which is regularly dispersed to the public without apparent damage. The other day we discussed the potential differences that are likely to arise between the practice of this Chamber under this Bill and the practices in Scotland and Wales. I note that the Welsh Assembly publishes its cabinet minutes six weeks after the discussions take place without editing them. Has there been damage? If there has, let us know what it is. If there has not, why should subsection (1)(a) be so wide-ranging?
I return to my opening remarks on safety. The Food Standards Agency has been encouraged to publish its advice to Ministers and has been given express statutory authority to do so. That is to be commended. I suggest that the same spirit ought to influence government. If we should know the advice of the Food

281
Standards Agency, why should we not know what the Government propose in response to that agency? On the issues of health and safety the Bill must be seen to serve a new purpose.
Lord Borrie: I apologise to the Committee for not being present at the beginning of the debate on the amendment. I broadly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
I am concerned that the assumption underlying Clause 33 as drafted is that somehow it is invariably against the public interest for information as to the formulation of government policy to be disclosed to the public. I suggest that that disclosure of such information can often be desirable especially to enable consultation with the public to take place and thereby to improve the quality of government decision making.
Information as to the formulation of government policy should be exempted from disclosure only if harm can be demonstrated to the frankness and candour of internal discussion, as Amendment No. 169 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, proposes.
I illustrate my argument by reference to a High Court decision in April this year. A charitable body, Public Concern at Work, of which I am a patron, was successful in obtaining judgment which entitled the public and this charity access to a summary or copy of claims made under the Public Interest Disclosure Act so that it could monitor the legislation of which it had been the principal sponsor. The High Court ordered that the public should have access to such information, stressing that open justice should apply as much to employment tribunals as it does to the ordinary courts. In other words, litigation should be subject to critical scrutiny.
Three months later, in July (running into August) this year, the Government made regulations to override the High Court decision and remove the public's right to know the gist of the decisions of the employment tribunals. There was no consultation before this policy was formulated. The Minister's response to expressions of concern from the charity gave three reasons for the regulations overturning the High Court decisions. The three reasons for overriding the decision were respectively that the arguments were factually wrong; legally wrong; and disregarded the High Court's view as to the merits of open justice.
I suggest that had there been discussion involving not just the charity with which I am concerned but other interested bodies—trade unions, the CBI and so on—those errors could have been readily corrected. In the scale of things, my illustration is a fairly minor matter of policy. However, I put it forward because it demonstrates how poorly constructed formulation of policy made in secret during the parliamentary Recess may involve a quality of decision making which leaves
282
much to be desired; and I suggest that it was worse because policy was formulated without any disclosure of information or consultation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This is an important clause in the Bill. It has been the subject of considerable debate. The Government believe strongly that information relating to the formulation of government policy, ministerial communications, the operation of ministerial private offices and advice by the Law Officers must be properly protected. The Government believe that a careful balance between the rights of access to information, privacy, confidentiality and the Government's need for room to think and plan needs to be struck.
I should make it clear that the purpose of this Bill is to increase openness to Government. As I made clear at the beginning of the Committee stage, what is required is a culture change, and this legislation is an important contributor to the culture change. I should also make clear that many people on both sides of the debate consider that it is appropriate that policy making should not take place in a goldfish bowl: that there should be a process which allows Ministers, public authorities and civil servants to exchange views in a way that they feel will be private to give them that space to think and make decisions.
The question is: how does one achieve that appropriate space consistent with the desire for greater openness and greater freedom of information? That is the issue that we addressed in this Bill. We conceived that the best way to do that was by Clause 33 providing a class exemption in relation to the interests identified in Clause 33(1) but also with the public interest test in relation to what is now Clause 2. In that way, when you are considering what to disclose you do not have to make fine distinctions about what is a fact and what is an opinion. That will be covered by the exemption, as long as it relates to policy formulation or any of the other interests in Clause 33 (1). But then you balance the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The test for the public authority is quite simple when it is deciding whether or not to disclose under Clause 2. Is the public interest in knowing this information greater than the need to preserve the exemption to provide that space in which Government can take decisions?
I do not think that is very far from an approach that most noble Lords would regard as an acceptable approach. It is clear, it avoids fine legal distinctions and it comes to a result we would all regard as desirable. Amendment No. 170 would introduce a harm test in place of the present class exemption in Clause 33. That introduction would mean that the difficult questions, the uncomfortable options and the unthinkable scenarios would not be debated as frequently or as clearly. Governance would suffer. That is why a class exemption rather than a harm test is the right way to achieve a balance for good and open government.
This does not mean matters on internal discussions about, say, national emergencies. It is conceivable that a government receives from a pressure group a

283
proposal for a policy change that would be quite unacceptable for whatever reason. It would still be necessary for officials, including possibly law officers, to set down a reasoned analysis of the effects of the proposal and the reasons for rejecting it. It would cause unwarranted public alarm simply to learn that such a proposal was under consideration, even though the government had concluded at an early stage that there was no prospect of its becoming government policy.
Amendments Nos. 167, 171 and 175, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has also spoken, seek to move from a class exemption to one based on a harm test, although in this case the test he proposes is one of substantial prejudice to the formulation or effective implementation of present or future government policy. Within that overall prescription, this amendment would provide separately that the test of substantial prejudice would itself become relevant only if the disclosure of information relating to ministerial communications would "materially detriment the frankness and candour of those communications".
At the risk of repeating myself, let me say again that the Government believe that the disclosure of certain types of information, such as ministerial communications, Cabinet papers and minutes would always he likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. That is why the Bill provides a class exemption for the interests set out in Clause 33(1). I will not go over the arguments about substantial prejudice because we have discussed them already.
I turn now to Amendment No. 169, which proposes a slightly different approach although it is again linked to a harm test. It would substitute for the present class exemption an exemption in respect of internal discussions, which would include,
"proceedings of Cabinets and Cabinet committees; internal opinion … projections and assumptions relating to internal policy analysis … [and] confidential communications between departments".
Perhaps I may say just a word about the code of practice and compare it with the Freedom of Information Bill. The code of practice is discretionary; it is a policy statement. It creates no statutory rights. Its enforcement mechanism is the ombudsman. The ombudsman's views are not binding but the commissioner's decisions will be. The Bill's coverage is vastly wider than the code. The code refers only to central government departments, whereas the Bill covers all public authorities.
Most importantly of all, the code of practice is underused. It is not regarded as a mechanism for providing freedom of information as the Bill will be, if, as we expect, it is accompanied by a culture change. The publicity given to the Bill will ensure that the public are aware of their rights.
Amendment No. 169 would remove the specific provisions currently proposed to protect the Law Officers' advice and the operations of ministerial private offices. That would lead to less effective and efficient development and delivery of government business, because it would restrict the free expression
284
of views at the policy formulation stage without significantly increasing the amount or quality of the information that could be released into the public domain.
I earnestly ask your Lordships to think about what I have said, just as I will think about what your Lordships have said. The Bill needs to be considered in the context of the whole scheme, not just in relation to Clause 33.
If I may, I shall leave the extent to which facts should be covered until the next group of amendments, where it will fit in more easily. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
9.45p.m.
Lord Brennan: I should like to ask my noble and learned friend a question that tests Section 1A by example. Let us suppose that the forthcoming report on the BSE inquiry concludes that government policy was wrong and caused or contributed to the damage done to the beef industry, let alone the potential effects on human life. Many of us are concerned that, should such an event recur under the Bill the public would have no means of finding out about relevant policy considerations until the disastrous events had happened. Can the Minister reassure us that such fears are not justified?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not know what the BSE inquiry report will say. Under the Bill, reports about BSE given to Ministers would be covered by the exemption under Clause 33, but it would then be for the Minister or the relevant public authority to decide whether the balance of public interest lay in disclosure or in maintaining the exemption. Ministers might get that wrong or right, depending on how it looked some years later with the benefit of hindsight, but it is worth emphasising that, if there was a harm test, it would still be for the public authority to ask itself whether producing the information caused harm. That is the choice. Under our approach there is no need to worry whether the information is fact or opinion. The relevant body simply looks to see whether the information is covered by the exemption and then applies the public interest test. That is a more straightforward and direct way of dealing with the problem.
That gives me an opportunity to deal with the three examples that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, raised in his speech, which I omitted to deal with. He referred to meetings between the Chancellor and the Bank of England. They have been replaced by the Monetary Policy Committee, which does not involve the Chancellor, because the Bank of England is now responsible for interest rate policy. The publication of the minutes is provided by statute. There is also a provision for withholding any information if prejudice would be caused to certain matters.
Reports on safety matters would probably not be caught by Clause 33, because they would not be in relation to the formulation of policy. They would be dealt with elsewhere. The Food Standards Agency has

285
published advice that it has given to Ministers from time to time. Under the Bill it might well be covered by an exemption, but, assuming that no other exemption applied, it would be for the agency to decide whether the Clause 13 balancing act should lead to publication.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down again, perhaps I may ask him a question. If the withholding of information that is exempt under Clause 33 causes no harm, then if disclosure of that information is sought, the withholding of the information would almost certainly fail the balancing test under the new Clause 2. In that case, what is the real objection to including a harm test in the exemption itself?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As presently drafted, Clause 33 provides certainty as to what is covered by the exemption in relation to the public interest that is dealt with by the balancing under Clause 13.
Lord Lucas: The Minister began his remarks by saying that he was aiming to create a culture of greater openness. He then ended by saying, "But not for us; only for the rest of the public service. We shall disclose rather less than we have to under the code at the moment". I do not believe that the rest of us consider that to be acceptable.
There are various ways to deal with the issue and we have discussed some of them before. Clearly, we must rebalance the public interest test so that it is not phrased as it is at present but so that the interest in withholding information outweighs the interest in releasing it. Under those circumstances, I believe that there is a strong argument for a duty to assist—which would also help in this matter—and, indeed, for a purpose clause.
However, I would much rather attack the problem at its root in this clause. There is a strong argument for a harm test. I believe that that returns us to the point where we should be, which is to make the individual official who is faced with making a decision under the Bill consider realistically whether there is an argument for withholding the information rather than to allow him to pass the buck downstream. As my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth said, downstream may be a long way—weeks or even months—during which time the buck may be passed, the whole matter may be diffused through the passage of time and government will be allowed time to fudge, time to change and time to make the matter irrelevant, rather than facing up to the need to be open at the moment that the decision is made. I believe that the Government must take their own medicine in this clause and I hope that the Minister will think again.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I apologise for interrupting, but I am not sure that I understand the point made by the noble Lord in relation to timing. An application for information under the Bill could be made at any time; for example, precisely at the time a decision was made in respect of which information was
286
sought. That would require the relevant public authority or Minister to consider whether or not it was covered by an exemption and then, if it was covered by an exemption which was not an absolute exemption, including Clause 33, whether or not to exercise the discretion under what is now Clause 2. Therefore, I am not quite clear to what the noble Lord refers when he says that time can pass.
Lord Lucas: I hope that I understood my noble friend Lord Norton aright when I agreed with him that presently there is no time limit on consideration of the public interest test and that that can be spun out indefinitely under the terms of the Bill as it is now.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The public authority is obliged to consider the question of whether or not to exercise the discretion within a reasonable time. That can be policed by the information commissioner. The idea that that will lead, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, to years going by is, with respect, fanciful.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have had an interesting start to this debate. I believe that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, asking the question: has the code worked? I believe that he meant: has it not worked, thus forcing government to divulge information that they would rather not have done? Perhaps I slightly misunderstood the nuance in his question. The Minister did not refer to that at all. I believe that the logic of the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, was: if it has worked, why weaken it?
The Government must have started by considering that the code was all right and they wished to strengthen it. In the White Paper they envisaged something much closer to the code than the present Bill. The White Paper rejected a class exemption for policy material, stating that the Government were prepared to expose government information to FOI legislation at all levels. However, most exemptions were to be based on a test of whether disclosure would cause substantial harm. The case for a lower threshold in that area was accepted. Information about policy would be available subject to a test of simple harm; that is, would disclosure of the information cause harm?
The Government find themselves out of step with what is being proposed in Scotland, which I find interesting. I suppose one must add the caveat that in Scotland it is still just a White Paper. We have not yet seen a Scottish Bill. So maybe some pressure will be applied to the Scottish Executive from down here to ensure that it withdraws from its White Paper in the same way that the Government have withdrawn from theirs.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, gives robust defences of his position. He started off by saying that the Government were in favour of increased openness. Does it not worry the noble and learned Lord that no one in the Committee seems to believe him? Members of the Committee, with one

287
exception, seem to think that the Government are not going down the road of increased openness. As we contemplate what we should do to tackle this clause, and what amendments we should table on Report, perhaps the Minister might contemplate why he is not receiving support for what he believes to be increased openness and why he is being met with a mild degree of scepticism. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 18, line 34, after ("department") insert ("or by the National Assembly for Wales").
[Amendments Nos. 169 to 171 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 18, line 40, at end insert—
("(1A) Once a decision as to government policy has been taken, any statistical information used to provide an informed background to the taking of the decision is not to be regarded—

(a) for the purposes of subsection (1)(a), as relating to the formulation or development of government policy, or

(b) for the purposes of subsection (1)(b), as relating to Ministerial communications.").

The noble and learned Lord said: The Government have listened to the points put forward concerning statistical information and have accepted that greater openness can he achieved in this area. Amendments have consequently been tabled to address that.
The net effect of Amendment No. 172 would be that such statistical information would then fall within the prejudice test exemption contained in Clause 34. Within Clause 34, there is provision that any information to which the clause applies is exempt information if, in the reasonable opinion of the relevant qualified person, its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the matters set out in subsection (2). However, Amendment No. 191 goes on to provide that the test in relation to statistical information would be a simple prejudice test. In other words, the amendment would remove the words,
"in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person"
from the exercise of the exemption under Clause 34.
The amendment is necessary in order to ensure that the information commissioner is able to review a decision not to disclose statistical information taken by a public authority and is not simply limited to whether the qualified person has acted reasonably in determining not to release the statistical information. That underlines our commitment to openness and as such is surely to be welcomed by Members of the Committee.
Perhaps I may also reassure the Committee that in relation to statistical and other factual information which still falls within Clause 33 and that which falls within Clause 34, the public interest test will apply.
288
Thus, any statistical or factual information which should be disclosed in the public interest will be disclosed under the Bill.
With the leave of the Committee, I shall not speak to the other amendments in this group, which are to be moved by other noble Lords, until noble Lords have spoken. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 172, Amendment No. 173:
Line 3, leave out ("statistical") and insert ("factual").
The noble Lord said: I do not intend to address my amendments at this stage. I should prefer to wait for the Government to answer them. I believe that they are fairly clear and simple in what they seek to achieve. I should like first to listen to the arguments on other amendments in this grouping before taking up the time of the Committee with my ideas. I beg to move.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: We have just debated the first of the shortcomings of Clause 33: the fact that it is not subject to a harm test. Now we are discussing the second shortcoming. As originally drafted, it made no attempt to distinguish between the various kinds of information.
My noble and learned friend has at last made an attempt to make some distinction. He said in fact that he had listened to representations which had been made about statistical information. The representations which I heard being made were not specifically addressed to statistical information. But my noble and learned friend says that he is prepared to release statistical information from the blanket of silence, but it is confined, first, to statistical information; and, secondly, even that only after the decision has been taken.
I am sure that we are all grateful for my noble and learned friend's attempt to move the colossus from its trench. But he cannot really be surprised if we do not break into a celebration dance. The minimum step we had hoped to see in the direction of openness was a distinction between policy advice and factual information.
During our last debate my noble and learned friend said, "Do not make a distinction between advice and factual information; just apply the 'public interest' test across the board". But that is not what the Bill does. It exempts by categories. That has been one of our complaints. If my noble and learned friend agreed that all information should be subject to a public interest test, we might be in the market for a deal. But he does not. He subjects it all to category exemptions and then, when we come to a category where he does not want to make that distinction, he says, "Do not bother about the categories. Just apply the public interest test".
If the Government believe that the distinction is difficult to make in practice, they reached that conclusion at a comparatively late stage because they made that distinction themselves in Clause 13(5). That is why I set down Amendment No. 174; the distinction is taken from the Government's drafting.

289
As long ago as 1977, the Croham directive instructed officials to make that distinction. So far as I am aware, it seems to have been implemented without difficulty. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, gave evidence in July last year to the pre-legislation Select Committee on this Bill. He said,
"when we were coming up to the 1997 election, knowing what the government policy was in this matter, my senior colleagues and I gave some thought to how we could regularly structure submissions to Ministers in a way that would enable us easily to separate the background which was publishable from, as it were, the subjective advice which was confidential. It would take a bit of training and changing practice to do that, but I think that people could very readily adapt to that".
The previous government, in 1994, introduced the openness code which has already been the subject of debate. It required departments to publish facts and the analysis of them which led to the policy decision. It said that information relating to the policy decision was to be published, subject to the harm test. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, told the Public Administration Committee on 22nd June 1999,
"When I was preparing for the election and thinking about these issues, I had expected a bigger shift in that direction than we have, in fact, seen".
Amendment No. 175A was originally going to be tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I tabled it for two reasons. The first is that the noble Lord, for reasons of which we are all aware, was not able to do so; the second is that it represents an attempt to bring together the various criticisms of this clause. First, it is not clear why factual information should be withheld. Secondly, it is not clear why there should be secrecy as to the analysis which was made of factual information. The Irish Freedom of Information Act excludes not only factual information, but also the analysis and, so far as I am aware, they have not encountered problems about that. Thirdly, Amendment No. 175A provides that anything else within the category should be subject to the harm test.
I understand the arguments about belt and braces but this measure adds a bathrobe and curtain, too. I hope that my noble and learned friend will think again about the whole structure of the clause.
Lord Goodhart: Having heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, addressing a meeting of the Bar about 10 days ago when he sought to defend the Government's proposals on legal aid, and having heard him in your Lordships' House defending the Dome, I have a feeling that whenever the Government want to defend the indefensible they send for the noble and learned Lord. I believe that this is such an occasion.
The noble and learned Lord had no support whatever from those on the Benches behind him. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Brennan, made extremely effective speeches the other way. The only support he received came from the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, on the Cross Benches. When the noble Lord was speaking I thought for a moment
290
that I was hearing the voice of Lord Appleby, whom I believe was elevated to your Lordships' House a few years ago in the resignation honours of Sir Jim Hacker!
We on these Benches accept that advice, position papers and so forth written by civil servants or other advisers should not be disclosed as of right. We accept that they should be exempt, subject to a harm test. But we want the factual background information to be made available without an exemption.
In their Amendment No. 172, the Government have stated that they will release statistical information. But that gives the whole game away because there is no logical distinction between statistical information and factual information. Statistics are simply a collection of facts. Saying that general statistical information can be released but that specific facts cannot seems to me absurd.
Perhaps I may take an example with which everyone will be familiar; the Hatfield rail accident. The number of broken rails discovered on the rail track in this country during the previous 12 months is a statistic. The discovery of a single broken rail at the site of the crash is not a statistic but a fact. As it happens, those matters are already in the public domain but one could well imagine similar circumstances in which that information was not currently in the public domain. If the facts, not merely the statistics, on which the Government rely to formulate their policy are not protected by other exemptions, we believe that they should be available to the public.
As was said during our debate on the previous group, the Bill is far more restrictive than the existing non-statutory code of practice. That code requires departments to publish facts and the analysis of facts which the Government consider relevant and important in framing major policy proposals, admittedly after the decisions have been taken, subject to a harm test and the balancing exercise. As the ombudsman—the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration who administers the code—said, the code is intended to protect advice not factual information.
Irish freedom of information legislation specifically excludes any exemption for factual and statistical information and analysis of that information. Proposals for a freedom of information Bill in Scotland do not give an exemption to factual information. Even with the concession which the Government have made in Amendment No. 172, we are concerned with the absence of any right to obtain statistical information before the Government's decision is taken. That deprives a person who requests the information of the ability to use it when it is likely to be of use to him or her. For example, a person who makes the request may believe that the statutory evidence is misleading and incomplete and may want to refer the Government to further evidence of which they may be unaware, but there is no way in which he or she can do that if there is no access to the information before the decision is made.
The Government's proposals mean that factual information which would not be protected under any other clause would be exempt merely because it was

291
used as background information in policy-making. The Government's proposals draw an illogical and indefensible distinction between one kind of factual information—statistics—and other kinds. I believe that this group of amendments will be as unpopular as the previous one. There are a number of alternative amendments from which to choose and, having seen them, we strongly support Amendment No. 175A in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: I do not return to the question of the harm test, although it arises on Amendment No. 175A. However, I should like to intervene on the choice of amendments in the current grouping that is before the Committee. One may choose the exclusion of statistical information from the class exemption once a decision on government policy has been taken; or the exclusion of factual information, which is the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas; or the exclusion of factual information and analysis of that information without the condition about timing.
I believe that the government amendment should be welcomed, perhaps mildly, since it improves the position in comparison with the Bill as presented. My mother always taught me to be thankful for small mercies. There is a suggestion that we should deal with factual rather than statistical information. There might be some contention in this matter. Generally speaking, however, I believe that that formulation can operate. It is possible to differentiate factual information. Leaving aside for the moment the harm test, on balance I also support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. It is possible to operate that provision which would be more in keeping with freedom of information.
Among these amendments one sees the expression "in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person". That is deleted from the final amendment in the group, but we may return to that later. I am tempted to point out that this evening there are two Members of the Committee sitting on the Cross Benches who may be considered to be qualified persons but they disagree on a number of points.
Baroness Whitaker: I support Amendment No. 174 for three reasons. In so doing, I welcome the amendment of the Minister which improves the position by proposing that the public have a right to statistical information relating to policy decisions. However, I respectfully suggest that Amendment No. 174 is better. The term "statistics" is narrow. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, facts may not be statistical, and he gave an example. I should like to offer one or two others: the route of the smallpox bacillus through a ventilation system at the University of Birmingham which killed its last victim in the UK; new maps of the watercourse beneath a mine slag heap which was involved in the Aberfan disaster; and the level of training of an anaesthetist in a medical mishap, which was a concern revealed in a recent court case. Those kinds of facts may be instrumental in a policy decision.
292
To permit the release of information only after the policy decision has been announced destroys an important function of freedom of information. That was reflected clearly in Treasury guidance to the 1994 voluntary code. That states:
"The public interest in disclosure is particularly strong where the information in question would assist public understanding of an issue subject to current national debate".
It continues,
"the emphasis is on assisting understanding, consideration and analysis of existing and proposed policy".
That function also makes possible the informed consent of citizens to the hard choices which governments have to make.
My final point will, I hope, reassure noble Lords who fear the alleged tendency to secrecy of bureaucrats. The trade union of senior bureaucrats—the policy advisers—the FDA, has publicly supported freedom of information legislation for many years. I confirmed the position last week. I was not made aware of any difficulty in implementing the present voluntary code which in some ways goes beyond the Bill. Incidentally, when I worked in the Civil Service, I cannot recall any advocacy for withholding information to protect an official. I say no more.
When I was with the Health and Safety Executive the culture was, to quote the evidence of its chairman to the Public Administration Committee, in 1998 that,
"open access to health and safety information improves public understanding and strengthens confidence in the system".
Those who operate the system at Ministers' bidding can manage and would welcome access to factual background. Authoritative guidance states that this background should be released during debate and not after, and the citizen in a democracy worthy of the name both needs and is entitled to it. I therefore recommend the amendment.
Lord Brennan: I hope my noble and learned friend the Minister will forgive me if I give yet another example to test the way in which this distinction between statistic and facts might work. Let us suppose that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food negotiates with a major firm producing genetically modified crops a series of tests to determine whether a product is of public value. The material upon which that decision will be made will involve fact. The resulting decision whether to implement a policy to promote such a product would involve policy. The recipients of that policy are the people who will consume the product. Those people will feel that they are entitled to know the facts upon which the product is put into the marketplace.
On reading the Bill it would appear that in that example the Government can rely on Clause 33(2) to say that the facts behind the matter are covered by the policy exemption; the company can rely on Clause 41 to say that the matter is of commercial interest; and the public can say nothing unless they look carefully at Clause 73. It says that under the Aarhus convention the Government are to allow for access by the public to environmental information and the public might be entitled to such information.

293
I chided the Minister the other day with a reference to the Aarhus convention. But it is exceptionally important because its terms expect—indeed require—governments to allow the public access to information about the environment. Under Clause 73 the Government must make regulations to allow that to occur. I am back to my example. The Government claim exemption; the company claims exemption; and the citizen says, "Under the Aarhus convention I am entitled to know".
I hope that that is not too elaborate an example. The item is of current interest and graphically illustrates the difficulty of claiming that there is some difference to make between fact and opinion. The public will want to know the facts. I hope that the Bill will allow them to do so.
Lord Norton of Louth: Prompted by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, who made an extremely important point, and following on from what he said, I invite the Minister to think of the matter not so much simply in terms of the principle of open government, important though that principle is, but in terms of what it may deliver for good government. The late Enoch Powell used to argue that one did not really need to be informed about the background material that led to a government decision; all one needed was the decision and then one could deliberate on whether it was a good decision. I share the Minister's scepticism about that and argued against it.
If people are to judge the decision, they should have access to the information on which it is based—not the internal deliberations, as the Government can present their reasoning for reaching a conclusion. But if there is to be a wider debate about that decision, the more information that led to it that is put into the public domain, the better the debate will be informed. If the material comes after the event, one is looking at it after the decision has been made and perhaps implemented. It is then too late. If one follows that line of reasoning, the onus should be on putting into the public domain as much information as possible to enable a proper public debate to take place. The Government would be the beneficiary because the debate would be that much better. If their reasoning is sound, people would be more likely to support them rather than, after the event, feel miffed that only then had they received the information.
On that line of argument, as much material should be pushed out into the public domain as possible and only in the most exceptional circumstances should it be withheld. If one takes that approach, it points one to go further than the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Minister, Amendment No. 172, and leads one far more in the direction of the other amendments that are before the Committee. The quality of government would benefit if there were that degree of openness.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I hesitate to intervene again at this stage of the Bill, but not sufficiently so to stop me talking. When I was a Minister and was involved in looking at statistics and factual information in order to make decisions, I had the advantage, at least at one point, of being advised by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, in her previous capacity. Based on that experience and others, I believe that I can make a contribution to the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, paid a great tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in saying that he is the Government's preferred choice for defending the most difficult of cases. Perhaps that is part of the qualification for being a senior silk at the Bar. It seems to me that he has a rather difficult case to defend, but it depends on a number of considerations. The first is the difference between statistical information and factual information; the second is the question of information before and after the decision being released; and the third is the issue of the harm test.
On the difference between statistics and facts, the Committee will be aware that I am an accountant and might be presumed to prefer numbers to other facts. But I am well aware that numbers, either as statistics or accounts, do not necessarily present the whole picture. A great deal of information cannot be represented by numbers, but is nevertheless necessary if a good decision is to be reached.
Indeed, the whole point of a political or ministerial decision is that it cannot be reduced to numbers or, for that matter, to facts. It requires an element of judgment. If we are dealing with an expert decision, then the experts in a particular field—such as the civil servants in a government department, the generals and admirals for matters related to defence or the doctors and surgeons for a medical problem—do not need politicians to intervene. However, where a gap appears between the facts and the matters to be decided, or, to put it another way, where an element of guesswork must be incorporated, then the politicians have to step in and come to the decision. However, they must do so only on the basis of the best possible statistical and factual information that can be produced for them.
The question we need to consider is whether statistical information has a different character from other factual information. In some senses, of course it does. It is possible to add up one column of figures, then another column of figures, and conclude that one total will be greater than the other. One or the other may then be preferred. However, we all know that statistics can mislead as well as tell the truth. Numerous examples exist which I shall not develop because it is sufficient simply to state the case. The basis on which statistics are produced can profoundly influence the final outcome.
The same is true of other factual information. For example, opinion polls—other than on easy questions

295
such as "Would you vote Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat?"—on more difficult topics, such as issues of the day, often present problems of interpretation. It has long been noted that how a question is expressed can bring about a different statistical response, one that would not necessarily reflect what should be ultimately the correct decision. I do not believe that any great advantage may be gained or objectivity achieved by relying on statistics over other "factual" information. I refer to "facts" in inverted commas here because all facts which are brought to bear when reaching a political decision, such as the one I have described, are open to doubt. So I do riot think that it is valid to make a distinction between the emphasis placed on statistical information in government Amendment No. 172 as opposed to the emphasis on factual information in the opposition Amendments Nos. 174 and 175A.
The second question to consider is that of "before" and "after". The government amendment states that,
"Once a decision as to government policy has been taken",
information should then be released. The difficulty here is that it is well known that once a government policy has been announced—namely, the decision has been reached and made public—the question of saving face enters into the process. It is difficult for a government to change their original decision. That may be desirable or undesirable, but it is the fact of the matter. It is easier for a government to change their mind before they make any public declaration of their intentions than it is afterwards. We see this all the time in the course of the practice of government and when observing government. I think, therefore, that leaving the release of information, whether it be factual or statistical, until after a decision has been reached, has a disadvantage over the release of information in advance.
At the same time, this has to be measured against the third aspect, which is summarised by the harm test. Paragraph (c) in Amendment No. 175A expresses this as,
"other information, unless its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the frankness and candour of internal discussion".
That is extremely important.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The effect of the amendment is that those words apply only to paragraph (c), not to paragraphs (b) and (c). As I understand the effect of Amendment No. 175A, there is no exemption at all in respect of paragraphs (a) and (b); the information automatically comes out, irrespective of harm.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Yes.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Yes. But the harm test is nevertheless important.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It does not apply here.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Other information is not exempt unless its disclosure would prejudice—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has confirmed the effect of paragraphs (a) and (b) of the amendment: even if the information were to cause harm, it comes out.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In that case, perhaps I may record that I believe that the frankness and candour of internal discussion is of extreme importance. If the business of government is to be carried on properly, that is essential.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I intervene only because I am slightly puzzled by the paraphrase of my noble and learned friend. I think he understands what we are saying. But if it will prejudice the frankness and candour of internal discussion, it will cause harm, will it not? That is the harm test.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I may have got it wrong, but I understand that the effect of the amendment is that information is not exempt if it consists of,
"(a) factual information".
Therefore, if it is factual information, there is no harm test of any kind applied.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: That is right.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: So any factual information, even if it were to cause harm if it was published, must be disclosed. That is the effect of the amendment. Paragraph (c) is in a different category.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Once again I find myself at a disadvantage because I am not a lawyer. I am not able to analyse as precisely, as it seems others can, the precise effect of Amendment No. 175A, which is proposed by one leading lawyer and opposed by another.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: At the risk of trying the Committee's patience, perhaps I may have one more try. It is my noble and learned friend who has insisted on exempting by categories. It is perfectly right that it would be exempt from this category.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I return to the fact that frankness and candour in internal discussion remains of the highest importance in achieving good government decisions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may return to my basic theme in relation to Clause 33. The clause provides an exemption in relation to the material covered by Clause 33(1), which is a class exemption. That includes factual material. The public authority does not need to trouble itself as to whether it is a fact or not; it simply looks to see whether it is within Clause 33(1)(a). It then applies the public interest test under Clause 2.
Perhaps I may apply that approach to the examples that have been given. In regard to information relating to GM foods, environmental information regulations will give a right to some of the information referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, in his example. To the extent that the information is not available under those regulations, and in so far as the information

297
would be exempt under Clause 33, it would then be for the public authority or the Minister to decide whether or not the public interest in disclosing the information outweighed the public interest in maintaining the exemption, the purpose of the exemption under Clause 33 being to give space in the making of a decision. That approach leads to a sensible result being reached.
Similarly, in relation to the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, of a broken rail beside the track, if that was a fact in the possession of a public authority for the purpose of making a policy decision, it would be exempt under Clause 33, but it would then be for the public authority to decide where the public interest lay in relation to disclosing that information. It would have to balance suppression against disclosure, and decide where the balance lay. That is a perfectly sensible approach. With respect, not one Member of the Committee has said why it is not sensible.
I also emphasise that the Government believe that factual information used to provide an informed background to decision-taking will normally be disclosed. As I indicated when this matter was before the Committee two days ago, we have agreed to bring back into new Clause 2 the steer towards the disclosure of such information that had been provided in Clause 13(5). So again, we are at one with those Members of the Committee who want to see greater openness in relation to factual information.
There will be occasions when it will not be in the public interest to disclose facts that have been under consideration, as to do so would, for example, disclose advice which is properly protected by the exemption in Clause 33. To ensure, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, eloquently described it, the protection of the frankness and candour that is required for good government to take place, we need to allow some leeway so that, in these admittedly exceptional circumstances, factual information could be withheld. We believe that the right approach is for the public authority to address that by asking itself the question, "Where does the public interest lie?", not on the basis of some fine legal question as to what is or what is not a fact.
Amendment No. 175A would provide no protection whatever for facts or analysis under Clause 33 or Clause 34, even if it would be prejudicial to disclose that information. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, accepted that. Furthermore, the effect of paragraph (c) in the amendment is to convert the test in Clause 33 into a prejudice-based one, except in relation to information relating to Law Officers.
This information is of a sufficiently sensitive nature to warrant a class exemption as its disclosure would almost always entail harm to the formulation of government policy. This being the case, it would be dishonest to have a prejudice test in this clause. Information of this nature should be disclosed only where it is in the public interest to do so, which is already provided for in the Bill.
298
Perhaps I may deal with a number of other points that have been raised. The first is the "before or after" question. Again, let us remember Clause 2, which allows the public interest to be weighed. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that the Irish Act dealt with factual information in a better manner. Perhaps I may repeat what I am told the Irish Act provides for. Section 19 of the Irish Act has an exemption relating to information submitted to Ministers for their use in transacting government business. This exemption does not apply to factual information relating to decisions already published or made more than five years before the request was made; hence the exclusion from exemption does not cover facts before a decision is made. As I understand it, there is a five-year pause before the factual material becomes available.
Secondly, it is said that we ourselves have sought to draw a distinction between fact and opinion in what was Clause 13(5) which will come back when we produce our amendment. That is not right. The subsection did not purport to define a fact; it did not need to. If we are to separate fact and opinion in Clause 33, which is what is sought, it will be necessary to have a precise definition of what a fact is—which leads us into the minefields that we want to avoid.
Finally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, referred to the Croham directive, given shortly before the anticipated change of government in 1979. That directive required submissions to Ministers to be set out so as to distinguish between factual information and advice. I am told by my officials that this may be different from the evidence that was given. The directive was not in fact implemented because there was a difficulty in establishing what is factual information and what is advice. I understand the point about the evidence given to the Select Committee but, speaking for myself, I should have thought that it would not be a productive use of officials' time to work out what is a fact and what is opinion. It would be far better to give advice to Ministers and others on the basis of the best way to give advice, rather than on the basis of trying to comply with the Croham directive. I address those remarks to my right because a response could be forthcoming from that direction—
10.45 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: Surely civil servants have to make that distinction all the time when they are appearing before Select Committees in the other place.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I cannot believe that civil servants appearing before a Select Committee must decide, on the one hand, what is precisely a fact and, on the other, what is precisely opinion. The line would be one where they can make sensible judgments in that respect.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend, but my information about the Croham directive differs from his. Unless the

299
Government are prepared to disclose some information about it, I suppose that we shall never know.
Lord McNally: I remember the evidence given by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. Indeed, when giving evidence to our Select Committee, he took some pride in saying that he had actually cracked this. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will read this exchange in Hansard and that he may intervene in the matter on Report. That would be most helpful.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Indeed. When I repeated to the Committee what I had been told by my officials, I hope I signalled that I knew it was inconsistent with the evidence that had been given to the committee of my noble and learned friend. Therefore, it would be very interesting to hear what the noble Lord says. However, if we go on to consider the principle, we must realise that the directive has not been implemented. I suspect that that is because of the question whether it would be a productive use of time to be drawing such distinctions.
Lord Lucas: Before he concludes, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will touch on the point of when a fact is a statistic and when it is just a fact.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is pretty easy to identify what is a statistic: you know a statistic when you see it. As to what is a fact or an opinion, that is a much harder question to answer.
Lord Norton of Louth: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I am still a little unclear from what he said as to what is the objection to Amendment No. 174 tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. The Minister dealt with the other amendments in the group, but I am not quite sure that he dealt with that one. Further, the noble and learned Lord did not deal with an absolutely crucial point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, as regards the difference between how he and, say, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, would interpret something. I believe that to be a crucial point in the context of this debate.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Amendment No. 174, tabled in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, says:
"Information is not exempt by virtue of subsection (1)(a) insofar as it consists of factual information which has been used, or is intended to be used, to provide an informed background to decision-taking".
It takes us straight into the issue regarding what is and what is not a fact. It does not matter in terms of how we approach the matter, because it is dealt with by what was Clause 13 and what is now Clause 2. I should be interested to hear the noble Lord's response as to why that is not an effective approach to the problem.
Lord Norton of Louth: That relates to my final point, which was initially made by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Does not my noble and learned friend appreciate that, in Clause 13(5), the Government distinguished between what is and what is not a fact?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do appreciate that; indeed, I dealt with that point. Clause 13(5) referred to the factual background. It indicated that the public interest is served by disclosure. However, because it did not need to do so, it did not seek to define the difference between fact, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, things that are not facts. Clause 13(5) gives a steer in relation to the exercise of a discretion where you do not need to be as precise as you would be if you were defining what was and what was not exempt.
Lord Williamson of Horton: I have been slightly challenged on this point, so I shall rejoin the debate. I should say, first, that I hope the Government do not announce what the noble and learned Lord has just stated; namely, that they do not always know what is and what is not a fact.
The second point is that there is a difference between the proposal in Amendment No. 174 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and the situation presented in the Bill by the noble and learned Lord. Under Amendment No. 174 the factual information would be outside the class exemption and there would be no further argument about it. It would be available to the public, full stop, whereas under the position presented with some brilliance by the noble and learned Lord, the decision on whether the information would be available would be taken by the public authority under Clause 33, now Clause 2. So it would be in the hands of the public authority to decide whether or not this factual information would be available. Frankly, that difference is fundamental and it has not been covered by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The effect of Amendment No. 174 is like that of Amendment No. 175A. There is no exemption at all as regards the former amendment. So it follows from what the noble and learned Lord is proposing in Amendment No. 174, that even if it were to cause harm to disclose the information, it would nevertheless be produced. As I understand it, even the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, does not go along with the idea that, even if were to cause harm, that information should be disclosed. It is not what the noble Lord, Lord Williamson is suggesting is the position, namely, that it might be disclosed under Clause 33 rather than being put into Clause 2 because it comes out irrespective of whether there is harm.
Lord Goodhart: As regards harm, would the noble and learned Lord agree that it could be exempt by virtue of other provisions such as damage to the economy?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It might be, but we are debating in the context of Clause 33, which depends on what the information was.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: Perhaps I may follow the earlier point made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, about before and after. I very much agree with him that the requirement to publish factual and statistical information is likely to improve the quality of government. But the knowledge that that information will have to be published once a decision has been taken would exercise a very powerful degree of discipline on those making the decision. Knowledge that that information would emerge after the event would cast its shadow before, if I may put it that way. Therefore, I do not believe that that is a conclusive argument in favour of prior publication.
Lord Lucas: I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord will not rest on his suggestion that one will know a statistic when one sees it. I do not believe that that is a good basis for using the word in legislation. If I asked the noble and learned Lord how many hours of sunshine there had been today, he would quote me a number and that is a statistic. It is also a fact. But perhaps he does not mean "statistic" in that sense.
Perhaps he means it in the rather more limited sense that a statistic is a number which cannot be verified because all traces of the original facts which made it up have been expunged. Is that what the noble and learned Lord means by "statistic"? If that is so, then a statistic inevitably contains a large element of analysis, because one cannot reach that stage without having taken some decisions as to how the facts should be analysed. Are those not to be revealed as part of the statistics or are we just to be presented with bald numbers and not the basis on which they have been arrived at? It we are presented with that basis, then we are getting into the realms of analysis under the heading of "statistics". It is a very difficult question to settle. Even if we do not arrive at a final answer, I believe that we should be presented with a considered view by the Government of what is a statistic under the new provision and what is not.
Lord Norton of Louth: Perhaps I may briefly comment as well and take the opportunity to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. I completely agree with the point he made because, if one knows that the information is going to be in the public domain, that is an important discipline on government and therefore highly desirable. My point is that while that may be necessary, it is still not sufficient in terms of the quality of decision-making.
302
I understand the point that the Minister makes about the harm test in relation to Amendment No. 174. I can see the argument he makes against Amendment No. 174. However, I do not think that that is sufficient to justify what is in the Bill. It is perhaps a case for reworking Amendment No. 174, but it is certainly not a case for justifying the existing provisions of the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Enjoyable as this is, I think that we should now consider another amendment. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I think that most people would recognise a statistic when they saw it. It would be wrong for me on my feet, as it were, to try to give a statutory definition of a statistic. I shall write to the noble Lord. However, I assert that it is not too difficult to recognise a statistic when one sees it.
Lord Lucas: I disagree fundamentally with the noble and learned Lord on that. I have spent too much of my life among statistics to have any reason to believe that a line can be drawn between a statistic and a fact on one side and statistic and analysis on another. The three blur into each other in a way which admits no firm lines. If we are to see this word in legislation, at least we ought to have a government opinion and some examples as to what constitutes a statistic for us all to go on. I shall be content with a written response from the noble and learned Lord. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 173, as an amendment to Amendment No. 172, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 174 to 177 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 19, leave out line 2 and insert—
(""government policy" includes the policy of the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the policy of the National Assembly for Wales;").

Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 179 to 182:
Page 19, line 7, leave out from second ("communications") to ("and") in line 9 and insert—

("(a) between Ministers of the Crown,

(b) between Northern Ireland Ministers, including Northern Ireland junior Ministers, or

(c) between Assembly Secretaries, including the Assembly First Secretary,").

Page 19, line 10, leave out ("and").
Page 19, line 11, at end insert ("and proceedings of the executive committee of the National Assembly for Wales").
Page 19, line 15, at end insert ("or any part of the administration of the National Assembly for Wales providing personal administrative support to the Assembly First Secretary or an Assembly Secretary").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 179 to 182.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 19, line 20, after ("department") insert ("or by the National Assembly for Wales").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Nicol): I must inform the Committee that, if Amendment No. 184 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 185.
11 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 19, line 23, leave out (", in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person,").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 189, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lester. Amendments Nos. 193, 200 and 201 also stand in our names and those of others.
The purpose of this amendment is to leave out in Clause 34 the reference to,
"the reasonable opinion of a qualified person".
If the amendment is accepted, the decision on whether or not prejudice exists will be taken by the information commissioner and not by the so-called "qualified person". As matters stand, Clause 34 provides the only exemption where in cases of dispute the existence of the prejudice test is decided by someone other than the information commissioner. Subsection (6) of Clause 34 states:
"A certificate signed by the qualified person referred to in subsection (4)(d) or (e) above certifying that in his reasonable opinion—
(a) disclosure of information held by either House of Parliament".
The effect of Clause 34 is that the decision of the qualified person cannot be replaced by the discretion of the commissioner, unlike all other cases where a prejudice test applies, as we were told by the noble and learned Lord on the first day in Committee. Effectively, all the commissioner can do is judicially to review the decision of the qualified person and reverse it if it is irrational. But that is as pretty hard test to satisfy.
Furthermore, the list of qualified persons is very large. For example, subsection (4)(n) provides that,
304
"in relation to information held by any public authority not falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (m)" —
a qualified person means,
"a Minister of the Crown,
"the public authority, if authorised for the purposes of this section by a Minister of the Crown, or
"any officer or employee of the public authority who is authorised for the purposes of this section by a Minister of the Crown".
That is potentially a large number of people. In Clause 52, a government amendment will reduce a similar list of people entitled to override the decision of the commissioner to a smaller list. There is no such amendment here.
Why are the Government proposing that the qualified person should take the decision on Clause 34? There is a natural tendency of people who are involved in decision making to stop others looking at the background to their decision because that makes it easier for people to question that decision. Therefore, the decision whether the exemption is available under Clause 34 will be taken by the persons most likely to take the view that the exemption does apply. It is, of course, not a judicial decision and cannot he appealed against on the merits. It can only be reviewed.
The information commissioner will have extensive experience of taking decisions of this kind because on all other cases of prejudice the prejudice test will be decided by the commissioner. Indeed, it seems to me that the information commissioner will be more qualified than the so-called qualified person to take the decision whether or not the prejudice test is satisfied.
I raise another point. If the qualified person decides that the information is exempt, that is not the end of the matter. The exemption is not absolute except in relation to information held by the House of Commons or your Lordships' House. That is a small category. The balancing operation then has to be carried out under new Clause 2 if a complainant makes a complaint under Clause 49. Who carries out that balancing exercise? It is of course the commissioner. How does she do it? Because of the opinion of the qualified person, she has to assume that the release of the information will cause prejudice. She then has to decide what weight to give to that prejudice when weighing it against the public interest in disclosure. That is, frankly, an absurdity. It is plain that the person who decides whether there is prejudice should be the person who also decides what weight to give that prejudice when carrying out the balancing exercise. It is plain that that person should be the commissioner. It is not appropriate for the qualified person to decide the balancing exercise. Indeed, the Government have not suggested that it should be.
The decision-making process should not be divided up in the way proposed by Clause 34. The whole process should be in the hands of the commissioner. Both the Select Committee on Public Administration in another place and the ad hoc committee of your Lordships' House chaired by the noble and learned

305
Lord, Lord Archer, recommended that the commissioner should be entitled to test the claim to the exemption.
The argument that it should be the commissioner who tests the claim under Clause 34, as she does in every other case of exemption which is not an absolute exemption, seems to me to be overwhelming. I ask the noble and learned Lord to take this back and look at it again, because I believe that Clause 34 in its present form is indefensible. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Government feel in certain circumstances that it may be necessary to exempt from disclosure information the disclosure of which would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs in the way specified in Clause 34 or otherwise, which may not be so sensitive as to justify being considered under the class exemption at Clause 34.
The exemptions at Clause 34 reflect the particular nature of the information to which the Government believe protection must be afforded. They take the view that a simple prejudice test would be insufficient in such cases. None the less we recognise that this is an area in which it is right for the commissioner to have a significant role in determining when the exemption applies.
The Bill therefore provides that a public authority may rely upon an exemption under this part of the Bill only where that exemption is considered to apply in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person. As the noble Lord has seen from the Bill, the qualified person is, unlike other exemptions, an identified individual—a Minister or similar person. The commissioner may review whether the qualified person has exercised his judgment reasonably. The noble Lord said that it was absurd to include that provision because of the role held by the information commissioner. But the information commissioner must analyse the basis on which the qualified person has taken the decision and then decide whether the qualified person has acted reasonably.
If, for example, the information commissioner considered that no reasonable qualified person could have identified any prejudice in the circumstances posited, he or she would be entitled to say "I come to a different view" or that the view was irrational or perverse. In such circumstances the commissioner can intervene and overturn the decision of a qualified—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Would my noble and learned friend forgive me? Is it within his recollection that in their own background material published in 1999 the Home Office agreed without shame that the commissioner could intervene—and I quote—
"only if he or she could show that the minister's action was unreasonable, in the sense of being irrational or perverse".
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The case I was positing was exactly that. I was giving as an example a situation in which the information commissioner considered that no reasonable Minister or qualified person could have identified any prejudice. We think it is essential—
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. It is not just the question of applying the judicial review test. Surely it is the information commissioner who has to decide under the new Clause 2 what weight to give to the prejudice. It seems to me that it is simply going to cause confusion if she is not also the person who defines whether or not there is any prejudice.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: She decides first of all, in relation to Clause 34, on a judicial review basis whether or not there is an exemption there at all. Once that is decided it is for the public authority to make its decision under what is now Clause 2, weighing Clause 34 matters against the public interest. That can then be tested before the information commissioner. She can replace the public authority's judgment with her judgment under Clause 2. I see no difficulty in that.
It is essential to have a provision relating to the reasonable opinion of a qualified person to ensure the proper protection of information relating to the effective conduct of public affairs. The information covered by Clause 34 is less sensitive than that covered by Clause 33, but it remains among the most sensitive that a public authority may hold. If public servants cannot be reassured that they may express views in confidence when providing advice, the Government believe that there could be an unwelcome deterioration in the quality of decision-taking in public sector bodies. Similar concerns arise in the context of other interests protected by the Clause 34 exemption.
As always, I come back to Clause 2, where the public interest in disclosure is weighed against the public interest in maintaining the exemption.
Lord Goodhart: We are getting a bit technical here. It seems to me that the reasonable opinion of a qualified person applies only to whether there is prejudice. It may be that in the first instance the public authority concerned has to carry out the weighing exercise under Clause 2, but when the issue reaches the information commissioner, she cannot override the decision of the qualified person except on Wednesbury principles, but she can substitute her discretion for that of the public authority under Clause 2(1)(b). She will have to take the weighing decision on its merits, but she will not be able to take the decision on prejudice on its merits.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The information commissioner decides at stage one whether any reasonable qualified person could come to the conclusion that there was prejudice. She can intervene at that stage only on the judicial review basis. If she concludes that no reasonable qualified person could

307
come to the conclusion that there was prejudice under Clause 34, she can override the decision and require disclosure.
Moving on to the discretion phase, if the public authority decides against disclosure, having balanced the reasons for the exemption against the public interest in disclosure under Clause 34, the information commissioner can form her own view. That is pretty clear.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: At the risk of being tiresome, it seems that the commissioner is being called on to carry out a curious intellectual exercise. She may decide that there is no prejudice, but cannot come to the conclusion that the decision that there is prejudice is Wednesbury unreasonable. In that case she has to assume that there is prejudice. She then has to decide afresh the weight of the prejudice. How can she do that as a separate intellectual exercise?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not see any difficulty in the information commissioner saying that the Minister was reasonable to conclude that there was prejudice, but then deciding that the information should be disclosed after weighing that prejudice against the public interest in discovering the facts.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I should take the chance to move on to my amendments, which address how wide the ability to apply ones views to the prejudice should be and who should be granted the ability to put a block in the way of the information commissioner.
Perhaps I could start by saying that, if we have a proposal in the Bill such as that set out in Clause 34, why on earth should concern be expressed about having an ability to disclose factual and analytical information taken out of Clause 33? Surely there cannot be any question that disclosure of information which would cause damage in the way that the Government are worried about would fail to fall within Clause 34. Surely we do not need to block off that avenue twice.
I do not believe that the Minister addressed that question at all when we considered Clause 33. Now that we have reached Clause 34, perhaps he could revisit the question and provide examples of the type of factual or analytical information which, if not exempt under Clause 33, would fail to be exempt under Clause 34 if it caused harm to any processes of government. I cannot get my mind around what that might he and I see no reason to double up in this way.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, Clause 34 applies to public authorities other than central government. Clause 33 applies only to central government. Secondly, an example which the noble Lord asks for in relation to Clause 34 might be where English Heritage
308
provides advice to the Secretary of State on whether a building should be listed. That advice would not be covered by Clause 33.
Lord Lucas: Yes, but what possible harm will that cause to the workings of government? The idea that that type of information could be considered for being hidden away by government under freedom of information legislation is quite extraordinary.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Whether the disclosure of that advice causes harm is the next question. If the owner of the property in question should gain access to that information before a decision was made, obviously he could take certain steps in relation to his property.
Lord Lucas: If that is the case, that is not a harm to the workings of government; it is a harm to the listed estate. Freedom of information implies changes in the way in which practices are carried out. Since this is information which indubitably falls under the rubric of being considered for future publication, it would be exempt within that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: A decision could be made not to list.
Lord Lucas: However, it is being considered for future publication and that is all that is required under that clause of the Bill. I have listened to what the Minister has said and shall read it again in Hansard.
I return to the question of my amendments. I am concerned that not only is a wide range of people allowed to exercise this power, but the power can be extended almost ad infinitum by fiat of the Government. I believe that the clause should be extremely restricted in its activities. It should be restricted to officials or to people such as Ministers who are in direct contact with the public will. If one starts to allow that type of power to be exercised by local councils or by others who in ordinary experience have for years practised things that are considered to be disreputable because they are in no danger electorally, I believe that the whole operation of the Bill may be brought into disrepute. A great power is being bestowed upon officials under this clause. It must be restricted to those on whom the action of public will and public opinion is strong enough to prevent them from misusing the power.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The reason the list has been chosen is that the people identified in the list are those who hold the relevant information. That is why they have been chosen. Under the noble Lord's proposal, people other than those who hold the information would have to make the decision. We do not believe that that is the right approach. Those whom we have identified in the list are all people of considerable responsibility: Ministers of the Crown,

309
the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Mayor for London, Ministers in charge of Northern Irish departments, the Assembly First Secretary, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Comptroller and Auditor-General of Northern Ireland. They all appear to be suitable people and they also have the information in their grasp.
The noble Lord made two points. First, Clause 34 relates to the conduct of public affairs, not the workings of government. The conduct of public affairs would be affected detrimentally if, for example, people could obtain the information that I have referred to in relation to listing and use it in order to affect their own property rights.
Secondly, he referred to Clause 19: considered for publication. It is intended for future publication. That information would not necessarily be intended for future publication. That would depend on the conclusion of the Minister.
Lord Lucas: I find both those statements interesting. In the first, the noble and learned Lord contradicted what he had said earlier and said that a building being considered for listing would come under Clause 34. I had said that if it comes under Clause 34, what on earth is the need to protect it under Clause 33. The noble and learned Lord is being far too protective of information under Clause 33. Anything which is likely to cause disruption to government is already protected under Clause 34.
I am particularly concerned about subsection (n) which allows any public authority to be added willy nilly to this clause and certainly could include local education authorities or, indeed, the very smallest of the public authorities listed in the Bill. As far as I can see, there is no limitation on how far this power can be extended under that subsection. If nothing else, given the Minister's arguments, I consider that that subsection should be deleted.
Lord Goodhart: I have listened to the debate with interest. I remain totally unpersuaded by what the noble and learned Lord the Minister said. This is likely to be an issue to which we shall want to return on a future occasion. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 185 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 19, line 30, at end insert ("or
(iii) the work of the executive committee of the National Assembly for Wales,").

Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 19, line 35, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble and learned Lord said: I notice from the Marshalled List that it is suggested that the Committee may wish to discuss with this amendment the Question that Clause 34 stand part of the Bill. I am bound to say that in my experience it is normal for clause stand part to be debated after the amendments have been considered, then we know the final form of the clause we are considering. However, I have no strong views on the matter and am in the Committee's hands.
Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 187. We have discussed one of the complaints about Clause 34. Now we come to another. Having immunised the harm test from objective scrutiny, the Government now provide a longstop. Having listed the kinds of mischief which appears to occasion the Government such anxiety, just in case they may have forgotten something, they have a catch-all expression which is breathtaking in its all inclusiveness:
"which would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs".
There is virtually nothing in the whole domain of public administration which could not fall within that expression if some qualified person chose to consider it as falling within it.
That is a perfect example of what the Select Committee on the parliamentary commissioner for administration meant when, in its second report on open government in paragraph 111, it referred to the propensity of some departments to,
"scatter excuses like so much gunfire in the hope that some exemption might hit the target. That is to undermine the spirit and purpose of the Code and to show disregard for the rights of the individual requester".
That is a very long cry from the culture of openness of which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister spoke in his preface to the White Paper. Someone has gone overboard. I do not expect my noble and learned friend to agree with all we say in this Committee, but surely he recognises a total absurdity when he meets it. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, rightly points out that the clause stand part debate is grouped with this amendment. I do not have any intention of developing that; it was added as a kind of backstop—rather like the backstop we are discussing in this amendment.
Perhaps I can pose this suggestion. This clause could do without paragraphs (a) and (b); paragraph (c) alone would do fine. The provision would then read,
"if, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, disclosure of the information under this Act … would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs".
That would cover the whole lot. It seems to me that there is not going to be much left for that qualified person to allow out without considering whether or not it is reasonable to do so.

311
I will not even get into the discussion, with all these learned lawyers around, as to what is and what is not reasonable. But what I may think is reasonable as a Minister of the Crown may not be all that reasonable. It may be that I am attempting to protect my bad decision-making, although I may think it is good decision-making. Therefore, I will be reasonable and qualified. Obviously the draftsmen decided, just in case something escaped and there is one last fish in the sea, let us get it with a grenade; and this is the grenade.
I know the noble and learned Lord likes to tell us it is all about openness,.but I am not very sure.
Lord Goodhart: My name and that of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill is attached to this amendment. At this time of night all I propose to say is that I agree with every word said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay.
Lord Norton of Louth: I basically agree with what has been said. But since we are debating the clause stand part Question as well, I should say that it strikes me as a strangely constructed clause if we look at the provisions in relation to one another. We are left wondering, for example, what information held by a public authority is likely to prejudice,
"the maintenance of the convention of the collective responsibility".
The way that provision is drawn strikes me as being distinctly odd.
In terms of paragraph (c), I agree completely with the amendment. I made a note that this is basically a sweeping-up provision, not dissimilar to a discussion we had earlier on Clause 26, which again struck me as a sweeping-up clause to take care of anything that was not covered by other clauses. I am sure the Minister could give examples that would be caught by the provision that may well be justified. But it is so broadly drawn that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, mentioned, it can cover anything in the realm of public affairs. We only need some official seeking to protect himself to delay the process. In other words, it may be used as a delaying tactic. But it is so broadly drawn that it encompasses anything to do with public affairs. It needs to be taken away, completely redrawn and narrowed considerably.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As has been made clear in the debates two days ago in Committee, this is a catch-all. Does anybody disagree with the proposition that if information,
"would, or would be likely to, prejudice

(i) the maintenance of the convention of the collective responsibility … or

(ii) the work of the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly …

312
(b) would, or would be likely to, inhibit

(i) the free and frank provision of advice, or

(ii) the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation",

that material needs to be weighed in the balance against the public interest in disclosure? That is the way the Bill works.
Clause 34 establishes exemption, but only if those tests are satisfied. Once those tests are satisfied, it is for the public authority to decide, when weighing the public interest in disclosure against the reason for the exemption, which of the two should prevail. That is perfectly sensible. Nobody would dispute those provisions. Again, subsection (2)(c) says that if the disclosure of information,
"would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs",
it is exempt; and that needs to be weighed against the public interest in disclosure.
It is important to note that in the course of the debate no one considers the effect of Clause 2; they consider only the effect of the individual exemption. It is perfectly possible to identify items which will be caught by Clause 34 which would not be caught by other exemptions; for example, communication between chief examiners of examining boards and people drafting exam questions. Such material should not be disclosed. One would have thought that people knowing what was in exam papers before they came out would not be good for the effective conduct of public affairs.
The Bill is designed to promote freedom of information but it must be sensible to define a catchall by things which reasonable people would regard as preserving; for instance, the free and frank exchange of advice or the effective conduct of public affairs. It sets what is to be on one side of the balance and Clause 2 sets what is to be on the other side. I therefore suggest that noble Lords withdraw their amendment.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: Perhaps I may clarify an aspect of the healing properties of the balancing act of the new Clause 2. Is it that either the public authority or information commissioner, when judging where the balance of public interest lies, will act on the basis that the presumption is against disclosure, unless it is in the public interest to do so?
Most of the amendments, including that to Clause 33(2), argue that the presumption should be in favour of disclosure, unless there is a public interest against it. During our debate on Clause 33, the noble and learned Lord said that there was not much between us on this point and why, therefore, not have it "our" way: that the presumption is against disclosure, unless it is in the public interest, rather than in favour of disclosure, unless there is a public interest. Have I understood the balancing act correctly?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The way it works is to ask whether it is within an exemption. If it is, the public authority asks itself whether, in the circumstances of the case, the public interest in disclosing the fact outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that means that one must see which is higher in the scale. If they are equal, as I made clear to the Committee on the previous occasion, one does not disclose. That is how it works.
Baroness Whitaker: In other words, the presumption is against the disclosure.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: One has to work out what the balance is.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Then, of course, we are back to our old friend, the tie-breaker. My noble and learned friend's argument is that you sweep everything into the category and then subject it to a harm test. All right, it has been subjected to a harm test so there will be nothing to worry about. However, why have any categories at all? Why not say that every piece of information which anyone ever requests shall simply be subjected to a harm test?
Those who presented the Bill presented us with a list of categories and we have spent a few hours discussing how those categories are to be defined. My noble and learned friend, with commendable frankness, called the provision a "catch-all". I am finding it extremely difficult to understand what is the function of a category if it does not matter what is in it and it is simply subjected to a harm test.
Before I work myself up into a frenzy, at this hour in the evening I had better ask for leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 188 to 190 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 19, line 41, at end insert—
("(3A) In relation to statistical information, subsections (2) and (3) shall have effect with the omission of the words "in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person".").

The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 191. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 192, as an amendment to Amendment No. 191, not moved.]
[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 194 to 196:
314
Page 20, line 14, leave out from ("by") to end of line 17 and insert ("any Welsh public authority other than the Auditor General for Wales, means—

(i) the public authority, or

(ii) any officer or employee of the authority authorised by the Assembly First Secretary,").

Page 20, line 21, at end insert—
("() in relation to information held by the Auditor General for Wales, means the Auditor General for Wales,").

Page 20, line 22, leave out from ("any") to end of line 28 and insert ("Northern Ireland public authority other than the Northern Ireland Audit Office, means—

(i) the public authority, or

(ii) any officer or employee of the authority authorised by the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland acting jointly,").

[Amendments Nos. 197 to 201 not moved.]
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 [Communications with Her Majesty, etc. and honours]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 21, line 9, at end insert ("or dignity").
The noble and learned Lord said: The conferring of honours raises questions of personal confidentiality and the Government believe that it should receive substantial protection under the Bill. The conferring of honours raises such questions not just in relation to the candidates for honours themselves and members of their families, but also in relation to those who contribute to the process of selection. Questions of confidentiality can arise just as easily in regard to posthumous awards. It will be obviously embarrassing, and potentially distressing, for surviving relatives to discover that the deceased was considered but rejected for an honour. The Bill has been drafted in recognition of this and reflects the status quo contained in guidance set out in the White Paper Open Government in 1993 which applied an exemption for honours material for 75 years.
Nevertheless, I accept the need for as much transparency as possible in the honours system. When this clause was previously debated in another place my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State undertook to look again at the duration of the exemption. The Committee will be pleased to learn that the policy has since been reviewed, and Amendment No. 327 has been tabled to reduce the duration of this exemption to 60 years.
Finally, Amendment No. 202 is merely clarificatory. The term "dignity" refers to peerages, and the amendment ensures that the exemption applies to the granting of peerages as well as meritorious awards. Amendment No. 338 ensures that the corresponding provision in the Data Protection Act is similarly amended. I beg to move Amendment No. 202. I hope that the noble Lord,

315
Lord Lucas, accepts that the amendments to which I have spoken achieve what he intends and he will not move Amendment No. 203.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Did the noble and learned Lord really intend to refer to peerages or meritorious awards? Are peerages not meritorious awards?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The exemption applies to peerages and meritorious awards. I am not sure that I did say "or".
[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before midnight.

  UNHCR Accounts
  UNHCR Accounts
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Runnymede Trust
  Runnymede Trust
  Entry Refusal: Persons with Criminal Convictions
  Entry Refusal: Persons with Criminal Convictions
  Fuel Supplies
  Fuel Supplies
  Hillsborough Papers
  Hillsborough Papers
  MAFF/NAWAD Concordat
  MAFF/NAWAD Concordat
  Smoking Policy
  Smoking Policy
  Prostate Cancer
  Prostate Cancer
  Northern Ireland: Compensation to Families of "Disappeared"
  Northern Ireland: Compensation to Families of "Disappeared"
  Northern Ireland: Murders
  Northern Ireland: Murders
  Belfast Agreement: Parity of Esteem for Cultures
  Belfast Agreement: Parity of Esteem for Cultures
  Northern Ireland: Fuel Costs
  Northern Ireland: Fuel Costs
  IRA Arms Dumps: Inspections
  IRA Arms Dumps: Inspections
  IRA Arms Purchases
  IRA Arms Purchases
  British/Irish Government Contacts
  British/Irish Government Contacts
  Northern Ireland: Border Security
  Northern Ireland: Border Security
  Northern Ireland: Cross-border Co-operation
  Northern Ireland: Cross-border Co-operation
  English Legislation: Members' Voting Rights
  English Legislation: Members' Voting Rights
  Fuel Supply
  Fuel Supply
  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant
  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant
  Heathrow: Air Quality Studies
  Heathrow: Air Quality Studies
  British Registered Companies
  British Registered Companies
  Military Wreck Protection
  Military Wreck Protection
  Submarine Fleet
  Submarine Fleet
  "Duty Free" Sales
  "Duty Free" Sales
  Luncheon Voucher Tax Concession
  Luncheon Voucher Tax Concession
  Capital Gains Indexation and Taper Abolition
  Capital Gains Indexation and Taper Abolition
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Economic Cycle
  Economic Cycle
  National Lottery Licence Award
  National Lottery Licence Award
  Mr Alan Howarth
  Mr Alan Howarth
  National Lottery Commission Chairman
  National Lottery Commission Chairman
  Income Tax
  Income Tax