Sitting of 6 February 2001

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

    Herceptin
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received on the prescribing of herceptin for the treatment of breast cancer; and if he will make a statement. [147327]
    The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): We have received representations, including that from the hon. Lady on behalf of her constituent, on this matter. Herceptin was licensed in August 2000, and we are keen to ensure that it is used appropriately across the national health service. We are also keen to prevent a postcode lottery for care. That is why we have referred the drug to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which expects to issue its report in June.
    Miss McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that it has been proven that herceptin can extend life? Does she also accept that it is apparently much more widely available in the south-east of England than in the north, and in particular north Yorkshire? My constituent, Eileen Quigley, was told that she could have the drug if she was prepared to pay for it. Does the Minister accept that the Government have failed my constituent, and that they must now bring forward the date by which the drug will be registered and accepted by NICE for use?
    Yvette Cooper: The drug was licensed in August. We are concerned about the postcode lottery for care in relation to a number of cancer drugs, which is why we have rapidly referred them to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. We also did that with taxanes, and 5,000 women are now receiving treatment that they would not have received had we continued with the policies of the previous Government, who promoted a postcode lottery for care by promoting an internal market.
    The case of the hon. Lady's constituent was originally raised by the patient's partner, and the trust has not yet received the patient's consent to release the details, although it has pursued that matter several times. Once consent is received, I shall be happy to pursue that patient's case.
    780
    It was the Conservative Government who promoted the postcode lottery for care by promoting the internal market. That is why we established the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to deal with such drugs as rapidly as they come on to the market, and to provide national guidance so that we have a truly national health service.
    Joan Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. We have real confidence that NICE will make an appropriate decision on the issue. Does she accept that the major breast cancer charities, including Breakthrough Breast Cancer, have made representations about herceptin because it is the one drug known not to have side effects and to be beneficial in cases involving metastases, and for patients for whom all else has failed?
    Yvette Cooper: I am aware of the representations that my hon. Friend mentions, and we have referred the drug to NICE for those reasons. I cannot pre-empt the guidance that the institute will give, but we have referred cancer drugs to it as a priority because of our concern about the matter. In the past it has often taken a long time for effective licensed drugs to be used routinely in the NHS; that is why this drug was referred to NICE even before it was licensed. We look forward to receiving a report speedily, so that all patients can be reassured that they are getting the best treatment, and the treatment that they need.

    Cancer Services
    Mr. David Chaytor: If he will make a statement on the Government's progress on improvements in services to patients suffering from cancer. [147328]
    Mr. Eric Martlew: If he will make a statement on the Government's progress on improvements in services to patients suffering from cancer. [147329]
    Helen Jackson: If he will make a statement about the development of cancer services in the NHS. [147335]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): After decades of neglect, cancer services are receiving record levels of extra investment. Tens of thousands of cancer patients who are urgently referred to hospitals by their GPs are now being seen within two weeks. By the end of this year, patients with acute leukaemia or testicular cancer, and children with cancer, will have a maximum wait of one month from urgent referral to treatment.
    Mr. Chaytor: That news will be welcome to my constituents in Bury, North. The importance of the hospice movement for palliative care for cancer sufferers must not be overlooked in the new approach to cancer treatment. I pay tribute to the staff and volunteers of the Bury hospice. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the hospice movement will get its fair share of the new investment going into the national health service?
    Mr. Milburn: I know that my hon. Friend has a close working relationship with his local hospices. It is important to note that across the piece—in prevention,

    781
    treatment and palliative care—we are investing appropriate sums of money to provide cancer patients with the treatment and care that they need.
    My hon. Friend is right; for years hospices have relied on charitable and voluntary fund-raising endeavours. I pay tribute to all those involved. The national health service has never matched the contributions from voluntary and charitable donations, but that is about to change. As a result of the extra investment now going into cancer services—particularly into palliative care—the national health service will be matching the amounts raised voluntarily to invest in hospices and the palliative care movement within three to four years.
    Mr. Martlew: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Eden Valley hospice in my constituency, which has a tremendous reputation and full support from the community? It has recently decided to employ a consultant specialist in medical care to improve care in the hospice and take it out into the community. What my right hon. Friend has said is good news for the hospice because there will be extra resources, but may I bring him back to another aspect of our cancer care policies—regional centres of excellence? People in constituencies such as mine in Cumbria realise that we are a long way from the centre and we need a place such as Newcastle—I am sure that it will be Newcastle—where our constituents can go to receive the finest cancer treatment anywhere in the country. I hope that he will confirm that.
    Mr. Milburn: I hesitate to confirm the idea of Newcastle, or Sunderland—or even Carlisle—but my hon. Friend's general point is right. We must make sure that the best treatment is available to the maximum number of cancer patients. As he is aware, we recently announced extra funding for stomach cancer services, because stomach cancer kills so many people every year and, regrettably, the interventions generally come too late.
    We also need to concentrate the expertise in the national health service better, and make it available in specialist regional centres. The Government are investing a record amount of extra money in cancer services, but although the Conservative party, too, now says that cancer services are a priority, it is a pity that the Government in which the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) served did not earmark a single penny piece of extra investment for cancer treatment. That explains precisely why, in today's NHS, including our cancer services, there are the following problems: too few doctors, too few nurses, and not enough modern equipment.
    We are putting that right by investing extra money, which we can do because of the choices that we have made—for economic stability and more investment in public services. All that is put at risk by the policies of the Conservative party, which would return us to stop-go economics and cuts in public services.
    Helen Jackson: Sheffield health authority is absolutely clear about the fact that the combination of the Government's setting access targets and providing extra resources and investment has enabled it to develop its breast cancer centre at the Royal Hallamshire hospital, which means that nobody in the Sheffield area has to wait more than two weeks for rapid access to a specialist. The Government's insistence on access targets is important and welcome, but do we not have to keep providing
    782
    resources to enable health authorities to put treatment for other types of cancer at the top of their list and to receive the investment necessary to develop it?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right.
    Mr. John Bercow: What a surprise.
    Mr. Milburn: She is right and, invariably, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. There are no surprises there.
    My hon. Friend is right because, as she and other hon. Members throughout the House know, the NHS needs not what it had in the past—peaks of investment followed by cuts—but sustained investment over time. That is precisely what is happening under this Government. This year, for example, we shall invest an extra £280 million in cancer services. That will rise to an extra £570 million by 2003–04, precisely because of the choices we have made and the priorities we have set. The NHS is a priority, and within that, cancer services are a priority.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: As chairman of the all-party hospice group, I welcome any additional funding for palliative care, especially the £50 million by 2004 allocated in the NHS cancer plan. Will the Secretary of State tell the House when those funds will become available and how they will be distributed? Will he also confirm that they will be allocated not just to NHS units, but to independent hospices?
    Mr. Milburn: That is a very important point and the hon. Lady is absolutely right. Palliative care services inside and outside the NHS are excellent and, as she knows, many hospices have been established because of massive fund-raising endeavours by a few individuals, and I pay tribute to them. She is also right to say that some hospices are under financial pressure, and she will be aware that some health authorities have made extra cash available. She should also be aware that part of the £50 million extra for hospices and palliative care that I announced in September will come on stream not in 2004, but from this April.
    Over three or four years, we shall build up the investment from the NHS that goes to adult hospices—and, it is important to add, to children's hospices. By 2004 there will be matched funding from the NHS and from voluntary and charitable fund-raising endeavours; we have never been in that position before.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Following on from the questions asked by the hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), rather than the speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), may I emphasise the importance to regional cancer centres of having not just good treatment facilities, such as exist at Mount Vernon hospital, but both exceptional research capabilities and hospices, both of which also exist at Mount Vernon? That combination is surely second to none, and should recommend itself to the Secretary of State. Does he agree?
    Mr. Milburn: I certainly agree that we need to increase our efforts in cancer research. That holds the key to some

    783
    of the advances that we all want to be made for cancer patients. This country has a good track record, but much more needs to be done.
    As the hon. Gentleman knows, I recently announced that for the first time we shall have a single cancer research institute, which will, I hope, harness the best of British science to provide the best of British expertise and the best for British patients. That is what we want to do, and we will do it on the basis of the extra investment that we are making.
    With respect, the question for the hon. Gentleman is this: if he thinks cancer treatment is such a priority, why does he back policies that involve cuts in public spending? Why does he back policies involving, for instance, cutting lottery funding for cancer services? That is the Opposition's policy. [Interruption.] Opposition Members deny it, but that is what their spokesman on culture, media and sport said in 1998. He said that the money that we were putting into the national health service should come not from the lottery, but from general taxation. That spokesman, or one of the Conservative Front-Bench team here now, must answer one of two questions. First, if the money is to come from general taxation rather than lottery funding, where specifically will it come from? Secondly, if the Opposition are not prepared to adopt that option, which programmes will be cut?
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call another Member, may I say this to Ministers? First, attacks on the Opposition are not really what I am looking for. [Interruption.] Order. Ministers are there to account for their Departments. Secondly, we must have brief questions and also brief answers.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Mr. Harvey-Hills, a consultant urologist, recently wrote to his chief executive about the cancellation of cancer services at St Peter's hospital. He wrote:
    "You were fully aware of three other patients of mine who were admitted for major cancer surgery (after a three months wait) only to be cancelled three times each, within thirty minutes of being called to the theatre."
    I am sure Members agree that that was unacceptable, and it is bad enough in itself, but Mr. Harvey-Hills went on to say:
    "These are but three examples of a long-standing problem. One year ago I was put under pressure by the management to treat non-urgent longwaiting patients instead of patients with cancer".
    Is there not something fundamentally flawed about a system that refuses to treat the sickest patients first? Is there not a questionable moral basis for a system that puts the targets of politicians before the needs of patients, as happened in this case, in this hospital, under this Government?
    Mr. MilburnThat was a good speech, but it does not reflect the reality of the national health service.
    I shall certainly do everything in my power to resist the temptation to attack the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker. As for his attack on the Government, we have made two things absolutely clear: clinical priorities, and the sickest patients, come first. What is more, unlike the previous Government, we have put our money where our mouth is.
    784
    If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about cancer and heart services, why, under the Government in which he served, was not a penny piece earmarked for modernisation and investment in those services?
    Mr. Derek Twigg: The extra money provided in the recent allocation of funds is welcome in areas such as Halton, which for various reasons has the highest cancer rates in the country. Hospices have an important role in the care of cancer patients, particularly those who are terminally ill, and staff do tremendous work in that respect. When extra funds are allocated for hospices and palliative care, should it not be recognised that areas such as Halton—unlike other parts of the country that are not similarly deprived and poor—cannot raise large amounts of money? I hope that my right hon. Friend will take account of that fact.
    Mr. Milburn: I am aware of that. As my hon. Friend knows, there is concern in the hospice and palliative care movement because there is a lottery for care in those services too. Hospices have sprung up in various parts of the country, but have not necessarily best matched need. One important action that we have to take—we have asked health authorities to take it now—is to engage with local hospices and with those who are thinking of establishing local hospices to ensure that those services fit the local community's needs. Ultimately, the extra resources that we are putting in will not only help to provide better hospice services, but gear those services better to the areas with the highest need.

    Hospital-acquired Infections
    Mr. Peter Lilley: If he will make it his policy to require national health service trust hospitals to report rates of hospital-acquired infections on a common basis. [147331]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Yes. Last September, the Government announced that from April 2001, it will be compulsory for all acute NHS trusts to report bloodstream infections caused by methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus. That information will be published from 2002, and is the first stage in improving the reporting of hospital-acquired infection across the NHS. The next phase will monitor infections in patients undergoing hip and knee replacement surgery, and those who develop hospital-acquired infections after discharge.
    Mr. Lilley: I am glad to hear that that is in train, because it certainly does not happen now in the hospitals surrounding my constituency. Is the Minister aware that the concerns that are growing most among the public are those about ward cleanliness and infections acquired on wards? Will he confirm that, in addition to making available information on infection rates in each hospital, Ministers will transfer to ward sisters the authority to hold to account those who clean their specific wards?
    Mr. Hutton: I do not quite know how to tell the right hon. Gentleman this, but we have already announced precisely that policy. I wonder whether, while he is on the subject, he has ever reflected on the success of compulsory competitive tendering in improving the

    785
    cleanliness of hospitals. I remind him that we have made £31 million available this year, and another £30 million will be made available next year, to improve cleanliness across the NHS. It is clear that good infection control policies and a proper emphasis on cleanliness should be at the heart of good hospital management. Under this Government, they will be.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Will my hon. Friend have a look at Adjournment debates held as far back as 1995 on methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, in which clear warnings were given about fatal cases? I do not remember the previous Government taking any action on the issue, and the present Government are to be congratulated on the work being done now. Will my right hon. Friend also investigate the action that has been taken in the Netherlands? There are fewer cases in that entire country than there are in individual hospitals in this country. The Netherlands' success is the result of years of the type of painstaking work that we are doing now. Ministers should accept congratulations on their work—but they should keep in mind the enormous number of avoidable deaths that are occurring throughout the health service.
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and for bringing those matters to our attention. He is right to say that the issue affects every health care system in the world. If we are to find solutions to the issue in the United Kingdom, it is clearly necessary to examine successful practice in other countries, and we shall certainly do that. My hon. Friend will be aware that in January, the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), announced that another £200 million would be made available to the NHS to improve sterilisation and decontamination of facilities. That, too, will make a significant contribution to dealing with the problem.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Under this Government, the number of deaths directly attributed to hospital-acquired infections has increased to a record 5,000. What possible excuse can be given in this day and age to a family who have lost a relative who went into hospital for a minor procedure but never came out? What review have the Government conducted of antibiotic policy, to stem the increase in antibiotic-resistant infection?
    Mr. Hutton: The hon. Lady asks about the incidence of hospital-acquired infection. The simple answer is that we will be able to understand the situation only because we will now be collecting the proper data. I am bearing your strictures in mind, Mr. Speaker, but the Conservative party had 18 years to put the right data collection system in place, and it spectacularly failed to do so.
    It is important to develop solutions to the problem, and we have implemented a series of actions that will help. Decisions will be informed by the best available evidence, and the data collection systems that we are putting in place will allow that to happen. That must be the basis on which all good public policy ultimately rests.

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: On how many occasions in the last three years he has changed the methodology for compiling hospital waiting lists; and if he will make a statement. [147333]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): None.
    Mr. Robertson: Why, therefore, did my constituent Mr. Clive Currie receive a letter from the local hospital dated 30 December last year telling him that his appointment six months later had to be cancelled because of an urgent requirement for appointments? Why did the same letter tell him that he would not be offered another appointment more than a month before the date for such an appointment fell due? Is that not a case of keeping people off the waiting list—and does it not coincide with the possible date of a general election?
    Mr. Milburn: The problem with the hon. Gentleman's follow-up question is that he had not listened to my answer to his original question. I shall be glad to look into the complaint, although I am aware of the strictures placed on me by you, Mr. Speaker, and by Opposition Front-Bench Members, who keep telling me that the last thing I should be doing is interfering in individual patient complaints or in the running of the health service locally. However, the hon. Gentleman has made a representation to me, and I shall be happy to look into the matter.
    My main point is that under this Government there have been no changes in the way in which we compile the waiting list statistics. The methods are exactly the same as those used under the previous Government. There are 120,000 fewer people on waiting lists now than when we came to power. More patients are being treated because this Government are investing more money.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: On the day that the number of people on waiting lists has risen—and with NHS managers seeking to respond to the incentives offered by his waiting list initiative, and to the targets that it imposes—will the Secretary of State say how many patients have been removed from waiting lists for non-clinical reasons?
    Mr. Milburn: I should be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a note about that, if that would be helpful. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Amazingly enough, I do not have the figure in front of me.
    I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his Front-Bench duties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."' As we can hear, he is deeply popular with Labour Members. I wonder what the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has done to deserve him.
    On waiting lists, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) told the House on 8 March last year that the problem in the NHS was that
    "some people are not waiting long enough."—[Official Report, 8 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 1054.]
    That was not his only pearl of wisdom. Two years ago, he told the House that the best treatment for the condition of teenage pregnancy was "education and self-discipline". He went on to ask the Minister with responsibility for public health whether the condition might not be better treated by adding "something to the water". That is the sort of pearl of wisdom that we can look forward to from the hon. Gentleman.
    Angela Smith: While my right hon. Friend is looking at waiting lists, will he also consider the

    787
    reasons why some patients remain on those lists? I draw his attention to the tragic death of a young woman in my area, who died after waiting for two years for organs for a transplant operation. We have discovered that one of the reasons for such long waits is that many people do not carry donor cards, because the regulations were changed in 1994. The cards are no longer sent out automatically to GPs and surgeons. People have to apply for donor cards, and many do not do so. In the light of recent developments, will my right hon. Friend examine this matter urgently and reinstate the system in which donor cards are sent out automatically?
    Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. As she knows, I shall be visiting a hospital in Basildon tomorrow.
    On organ donation, I will gladly look into my hon. Friend's specific point about changes in the regulations in 1994. A huge number of people in the country—about 8 million—already carry organ donor cards. That is about 14 per cent. of the population. It is very important that they do so, and it is also important that we do all we can to encourage even more people to carry cards, because organ donation plays such an important part in advances in medical research and treatment. Before too long, I will be holding a meeting with patients organisations, doctors and others to see what we can do to ensure that the advantages of organ donation are made clear to the majority of the British people.
    Mr. Andy King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difference between the Labour and Conservative parties is that we are seriously trying to deal with waiting lists, while their answer is to cut waiting lists drastically by forcing everyone to take out private health insurance?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right—that is the position of those on the Conservative Front Bench, including the shadow Home Secretary, the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition. It is not the position of the Government—nor, indeed, that of the British Medical Association.
    I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a report that the BMA has published today on how best to fund our health care system. Considering the sort of policy for private health insurance that the Conservatives advocate, it concludes that
    "a tax relief scheme would result in a net loss of funds to the public sector. It would also be regressive, as those who could not afford private insurance even with tax relief would in effect be subsidising those who could afford it."
    That is absolutely right. The report goes on to say that such a policy
    "is unlikely to be popular with the public as it provides access to health care on the basis of ability to pay."
    That, too, is right. This Government—this party—believe that clinical need, not ability to pay, is the driving force behind our health care system. That is precisely the point that we will be defending at the next election.

    Beta Interferon
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When he
    788
    will announce the findings of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence with respect to beta interferon. [147334]
    Mr. John Bercow: When he will announce the findings of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence with respect to beta interferon. [147336]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has extended the time scale for its appraisal of beta interferon and glatiramer acetate to commission further economic modelling. NICE will review the outcome of the new modelling in the summer, and unless there are further appeals, it expects to issue its guidance by November.
    Mr. Winterton: I ask this question as president of the Macclesfield branch of the Multiple Sclerosis Society. Is the Minister aware that it is 18 months to the day since NICE was given the task of appraising beta interferon and disease-modifying drugs such as copaxone in the treatment of multiple sclerosis? Is he really saying to me, and to the rest of the House, that it is tolerable that some of the 85,000 people who suffer from MS should not be able to get the drug that will give them a better quality of life today, when this drug's effectiveness is already proven and it is licensed in many other countries?
    Mr. Denham: As the hon. Gentleman will know, under the policies introduced by the previous Government there was a wide disparity in the availability of beta interferon, precisely because there was not agreement and consensus about its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. That is why it was so essential to refer it to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which has put a great deal of work into this important appraisal.
    Before Christmas, the chief executive of NICE put out a press release in which he said:
    "We have looked at carefully at these models and whilst it is clear that considerable effort has been put into their development, detailed examination has raised a number of issues that the institute's Appraisal Committee, using the information available, has been unable to resolve. The evidence relating to the cost-effectiveness of these medicines is critically important in this appraisal."
    These have to be decisions for NICE, and it is right that NICE should take care to get such important decisions right. In its judgment, it needed extra economic modelling, and that is what it has decided to do.
    Mr. Bercow: Given the frustrating delay that has already occurred and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has referred, will the Minister go a bit further and confirm that November 2001 will be a firm deadline and not a rough aspiration? How many people does the right hon. Gentleman estimate will be untreatable by November 2001 who could be successfully treated now? Finally, will he explain why copaxone is, in effect, being treated as an interferon for the purposes of NICE' s study and appraisal, even though it is chemically and pharmacologically different, has been successfully tested over eight years and has reduced relapses by 70 per cent?
    Mr. Denham: It is important to stress that we have not stopped, banned or prevented the prescribing of beta interferon. The guidance made available to the NHS in

    789
    the mid-1990s is still in place and should still be being followed by health authorities throughout the country. The question is about resolving doubts and uncertainties about clinically and cost-effective treatments.
    The hon. Gentleman asks about the November date that I mentioned earlier. That is the date towards which NICE is working, but as he will understand, NICE has to follow proper legal process. Timing can be affected by whether, for example, appeals or even legal challenges are mounted at any stage. However, November is the date towards which the institute is currently working.
    Mr. John Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are three MS syndromes? Evidence already exists to show that beta interferon is very successful in treating the relapsing-remitting syndrome at least. Several of my constituents need beta interferon and cannot get hold of it because we are waiting for the NICE decision. Is it not unacceptable that NICE is extending the time for that decision? Could not the institute at least make a decision on the treatment of the relapsing-remitting syndrome?
    Mr. Denham: We have to accept the judgment reached by NICE. As constituency MPs, we all receive representations from constituents, clinicians and others about this drug. With all due respect, I very much doubt that anyone in the House has spent the same time and effort as NICE on detailed consideration of the range of evidence that has been presented. It is precisely because the institute does not believe that the evidence resolves those important questions that it has decided to commission new economic modelling. That is NICE's decision, since we entrusted it with a choice about how to handle these matters. The institute's decision suggests that the issues are not as clear-cut as we would all like them to be.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: As the chairman of the all-party multiple sclerosis group, may I say that it is a welcome development that NICE is starting to listen to MS sufferers—having changed its initial view that it was minded not to recommend the prescription of beta interferon to those who were said to be able to benefit from it? In the period until NICE makes its recommendation—it is to be hoped by November at the latest—what extra investment are the Government making in neurological services throughout the country? As well as the postcode prescribing of beta interferon, we have to contend with the fact that neurological services are extremely patchy from one region to another.
    Mr. Denham: On the two points raised by my hon. Friend, it would be wrong to speculate on reasons other than those given by NICE as to why it is commissioning extra economic modelling. NICE would say that it has always tried to understand—especially through the Multiple Sclerosis Society—the opinions and experiences of MS sufferers.
    My hon. Friend makes an important point about wider neurological services. Everyone would accept that even for MS, and certainly for other conditions, other forms of care and support are important; sometimes, they may be the only forms that are important. The extra investment now going into the NHS gives it the capacity to plan improvements in services in ways that have not been
    790
    available in the past and that would be threatened if our current investment plans were curtailed—for example, by a different Government in future.
    Mr. Nick Harvey: Although I regret the delay, may I at least express the hope that NICE's willingness to consider a new methodology holds out the possibility that it will reach a favourable verdict on beta interferon?
    What reassurance can the Minister give to patients waiting for a verdict, either on beta interferon or on herceptin, about which we heard earlier, that, when it issues the guidelines, NICE will indeed prove to have been the answer to the postcode lottery, as the Minister for Public Health claimed again today? Are the Government not concerned that, even where NICE guidelines have been issued, local health authorities are still choosing to ignore them? Is he aware that patients in Wiltshire are living with a health authority that will not implement the guidelines on Alzheimer's; that those in certain parts of Devon will not be able to get relenza; and that Hillingdon—the largest primary care trust—has decided to ignore NICE guidelines on cardiac care?
    If NICE is to be the answer to the postcode lottery, what steps do the Government propose to take to ensure that, when the guidelines are issued, patients throughout the country can benefit from such treatments?
    Mr. Denham: It would be wrong not to recognise, or to cast doubt over, the very significant achievements that NICE has made in tackling postcode prescribing—on taxanes for the treatment of breast cancer, on the use of stents in heart surgery, on the introduction of glycoprotein inhibitors for acute coronary heart syndromes and on the significant recent announcements about Alzheimer's drugs. All those achievements will bring thousands and thousands of extra people into treatment who were not being treated under the system of postcode prescribing. Indeed, independent judges have suggested that, overall, NICE' s work is undoubtedly leading to an increase, rather than a decrease, in NHS expenditure on the treatments and drugs that have been referred to it. All health authorities and all parts of the NHS have to take full account of NICE guidance in reaching their decisions. I would simply say that, with the investment that we are putting into the NHS, finance cannot be given as a reason for not implementing NICE guidance.
    Mr. Kevin Barron: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the introduction of guidelines under the previous Government did not provide equal treatment throughout the country and that it is vital that NICE does not just a quick job but a comprehensive one, so that we can get rid of the inequalities that now exist and so that people, no matter where they are, can truly benefit from a national health service rather than a postcode one?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and I remember that the introduction of the policy of postcode prescribing by the Conservative party was a cynical political device that enabled them to say, "It's nothing to do with us" whenever something went wrong in the NHS. I am proud that we have had the courage to set up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

    791
    It sometimes leads to difficult situations and dilemmas for Ministers, but we have created an institution that will tackle postcode prescribing.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: Will the Minister tell the House whether the new modelling that NICE is seeking to put in place will allow it to take account of wider economic and social costs and benefits rather than just the economic costs and benefits to the NHS? Does he not think that that should have been the basis from the outset on which NICE appraisals were conducted? Will he consider reopening appraisals that have already been completed on the basis of that narrow definition alone?
    Mr. Denham: The appraisal approach taken by NICE has been set out very clearly. NICE will directly take into account the impact on NHS and personal social services budgets, but it is open to NICE to take into account a wider range of factors and it is open to those who submit evidence to include evidence on a wider range of factors. One of the things I welcome about the way in which NICE is undertaking the current exercise is the open and transparent way in which it is seeking to commission the new economic model. The way in which it intends to do that is set out in a consultation letter issued on 25 January, which has been on the NICE website since 29 January.

    Social Services Funding
    Mr. Tony Colman: If he will make a statement on the growth of social services funding. [147337]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The resources provided for social services by central Government have increased substantially since 1997 and will continue to grow in real terms over the next three years. Last year, the level of resources provided for social services increased in real terms by 3.8 per cent. They increased by a further 3.5 per cent. this year and will continue to rise by, on average, a further 3.4 per cent. per annum over the next three years. In 2001–02, we will be providing almost £10 billion for social services.
    Mr. Colman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him and his colleagues on that massive increase in funding for social services. However, would he join me in condemning the proposals from the Tory party for the massive cuts in social services spending that are part of its £16 billion of cuts? In my borough of Wandsworth, that would lead either to a huge increase in council tax or—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is out of order; I do not think the Minister need reply.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Minister agrees that the partnership with the private sector in providing care home beds and nursing home beds is one to be welcomed. Has he received representations from social services departments pointing out that they cannot afford to pay the going rate for fees and are cutting the rates that are being paid? Beds are being closed in Dorset and across the United Kingdom. Will the Minister
    792
    consider urgently the rates that are being offered to homes, so that people can be looked after properly and according to the standards that the Government have set?
    Mr. Hutton: We have substantially increased resources for social services in every part of the country. However, the rate at which care—and particularly residential care—is commissioned is determined by precisely the local authorities that the hon. Gentleman identified. It has not been the policy of this or any previous Government to intervene directly and to set the commissioning rates for such care. We certainly do not intend to do that.
    The hon. Gentleman is right. We are considering the current position carefully and our priority is to maintain capacity in all the various care sectors that are important. However, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that—as surely as night follows day—there is no doubt whatever that, if the Conservative party were returned to office, it would cut social services spending.
    Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Since my hon. Friend received our delegation, has he been aware of the success of the investment that was announced before Christmas for social services in Rochdale and especially for the long-term placement of elderly people who need to go into care homes? Will he also consider favourably the pilot that we shall present to him of a co-operative model and a co-operative commission which will take care homes into the next wave for the 21st century and ensure that we meet the care needs of more of the elderly in my constituency?
    Mr. Hutton: I congratulate the NHS and the local authority in Rochdale, which have worked hard in recent months to reduce the problem of bed blocking. We have set out in the NHS plan our proposals for dealing with that issue over the next few years. We certainly welcome innovative solutions proposed either by local authorities or the NHS further to reduce the problem of bed blocking. We shall consider with interest any further proposals that come from Rochdale.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) referred to the unevenness of funding. Is the Minister aware of how the combination of the squeeze on funds for Kent social services and the heavy-handed approach of East Kent health authority to the regulation of nursing homes has led to the loss of 191 beds net in East Kent in just 12 months? That has created a bed-blocking crisis in our hospitals, which reached the point a fortnight ago where a 97-year-old woman had to wait two nights in casualty for a bed.
    Mr. Hutton: I do not dispute the fact that there are pressures on the care home sector in Kent; that is obvious and is a matter of record. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, as a result of the announcements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made just before Christmas and as a result of the actions of the Government, Kent will have another £2.5 million added to its adult social services budget. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's protestations will ring completely hollow and sound superficial until and unless the Conservative party accepts that it will match our spending on social services. To date, it has not done that.

    NHS Operations
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What steps he is taking to expand the capacity of the NHS to carry out more operations. [147338]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): We are expanding the capacity of the national health service by providing extra beds, extra staff and extra hospitals. We are providing the biggest NHS funding boost for a generation—a growth of one third in real terms between 1999 and 2004. Our partnerships with the private sector will also ensure that even more NHS patients are treated and get the benefit of that extra investment.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Is she aware that a revamped and modernised Northwood and Pinner community hospital to meet the intermediate care needs of Harrow patients is crucial to expanding local NHS capacity in my area? Will she consider visiting Harrow to discuss with local GPs how we can accelerate that process? Furthermore, while she is considering that reasonable request, will she try to discover, through the usual channels, whether there is a chance of the Leader of the Opposition making a series of visits to Harrow as part of my re-election campaign?
    Ms Stuart: I am always open to reasonable invitations, but I find it difficult enough to deal with my own diary and would not for one moment want to assume responsibility for anyone else's—even if it did belong to the Leader of the Opposition.
    I accept my hon. Friend's point about expanding the system. There have been more intermediate care and quicker discharges this winter under the Harrow and Brent health systems. We should not forget that in 1996–97, my hon. Friend's health authority received a cash increase of only 3.2 per cent. I am sure he is delighted that in 2000–01, it received the unprecedented increase of 8.6 per cent. As for his very special pleading on behalf of the hospital in his area, I heard what he said and I shall pass it on through the usual channels.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: What is the real cause of the hold-up in operations—the failure to have proper nursing planning so that the right staff are in post, the lack of intensive care beds, the problem of sterilised instruments or the bed blocking caused by the fact that not enough people are being released into social care homes?
    Ms Stuart: The real problem is a combination of under-investment in the past 20 years and a cut both in general beds and in training places—investment, staff and hospitals have all been involved. In addition, there has been the problem of re-engineering systems. Before Conservative Members get too excited, they should never forget that they cut general and acute beds by 60,000 between 1979 and 1997 and that we will create an extra 7,000 by 2004. We are expanding the whole service, unlike the Conservatives who cut it consistently on every front.
    Mr. George Stevenson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on approving a scheme at North Staffordshire hospital which will create two
    794
    additional operating theatres, six high-dependency units and 28 ward beds to meet the expansion of surgical cases. Does she agree, however, that the fundamental problem for further expansion to meet surgical provision is that the hospital is on a split site and is mainly housed in Victorian buildings? Can she give an idea of when the Department may reach a decision on the next phase of the capital development programme so that we can look forward to having a 21st-century hospital on a single site?
    Ms Stuart: We have announced some 100 major hospital schemes over the next 10 years, 38 of which have been given the go-ahead. I am acutely aware of my hon. Friend's concerns and I know that he has talked to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As a constituency MP, I am in a similar position, and I very much hope that an announcement can be made by the end of the month. It is important to remember that the expansion of capacity did not happen under the Tories, who spent £30 million on consultation fees as part of the private finance initiative but did not manage to build a single hospital.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Will the Minister comment on the facilitation of increased numbers of transplant operations? A series of measures were proposed in Westminster Hall in December 1999 to help to increase the number of organs available for transplants, including putting a donor registration form in the electoral communication that must be sent by law. The Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), gave a commitment to consider the proposals made by both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. What evaluation was made of those proposals and why has nothing been done?
    Ms Stuart: I do not have the answers to the hon. Gentleman's specific questions, but I shall be happy to get back to him with details. I recently took part in an Adjournment debate on organ transplantation, in which I made it clear that, in 1990, when the Tory Government set up the regional centres, they were working on the assumption that the number of organs would steadily increase. Fortunately, however, we have reduced the number of car accidents and seen a great fall in the numbers, particularly of young people, dying from stroke. As a result, there has been a reduction in the number of available organs, but we are working together to increase organ donation.

    Health Improvement (Young Men)
    Ms Hazel Blears: What action he is taking to improve the health of young men. [1473401
    The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): We are concerned about the problems facing young men. The Health Development Agency is currently examining what measures are most effective in improving the health of men, particularly young men, and we fund the CALM—campaign against living miserably—helpline, which is aimed at dealing with depression in young men and preventing them from committing suicide.
    Ms Blears: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that she is aware that the figures for suicide and undetermined injury in young men are

    795
    approximately four times greater than those for young women. It seems that we have a widespread problem of young men suffering depression and unhappiness, which clearly affects their health. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a project in Salford called "Let's get serious". We have employed young men with a background of severe social problems to act as mentors to other young men in the community. That is working: their health is improving; they are getting clean of drugs; they are managing for the first time in their lives to make a positive contribution to the community. The project is very high risk because it is about trusting people with convictions and those who have been in deep trouble, yet the health action zone has had the courage to invest in those young men.
    Will my hon. Friend assure me that in our national health service of the future, we will have the confidence to take risks and to invest in innovative, imaginative and creative projects that really do make a difference to people?
    Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right about the programme in the Manchester, Salford and Trafford health action zone. I know that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), visited the project and was extremely impressed by its work. There is other impressive work concerning young men, particularly in many of the health action zones. We are keen to learn lessons from those innovative projects and spread them nationwide, and that is exactly what the Health Development Agency is doing. Clearly, we need to meet the serious health needs of young men suffering from social exclusion.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Is the Minister aware that more and more young men and women are turning to complementary and alternative medicine, such as homeopathy and herbal remedies, to improve their health, very often because they are worried about antibiotics? What will she do to end the postcode lottery in complementary care throughout the nation, whereby most people cannot get such care at all on the health service, but a few, in some locations, can?
    Yvette Cooper: I know that the hon. Gentleman has tried on several questions to ask about complementary medicine, although I would not necessarily have expected
    796
    him to raise the matter on this question. He knows that we are considering the House of Lords Select Committee report on complementary medicine, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss its proposals.

    Renal Services
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What recent representations he has received on treatment for kidney patients. [147341]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): We have received a number of representations, including a report from the Kidney Alliance entitled "Towards Equity and Excellence in Renal Services", which is aimed at supporting health authorities and NHS trusts in the development of services for kidney patients. Of course, the NHS plan included a commitment to provide 450 new and replacement haemodialysis stations to treat another 1,850 kidney patients and provide better treatment for a further 1,200 existing patients by 2004.
    Mr. Pike: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has read the excellent document produced last month by the Kidney Alliance, which deals with the need for additional renal facilities. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened the extension to the kidney unit at the Royal Preston hospital just before the end of the year. We welcome that, but we need additional satellite facilities in north-east Lancashire, perhaps in Burnley.
    Mr. Denham: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's role in this issue, in which he takes an active interest. I acknowledge also the work of the Kidney Alliance, and especially that of its chairman, Mr. Austin Donohue. The alliance's report proposed seven national service standards. We have welcomed it as a useful tool for commissioners and trusts in the commissioning of services for kidney patients.
    My hon. Friend has called for further investment in the region part of which he represents to develop dialysis services. I can confirm that the north-west will be receiving about £1.25 million of new capital in the coming year. That will increase the number of haemodialysis stations in the region.

Points of Order
3.30
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill may not be exactly the most pressing problem facing the nation, has there been any request, and is there time, for some discussion on the riots that took place over lunchtime outside the British embassy in Tripoli, involving tear gas, and the ominous consequences of the Lockerbie judgment? Have you had any request from the Foreign Office for such a discussion, or is the disqualification of the clergy much more urgent?
Mr. Speaker: I have received no representations from the Foreign Office.
Sir Sydney Chapman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that four weeks ago I raised on a point of order the overlong responses of Ministers at Question Time. You gave a timely reminder to Ministers and Back Benchers to shorten their questions and answers, which you again gave today. May I invite you to study the Hansard report of the Question Time just past, which I think will strengthen my view—I know it is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House—that long ministerial answers cut the time that Back Benchers on both sides of the House have to ask legitimate questions? I accept that on one or two occasions today some supplementary questions were also rather long.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a regular attender at Question Time. He knows that I have appealed to Ministers for short answers. I have appealed also to Back-Bench Members for short questions. I believe that I should be able to reach as many as possible of those hon. Members who have taken the bother to go to the Table Office to table a question and ballot for the Order Paper.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your strictures to the Government on releasing information first to the House seem again to be being ignored. On Thursday, a question was tabled for
798
answer about employment agency regulations. From 7 am, there were reports on the BBC about what was going to happen with regard to the regulations. I spent all of Thursday trying to get that information from the Vote Office, without success. The Library was able to take the information off the net for me.
I have gone to the Vote Office again—we are now into Tuesday—but it does not have the draft statutory instruments which were announced by the Government via the BBC first thing in the morning, and then placed on the Order Paper at perhaps 3.30 pm. We still do not have the information. Will you look into the matter, Mr. Speaker, and ensure that the Ministers who are responsible apologise yet again to the House and say yet again that they will not release information to the BBC before it is available to Members?
Mr. Speaker: I will investigate the hon. Gentleman's complaint.
Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I greatly support the ruling that you gave a moment ago. I would have had the next question but for lengthy ministerial answers. Will you consider naming Ministers who respond with particularly long answers so that they receive a ticket, rather like a ticket that is given by a football referee?
Mr. Speaker: I will not go into that. However, it is nice to get support, particularly from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your guidance. We all recognise and accept that you are not responsible for what Ministers say. However, will you confirm that Ministers should attempt directly to answer the question that is posed? Is it not unacceptable that when one of my constituents urgently requires an answer and an explanation from the Government about their policy on copaxone, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), deliberately and flagrantly refused to deal with the matter?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Analysis of Costs and Benefits (European Union)
3.35pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Parliamentary Commission to investigate and report regularly to Parliament, at intervals to be determined by Parliament, on the costs and the benefits of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union.
May I say what a pleasure it is to see the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), in his seat, listening to me today? I hope that he will take on board some of the points that I intend to make.
The Bill is about one thing only: knowledge. We want to find out whether being a member of the European Union is a net cost or net benefit; whether, on balance, this country benefits from inward investment or whether it costs us billions of pounds. Unfortunately, secrecy shrouds the facts. My Bill would establish a parliamentary commission that would cut through that secrecy. It would then be up to Parliament to act on the facts as it thought fit. We simply do not know whether EU membership is costing billions of pounds, but if it turned out that it was, that money could otherwise be spent on pensions, health care, schools and investment to ensure that our industry remains strong.
Of course, I recognise that there is far more to our membership of the EU than money alone. There is the political facet, too. However, my Bill does not deal with that or questions of sovereignty; it deals simply with the fiscal issues. Are we benefiting or are we losing out? It seems an incredible irony that everyone does those analyses except the British Government. The Institute of Directors produced an analysis, which was published some months ago, called "EU Membership—What's the Bottom Line?" The institute's calculation was interesting. It stated:
"The current net cost of membership is £15 billion per annum and may be as high as £25 billion——around £1,000 for every household in the country."
The institute took into account the benefits of the EU budget, the common agricultural policy, customs union, the single market, the EU social model and EU-related foreign direct investment, which have a benefit for the UK economy. The institute reckoned—although my point is that we just do not know—that that benefit was outweighed by the costs of the EU budget, the CAP and the EU social body. We do not know what will happen in future when the EU is enlarged.
More ironic still, while the British Government refuse to conduct such a cost-benefit analysis, the United States Government have. I confess that I have not read their weighty document and, judging by the quizzical look of the Minister of State, it seems that he has not read it either. It was published in August 2000, is called "The Impact on the United States Economy of Including the United Kingdom in a Free Trade Agreement with the United States, Canada and Mexico", and was produced for the US Senate and the US State Department.
That document examined the matter from the US point of view. Global Britain gave a brief synopsis of it, and
800
said that the "comprehensive and exhaustive study" produced by the US International Trade Commission
"is based on complex computer modelling of country-by-country and sector-by-sector trade flows."
They—the United States Government—reckoned that the United Kingdom derives no economic benefit from being in the EU, compared with not being in the EU. Admittedly, the United States looks at the matter from the US point of view. I should like the United Kingdom Government to look at it from the British point of view.
The US Government came to another interesting conclusion:
"If the UK joined NAFTA, she would be better off leaving the EU completely, rather than retaining the present Single Market arrangements."
The document went on to state:
"This is because leaving the EU completely, with the Continentals having to export to the UK over an average tariff wall equivalent to the present Common External Tariff, and vice versa, cuts the UK deficit with the EU, stimulating UK domestic output"—
that is according to the US Government
"in mining",
which would interest the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), and
"iron and steel",
which should interest many, many hon. Members on the Labour Benches, although one hon. Member is laughing and giggling continuously.
The Bill is intended not to make a judgment about the European Union, but to provide the facts about our membership. The conclusions that I have read out are those of the US Government. I want our Government and our officials to produce their own conclusions.
The Bill deals with knowledge that should be in the public domain. At present such knowledge seems to be a secret, either because the Government have conducted a cost-benefit analysis and are keeping the results secret, or because, as I suspect, the Government have conducted no such analysis.
The Opposition want to remain in Europe, but we do not want to be run by Europe. The costs of the exercise must be known; they cannot remain a secret indefinitely. The Bill would put the information in the public domain. If we benefit overall financially from EU membership, that is well and good, and we need to concentrate only on matters of sovereignty.
However, if there is a net financial cost, we must not only argue our case more rigorously and renegotiate for the retention of our national sovereignty, but we will have even greater cause to fight for a reform of the crippling common agricultural policy and directives that do so much damage to British manufacturing industry. The Bill would simply make public the costs or the benefits—nothing more, nothing less.
3.43 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: I oppose the Bill. I have great admiration and respect for the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and for the forthright way in which he expresses his views. The House has listened to his arguments with interest.
The last time that we had a similar parliamentary commission was in 1890, when there was a debate about whether the French would attack Britain. The commission proposed by the hon. Gentleman is of the same order.

801
The hon. Gentleman asks what benefit we derive from being in the European Union. The benefit is obvious to all those who are engaged in trade: 57 or 58 per cent. of our exports go to the European continental shelf. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) says, "So what?" If he were in a manufacturing industry or a service industry selling to Europe, he would not be shouting, "So what?" He would be very grateful for the jobs and the work that had been created.
With 57 or 58 per cent. of our exports going to the European continental shelf, it would be extremely unwise for us to call for an analysis of the costs and benefits. The hon. Member for Lichfield suggests that other benefits are not self-evident. There are diplomatic benefits. We are part of Europe; we are members of all the Councils of Europe; someone in Palestine who wanted to discuss matters or to seek support would approach the European Union. In the United States, the first question asked by the George W. Bush Administration was, "With whom must we deal in Europe?" They will have asked how many telephones they have to pick up in order to debate diplomatic issues, but they want one debate, which can be conducted with the European Union, through one person.
The European Union enables Britain to debate and to exert diplomatic influence. As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said many years ago, we gave up none of our sovereignty when we joined the European Union. We shared and pooled it. We joined with our traditional enemies—France and Germany—to be sure that the wars that occurred during 100 years of conflict could never happen again.
802
The hon. Member for Lichfield made an eloquent proposition, but when I listen to the comments of some Conservative Back Benchers, I wonder how much of a little England we can become and how far removed we can be from the reality of the world in which we live. Clearly, that world is one of the European Union. Membership has a cost benefit, through improved trade, and a diplomatic benefit. There is also a greater overall benefit in historical terms. For all those reasons, I oppose the Bill, however well intentioned it is and however well the hon. Gentleman argued for it. This House of Commons, which represents this nation, should look the facts and history in the face. It should understand that our destiny is Europe and that the days of hon. Members who say that Europe is cut off by fog are over. The only fog that we see in the House is on the Opposition Benches.
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. Michael Fabricant, Mr. John Wilkinson, Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. John Townend and Mr. Crispin Blunt.

ANALYSIS OF COSTS AND BENEFITS (EUROPEAN UNION)
Mr. Michael Fabricant accordingly presented a Bill to establish a Parliamentary Commission to investigate and report regularly to Parliament, at intervals to be determined by Parliament, on the costs and the benefits of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 July, and to be printed [Bill 39].
Orders of the Day

  House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a small Bill, but it is not unimportant. Put simply, it allows serving and former ministers of religion to become Members of Parliament, where some of them were previously disqualified. It continues the disqualification of any bishops who sit in the other place as Lords Spiritual.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Minister says that the Bill does not apply to any bishops who sit in the other place. However, does it apply to bishops who do not sit in the House of Lords but are on the rota eventually to end up there?
  Mr. O'Brien: Providing that bishops are not Lords Spiritual, the Bill will apply to them and they will be able to stand for Parliament if their Church permits them to do so.
  From time to time, this place has a chance to do something that sends a message that we are just a bit better then we once were. The Bill provides such a chance.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am extremely interested in that statement, not least because I am always happy when the House of Commons proves that it is better than people think. Where has the need for the Bill arisen? What evidence exists to show that vast numbers of priests and clergy of various Churches are fighting their way on to candidates' lists?
  Mr. O'Brien: I shall explain the current need for the measure; I hope that I can do that to my hon. Friend's satisfaction.
  The Government believe that the current position on clergy disqualification is archaic. It stems from earlier bigoted, anti-Catholic legislation. If a person wishes to stand for Parliament, the electorate should decide whether he or she should become a Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Robert Key: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way for the last time on this occasion—[Interruption.] I shall give way later after making some progress.
  Mr. Key: I cannot let the Minister get away with the comment that the earlier legislation was bigoted. He does not understand Church history. The measures were based not on bigotry against the Roman Catholic Church but on maintaining the Church in England and of England.
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman may hold that view; others may beg to differ. Without digressing into a history
  804
  lesson, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there was anti-Catholic legislation, which was repealed. The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 was enacted to allow Daniel O'Connell to take his seat. He had been elected to represent County Clare, but was unable to take his seat because he was a Catholic.
  Some ministers of religion are debarred from being Members of Parliament through the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801, and others by section 9 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. The Bill will repeal the 1801 Act, the relevant section of the 1829 Act, and several other provisions, which will become redundant.
  Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and other religious groups, including most nonconformist denominations, whose arrangements for ordaining ministers do not involve ordination by a bishop, are not affected by current legislation or the new Bill.
  The House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801 prevents Church of England clergy from becoming Members of Parliament. However, former priests can divest themselves of their clerical responsibilities through a procedure in the Clerical Disabilities Act 1870. If the electorate so decide, they can then take a seat in Parliament.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I shall make some progress and then give way to my hon. Friend.
  No such procedure is available to ordained clergy of other episcopal Churches. If a Catholic priest wishes to give up his ministry, temporarily or permanently, and stand for Parliament, he is unable to take a seat if elected. He cannot apply to the equivalent of the Clerical Disabilities Act 1870 and is likely to be debarred by the 1801 and 1829 statutes.
  Most hon. Members are aware of the case of Mr. David Cairns, a former Catholic priest, who intends to stand as the Labour candidate for Greenock and Inverclyde at the next general election. If elected, he could be prevented from taking his seat in the House.
  Mr. Eric Forth: That is what it is all about.
  Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman is right. [Interruption.] The Bill will remove old, prejudiced provisions from the statute book—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) must give the Minister a hearing.
  Mr. O'Brien: The Bill will remove provisions that prevent a person who has been elected from taking a seat in the House of Commons. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to retain legislation that prevents someone who is

  805
  no longer a practising Catholic priest from being a parliamentary candidate and taking his seat, he must argue his case.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. David Winnick: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene on that point?
  Mr. O'Brien: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I want to make progress. Perhaps I shall then give way to one or two hon. Members.
  The case of David Cairns has exposed the manifest absurdity of the present law. I hope that the House will agree that it is right that this matter should be attended to in the run-up to a general election, whenever that falls. A change in the law is relevant at such a time, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will deal with the matter sympathetically. I hope that they would do so whatever party David Cairns proposed to stand for.
  Those who say that the Bill should not be passed are, in effect, saying that this man should not stand because he has been a priest. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) says from a sedentary position that he might object because Mr. Cairns is a Labour candidate. He is entitled to that rather prejudiced view, but he must be very open about it, and it is entirely a matter for him. I suggest that the present legislation is archaic and should not be on the statute book.
  The case of David Cairns is clearly the reason for the Bill.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I have said that I shall not give way at this point.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he will not give way.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
  At the time of the Queen's Speech, we thought that it might be possible to make the change without the need for a Bill. Legal advice now suggests that that is not the case, so the Bill is needed.
  We could have concluded that the matter was not a priority, but that would have been to accept that David Cairns could not stand. Perhaps Labour could have found another candidate, but our only reason for doing so would have been the fact that the law prohibited David Cairns from standing. The law is wrong. The Catholic Church accepts that it should be changed and so do other Churches.
  We cannot begin this century with a law based on the attitudes of two centuries ago or more. We are here because the issue confronts us now. The timing may not be convenient, but the issue is a genuine one and I do not believe that the House wants to acquiesce in any kind of bigotry or unacceptable, archaic legislation by omission.
  806
  In September 1998, the Home Affairs Committee on electoral law and administration recommended, at paragraph 127, volume 1, that
  "all restrictions on ministers of religion standing for, and serving as, Members of Parliament be removed; the exception would be in respect of all serving bishops of the Church of England who, for so long as places are reserved for the senior bishops in the House of Lords, should remain ineligible to serve as Members of the Commons."
  The Government broadly share that view, and I shall come to the second part of the recommendation about bishops in more detail in a moment.
  In June 1999, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) introduced a private Member's Bill that would have rectified the position. The Bill had cross-party support, but failed to make any progress on Second Reading. The Government were sympathetic, but wanted to consult the Churches before changing the law. They subsequently consulted the Church of England, the Church of Ireland, the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Churches in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. All were content for the restrictions to be removed.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I have said that I want to make some progress. I shall give way in due course if need be.
  It is already open to ministers of the Church of Wales, which is disestablished, to become Members of Parliament by virtue of the Welsh Church Act 1914, which overrides the 1801 Act.
  Needless to say, the Government do not envisage a queue of members of the clergy pressing to become Members of Parliament. In the case of serving ministers or priests, that should be a matter between the Churches and the individuals concerned. As I said earlier, it is for the individual to decide whether to stand and for the electorate to determine whether he or she should sit in this House.
  The Government believe that there should be no bar in public law to prevent members of the clergy from becoming MPs. However, it will be for Churches and their clergy to consider whether a member of the clergy can carry out his or her pastoral responsibilities effectively and properly while also sitting as an MP. I understand, for example, that the Pope does not accept serving priests being active in public office or in party politics, so we are unlikely to see serving priests, who carry out the mass, standing as MPs.
  Why not introduce legislation simply to put Catholic priests on a similar footing to Church of England clergy and allow them to divest themselves of their clerical responsibilities? There are two answers to that question. First, I would expect Parliament to consider carefully whether it has the right to legislate on matters of doctrine or discipline in the Catholic Church, even if indirectly.
  My understanding is that the Catholic Church considers that once a priest has been ordained, he remains a priest all his life, even if he no longer practises as one. Section 9 of the 1829 Act is simply a hangover from the days when the participation of Roman Catholics in public life was rejected. Today, the House can opt to get rid of that

  807
  anachronism and leave the Roman Catholic Church to run its own affairs rather than try to regulate and legislate on the relationship between the Church and its priests.
  The second reason not to put Catholic priests on the same basis as Church of England clergy rests on a 1951 Privy Council case. In Re MacManaway, the Privy Council decided that the 1801 Act disqualified not only persons ordained in the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, but all persons ordained by a bishop in accordance with either the order of the Church of England or other forms of episcopal ordination. In the particular case of Rev. James G. MacManaway, that included ordination in the Church of Ireland. Thus, in broad terms, any clergy ordained by a bishop are subject to the disqualification whereas clergy and ministers of religion not ordained by a bishop are not subject to the disqualification. Current restrictions, therefore, go wider than Roman Catholic clergy.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I promised to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). This might be a suitable moment to do so.
  Dr. Godman: I am exceedingly grateful to the Minister. Am I right to think that the Bill extends to the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament? I have no doubt that all Members of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament and the overwhelming majority of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly would support it, but can I take it that discussions have taken place with the Executives of those legislatures?
  Mr. O'Brien: The Executives will be aware of the provisions, but my hon. Friend is wrong to suggest that they will apply to the Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament as they are already enacted in the devolution legislation. For example, there is no prohibition on a Roman Catholic priest becoming a Member of either the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly.
  Mr. Bercow: The Minister has fairly referred to the 1801 and 1829 Acts, but is he aware that it has been suggested by at least one eminent authority that to answer the question, "Can a priest sit in the House of Commons?", reference to no fewer than nine pieces of legislation dating back to the 16th century is required? I feel sure that the Minister is intimately familiar with each of the other seven and wonder whether he can enlighten the House.
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to set out my great familiarity, of which I am sure he is well aware, with the other ancient and archaic pieces of legislation. Perhaps some are not so archaic; we shall have to wait and see. Parliamentary counsel have assured me that introducing a Bill referring to the 1801 and 1829 Acts will enable us to achieve the purpose that I hope the hon. Gentleman will endorse in due course. He nods; I am glad that he will do so.
  Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because I have to go to a meeting. Is he aware that I was a member of the Home Affairs Committee that
  808
  produced the report that he mentioned? I hope that the Bill will be passed because, in a parliamentary democracy, people should not be disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons for religious or any other reasons. Surely that is the essence of what we are trying to achieve. Ours, I hope, is an all-inclusive parliamentary democracy, so such a measure should have been introduced a long time ago. There is no reason for anyone to want to oppose the Bill.
  Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I commend him for his part in ensuring that these matters were brought to the House's attention.
  There is always pressure on parliamentary time, and there are always many Bills that Ministers and others want the House to debate. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned seven earlier pieces of legislation, and at some stage Members may wish to raise issues relating to those. The question for us, however, is this: at what point do we need to deal with these matters?
  It is true that the case of David Cairns is pressing. I do not dispute that he is seeking to stand as a Labour candidate, and others may try to take party political advantage of that; but, in all sincerity, I do not think that Members should wish to prejudice any member of any political party who wished to stand—they should ensure that no such person is blocked by an old piece of legislation. Indeed, I hope that no legislation would prevent someone wishing to stand as a Scottish National party candidate from at least being tested by the electorate. I suspect, however, that, once tested by the electorate, such a candidate would be rejected by the electorate.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The Minister has clearly relaxed into his speech. He described the Bill as a tidying-up measure that is necessary in view of a general election which, as we well know, could take place in the next 14 months. Can he tell us—bearing in mind the competence of the Home Office, which we all admire—when he expects postal vote forms to be available so that people can exercise their votes?
  Mr. O'Brien: I very much hope that they will be ready on 16 February. I am not sure how that relates to the Bill, but I am sure that David Cairns—if, indeed, he is able to stand for Parliament—will be pleased to hear about it.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: Will the Minister confirm that Mr. David Cairns, whom no one bears any ill will, must have known the law before he applied for selection to his local Labour party?
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman says that Mr. Cairns must have known the law. In fact, the law is very complex. We have been looking at it over the past few months.
  The hon. Gentleman may well ask why, if we knew about this matter then, we did not include it in the Queen's Speech. At that stage, we were not sure how its provisions would operate. We are dealing with the interrelationship between the way in which Catholic Church canon law operates and the way in which legislation passed by this Parliament operates. One of the questions is, "At what point does a person cease to be a priest?" That person

  809
  may continue to be a priest under the canon law of the Catholic Church, but does that necessarily mean that he will continue to be a priest under this legislation? Unfortunately, the existing legislation is somewhat ambiguous in that regard.
  As the hon. Gentleman will see if he consults section 9 of the 1829 Act, it appears to suggest that acceptance that a person has conducted a mass constitutes recognition that that person is a priest. That appears to be an on-going recognition—a recognition that the person continues to be a priest. The issue is not entirely clear, however. We cannot allow a situation whereby, if David Cairns stood and the people chose to elect him, an old piece of legislation which I suspect no one would seriously support—I should be surprised if anyone did, but let us wait and see—prevented him from taking his seat.
  The case has presented us with a dilemma. We considered it until Christmas, by which time it was clear to me that we needed primary legislation. We therefore presented the Bill at the first opportunity.
  Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Should my hon. Friend not sound altogether more enthusiastic about the fact that priests and former priests are queueing up to stand as Labour candidates and support the Labour party? Is not the pique displayed by Conservative Members caused by the fact that although they used to pride themselves on being described as the Church of England at prayer, they have long since lost the support of all the Churches in the country?
  Mr. O'Brien: I am waiting to hear whether the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) thinks that the Catholic Church and other Churches are likely to support her position. It is interesting, however, that she, I and you, Mr. Speaker, all belong to the denomination dealt with in previous legislation which sought to prevent Catholic priests from becoming members of this place. The new legislation perhaps indicates how much this place has changed and how much our society has improved. Indeed—if I may be obsequious now in the hope of craving your indulgence later—we are all very pleased to see you in the Chair, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: Will it be a sensible intervention?
  Mr. Fabricant: Yes, as always. The Minister kindly sat on the Treasury Bench while I was doing my cost-benefit analysis. Subsequently, he has talked about the number of priests who wish to become hon. Members. However, has he made an analysis of the number of former Labour Members who may wish to become priests?
  Mr. O'Brien: I should have known.
  I should like to deal with the Home Affairs Committee's recommendations on bishops. There are about 40 Church of England bishops who could qualify to sit in the other place as Lords Spiritual. At any one time, only 26 are summoned to be Lords Spiritual.
  810
  The Government's view is that it is those bishops who should be disqualified from House of Commons membership, as they already have a "voice" in Parliament.
  I should perhaps add that if that number were to change as a result of proposals for reform of the other place, the number of bishops who were disqualified would change. However, the general principle would not be affected. The Committee's recommendation was to continue the prohibition on all bishops from the House of Commons. Although it must be unlikely that bishops would wish to become Members of Parliament while they perform their duties as bishops, the Government feel that it is right to lessen the statutory restrictions and to allow anyone who wishes to stand as a Member of Parliament—except for bishops who have a voice in the legislative procedures, the Lords Spiritual—to do so.
  There is no bar to clergy or bishops being elected to the European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the National Assembly for Wales, and the House will recall that it accepted those arrangements when the devolution legislation was passed. Nor is there any bar on clergy or bishops being elected as local councillors or mayors. That has worked perfectly well and there has been no backlash, no abuse and no discord in those arrangements. The Westminster position is increasingly anomalous, but the Bill helps to rectify that anomaly.
  I hope I have shown that the Bill will be useful in removing some archaic and unnecessary restrictions. I also hope that the House will agree that it is a worthwhile and an uncontroversial measure.
  Mr. Forth: No.
  Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman again says that he does not think that the Bill is uncontroversial. We have introduced the Bill because someone who happens to be a Labour candidate would be disqualified without it. I do not think that any hon. Member, including the right hon. Gentleman, really thinks that there is a reason other than party partisanship to maintain such an exclusion. I therefore hope that I can count on his support, which I would value.
  Mr. Bercow: I can tell the Minister and the wider public who have an interest in the matter that there will be a free vote on the measure for Members of the official Opposition. Can he assure us that the matter is the subject of a free vote for Labour Members, too; or are they, as usual, the old robots being whipped into line?
  Mr. O'Brien: I do not think that there would be the slightest problem with people voting for the legislation; I would be surprised if there were. I have not discussed with the Whips whether there will be a free vote, and I am not sure that it will particularly matter. We shall have to wait and see whether anyone feels that he or she really wants to vote against the measure. I will listen with care to the debate, and at the end I may be able to give a more considered response to the hon. Gentleman.
  The disqualification provisions no longer perform a useful function, if they ever did. It is time that they were swept away and the relevant legislation was repealed.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.15 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I hope that the debate will remain good natured, but I found rather arrogant the Minister's assumption that there could be no possible opposition to the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has pointed out already, the Opposition are making this a free vote because we acknowledge that issues of conscience are involved, and people may have extremely strong views in both directions.
  That is exemplified by the opinions of the shadow Home Office team. I am not ecstatic about the Bill, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is extremely enthusiastic. However, I am not so arrogant as to imagine that there cannot be two views, so I rather regret the tone of the last part of the Minister's speech.
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend pointed out that the Bill could—and, indeed, should—arouse issues of conscience, but does she agree that constitutional issues might also be involved? The Bill touches on the composition of this House, and that cannot be unrelated to the composition of another place. Do not profound constitutional issues flow directly from the Bill?
  Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, and if my right hon. Friend had restrained himself for only a few seconds he would have heard me come to exactly that point. I began with the question of conscience because I thought that the end of the Minister's speech rather dismissed it as unimportant.
  My right hon. Friend will be glad to hear that I do not believe that we should dismiss too lightly the Bill's constitutional implications. For hundreds of years—and not merely since the reformation—the politics of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland were dominated by questions of religion. As late as the 20th century, Parliament passed legislation, such as the Welsh Church Act 1914, that dealt with religion. There is an on-going debate today about whether the Church of England should be disestablished. In many ways, to many communities in the United Kingdom, questions of religion are no less relevant today than they were decades, or hundreds of years, ago.
  I believe that a priest's vocation is lifelong. Speaking personally, and as one of the three Roman Catholic Members mentioned by the Minister, I would not want a priest to give up his vocation to enter this place, or to mix duties in the House with those in what I consider to be a consecrated office. A priest's office is very precious and spiritual, and it is different from that of a Member of Parliament. I cannot believe that the Minister, who is of the same persuasion as I, does not recognise that that view is held forcefully by quite a large number of people.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The right hon. Lady will have noted that I said in my speech that the Pope takes the view—as, I believe, does the Church of England—that practising priests and clergy should not be active in public life or in a political party.
  Miss Widdecombe: That is so, and we must take that opinion into account when considering these matters. I do not believe that being a Member of Parliament is compatible with the priestly vocation. Like the priesthood, it involves a huge commitment, both in this Chamber and
  812
  outside. I do not believe that a Member of Parliament could represent constituents adequately while continuing to serve as a full-time priest, or that a priest could administer to his flock adequately while undertaking duties as a full-time Member of Parliament.
  I come now to the detail of what is a short but extremely important Bill. A point that may be explored in Committee has been touched on already, and I suspect that it will arise again. It has to do with the position of the more junior Anglican diocesan bishops who are not currently Lords Spiritual.
  As I read it, the Bill will allow those bishops to sit in this House. I note that the Select Committee on Home Affairs stated in paragraph 127 of its fourth report of 1997–98 that
  "the exception would be in respect of all serving bishops in the Church of England who, for so long as places are reserved for their senior bishops in the House of Lords, should remain ineligible to serve as Members of the Commons."
  If I have read the Bill correctly, the Minister is not following that recommendation, but is allowing all Church of England bishops who are not currently eligible for membership of the House of Lords to be eligible for membership of this place. The Select Committee had reason, rather than prejudice, when it recommended that all serving bishops in the Church of England should be disqualified.
  Not all Anglican bishops, as the Select Committee recommended, but only those who sit as Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords will be exempted under the Bill. What would happen if, through death or retirement, a member of this House succeeded to one of the seats reserved for senior Anglican bishops in the other place? I presume that a by-election would have to be held. What consideration has the Minister given to that question?
  It would be useful for the Committee of the whole House to consider whether it would still be appropriate to disqualify all Anglican bishops, as the Select Committee recommended. The Anglican episcopacy is already well represented in another place—it is, at any rate, represented in another place. I simply pose this question: should junior Anglican bishops be constitutionally allowed to sit in this House when senior Anglican bishops already have seats explicitly reserved for them in another place?
  I am not particularly puzzled about why we are considering the Bill now. However, is it not rather odd that the Minister should have prayed in aid the Select Committee report of 1997–98, which is nearly three years old? Since then, there have been two pieces of legislation on electoral matters in which this issue could have been encompassed if the case were as utterly unanswerable and unarguable as the Minister suggested. I refer to the Representation of the People Act 2000 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—but, however unanswerable and unarguable Ministers apparently thought the case, this issue was not included in either Act.
  Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend surprised to learn, as I have just learned, that whereas we have a one-line Whip for a Bill that we regard as a matter of

  813
  conscience—and which I will be supporting—the Government are pushing the Bill through, at this late stage, on a three-line Whip?
  Miss Widdecombe: I am not surprised, but I am disappointed. I congratulate my hon. Friend on knowing more than the Minister, who had not a clue about what his usual channels were proposing with regard to a free vote.
  I am disappointed because traditionally in this House, Church matters have been subject to a free vote. I remember the very lively debate on the ordination of women as priests. That was subject to a free vote. Other debates, perhaps less lively, on the ordination of divorced persons as clergy and several other Church issues have been subject to a free vote. I am not surprised, because this is a very dictatorial Government, but I am disappointed.
  Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Before the right hon. Lady moves on from her very interesting point about suffragan bishops, does she seriously believe that the Church of England would appoint a suffragan bishop who was a full-time Member of this House to a diocesan bishopric? If not—as is almost certainly the case—that bishop would have no chance of becoming a Member of the other place anyway.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman has a great deal more faith than I do in what the Church of England might or might not do. I have no idea whether it would make such an appointment, but our duty is not to second guess the judgments of others; it is to try to establish a coherent set of rules that will cause as few problems as possible.
  Mr. Frank Field: May I suggest to the right hon. Lady that one of the differences between a whipped vote on this issue and free votes on the other issues that she cites is that, on those issues, we were receiving measures from the Church of England for consideration? We were not initiating those measures. On such occasions, we usually have a free vote. May I also suggest that, if we were to have a free vote on this matter, it would make no difference to Labour support for the measure?
  Miss Widdecombe: I usually have a huge amount of respect for the right hon. Gentleman. I was expecting an extremely difficult intervention from him, but that piece of sophistry is rather disappointing. He suggests that if Church business is initiated by the Government, conscience does not come into play and a three-line Whip can be imposed, whereas if the measure originates from the Church, the matter is entirely different. That is a piece of reasoning to which the right hon. Gentleman would normally award delta double minus if he were in his usual form.
  Mr. Field rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman is not in his usual form, so I ask him to sit still for a bit and regain it. Perhaps later on, when he has thought about the ludicrous proposition that he has just made, I might be happy to take a further intervention.
  814
  As to the right hon. Gentleman's second point—that a free vote would make no difference—if we applied that logic to issues of conscience, we would be whipped on some that were extremely serious, and he would be the first to decry the practice. We know why the measure is being whipped: because this constitutional business is not being undertaken on its own merits, but for a particular Labour candidate in a particular constituency.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: The right hon. Lady is certainly in excellent form; I congratulate her on that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made the point that synodical and Government legislation are dealt with differently. The right hon. Lady is right to point out that we could have a vote of conscience on Government legislation. However, is she really telling the House that a slight change in our electoral law to permit clergy, or others, to stand for Parliament is a matter of conscience?
  Mr. Forth: The change is for a Labour party candidate.
  Mr. Bell: The right hon. Gentleman intervenes more often from a sedentary position than he ever does standing up. He knows full well that the measure has nothing to do with an individual parliamentary candidate; it meets a long-standing Labour obligation to rectify the constitution and rid it of a small anomaly.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman renders beautifully to Caesar, but he is not wholly convincing. The change is not small; it is major. I do not say that just because a provision has been on the statute book for a long time, it can never be overturned, but the measure overturns a long-standing law. It is not a slight change; it is one that will mean a great deal to many people.
  Before that long series of interventions—some clever and some not so clever—I was saying that—
  Mr. Fallon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for taking one more intervention; I am not sure in which category she would place it.
  My right hon. Friend refers to timing. Although the Bill might well favour Mr. David Cairns, does she agree that, as it is being introduced so late in this Parliament, it also discriminates against people who might have wanted to pursue a parliamentary route but who did not offer themselves for selection by either party? Such measures should be introduced on an all-party basis at the beginning of a Parliament, rather than at its tail end.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am extremely sympathetic to my hon. Friend's point—in other circumstances, the Minister would be sympathetic too. It is undeniable that, during the course of this Parliament, opportunities have arisen for the introduction of the measure at a stage when more than one particular candidate could have benefited. However, the point is theoretical; we shall never know whether there would have been other candidates. For the reasons that I outlined, I hope not. We will never know whether others—perhaps from other parties or, perhaps, from the Labour party—might have benefited from the measure, but we know that the opportunities were there.
  Before that long series of interventions, I was saying that the Representation of the People Act 2000 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000

  815
  could have provided an opportunity to introduce such a measure. There was a Select Committee report, and a very distinguished one at that. I might not agree with all its detail, but it was well thought out and properly presented. However, it has not been acted upon, so the Bill cannot be described as a tidying-up measure.
  Indeed, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) reminded the Government about the matter when she introduced the House of Commons Disqualification (Amendment) Bill under the ten-minute rule in June 1999, before both the Acts to which I refer were even published. So despite the fact that there has been a Select Committee report, a ten-minute Bill and two Acts, the Government did not think it worth while to introduce this very important measure until a particular prospective parliamentary Labour candidate needed to take advantage of it.
  The Minister's determination to introduce what he ignored for four years is now so great that there is a three-line Whip and a rushed Bill has been introduced right at the end of this Parliament. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) has said, the Bill will probably benefit only one person. I agree that if such a measure has to be introduced, it should be done on an all-party basis either at the beginning of a Parliament or at the end of a Parliament, but to take effect after the next one, rather than being done only to ensure that an individual—however worthy he may or may not be—can stand for election.
  Although my views on such matters differ from those of many other hon. Members, I recognise that an anomaly exists and that there is a case to be made, but it is being made in entirely the wrong context and in too rushed and too cursory a fashion. Therefore, I am afraid that I shall not be able to support the Bill. That is not a party position; Conservative Members, unlike Labour Members, are perfectly free to take their own line, but I find intriguing the possibility of a priest in holy orders—which demand poverty, chastity and obedience—functioning in the House, but strange things happen.
  Mr. Forth: I may wish to develop this theme if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend mentions obedience. In this context, would she care to elaborate on obedience to whom? Is not it perfectly possible that if the Bill were unfortunately passed and an ordained priest were duly elected, there could be a very serious and real conflict of loyalty between obedience to the Caesars of the House and perhaps to other authorities elsewhere?
  Miss Widdecombe: Clashes between God and Caesar are not unknown to those of us who take such matters seriously. I think that my right hon. Friend was hinting at the fact—we shall probably hear a lot later—that he believes that people of my persuasion are somehow dominated by some interesting European power, rather than by the monarch and Parliament. That is not so. I find intriguing the possibility that a priest with those vows should function here, but strange things happen. Perhaps the strangest thing of all is that issues of Church and state are being determined by the self-interest of an obscure prospective parliamentary candidate for the Labour party in Greenock and Inverclyde.
  4.34 pm
  Ms Joan Ryan: Unlike some Members, I welcome the Bill as it will remove what are essentially discriminatory and outdated disqualifications from becoming a Member of Parliament. The Bill attempts to correct some of the inconsistencies in our complex electoral law. Although it will introduce only modest reform, it forms part of a wider debate that includes issues of fairness, choice and the changed relationship today between the Churches and the state.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh)—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Where is she?"' I shall come to that point. When my hon. Friend introduced a ten-minute Bill to end the disqualification on the clergy taking a place in the House, she concluded by saying:
  "Fundamentally, the rationale behind those antique statutes passed away a very long time ago, and those statutes have no place in the parliamentary electoral law of our multicultural society, with its community of religious faiths, as we prepare to enter the 21st century."—[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 394.]
  If this Bill is seen through successfully, the first election of the 21st century will not be marred by the continuation of those discriminatory statutes. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work that she has done on this issue, but I am afraid that she cannot be with us today.
  We cannot expect to promote a fair and more equal society—a tolerant, multi-faith and multicultural society—when we continue to draw distinctions on religious grounds with regard to eligibility to sit in the House. The Bill will remove the majority of those distinctions and, therefore, will be an addition to the democracy within our system. It is essentially about equal rights—the equal rights of our citizens to sit in the House. I see this as a matter not of conscience—I understand why some see it that way—but of equal rights.
  It is clearly undemocratic that a potential candidate for election could, first, be selected by his or her party and, secondly and more important, receive a mandate from the electorate, but be unable to take up the seat because of restrictions embedded in complex electoral law.
  The leading constitutional expert, Professor Robert Blackburn, has said that this aspect of the law is
  "incoherent, illogical and virtually impossible for anyone except a legal expert to discover."
  The existing arrangement has become a barrier to the provision of equal rights and, as such, responsibility for removing it lies with the House.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Lady said that the candidate had been properly selected but, presumably, the local party organisation either knew or would have been advised that a legal obstacle would prevent that candidate, if elected, from taking his seat in the House. I presume that it went ahead with the selection on that basis. Was that not irresponsible of the local party and the individual himself?
  Ms Ryan: The Labour party selects candidates on the basis of equal rights in the party. I am suggesting that candidates should be able to put themselves before the electorate on exactly the same basis.
  Dr. Godman: I hope to elaborate on this point if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to make

  817
  it clear that the local party in Greenock and Inverclyde did not behave irresponsibly. I can give my hon. Friend my word on that.
  Ms Ryan: I accept that word.
  We have a pressing responsibility. A case in which the electorate granted an electoral candidate the right to sit in the House, only for him to have that right denied, has already occurred in the MacManaway case and could have occurred again when Bruce Kent stood in 1992. We should not wait for such an unacceptable case to occur again before we decide to reform the law, although I accept the point that we have had other opportunities to do that.
  One of the basic duties of the House is to serve our citizens—to protect their rights and to protect and enhance democracy. As soon as we know that a piece of legislation inhibits equal rights—in this case, there are numerous such pieces—we should act to change or remove it. We should not wait until an individual is placed in a position where he or she cannot take up a seat when elected, and we are forced to remove the disqualification in those circumstances.
  Given the amount of time that the legislation has been in force—on the whole, unnecessarily so—it would be difficult to claim that we are taking a lead in the matter. We at least have the opportunity to jump before we are pushed, and this debate on removing the disqualification is taking place not a minute too soon.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady emphasises that the matter has been a festering sore for a long time. I hope she will accept that considered study of the historical background is entirely appropriate on whatever side of the argument one happens to sit. What assessment has she made of the report of the Select Committee on Clergy Disqualification in the 1952–53 Session?
  Ms Ryan: I have considered the history. It is because of that and my view of equal rights that I am pleased that the Government have introduced the Bill.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Ryan: No, I should like to make progress.
  Discovering the history of the disqualifications is not for the weak hearted. The intrepid researcher has to begin somewhat earlier than the 1950s, around the 1670s, and plough through numerous conflicting statutes, common law and Privy Council decisions, taking in the constitutional conflict of the MacManaway case, the possible conflict caused by Bruce Kent's decision to stand for election and the problems that may arise in the near future.
  The conclusion of such research is that some clergy are able to stand for Parliament, but others are not; some clergy are able to resign their orders to stand, but others are not; certain Christian clergy are disqualified from sitting in the House by statutory provision, but ministers of other religious faiths are eligible; the imam and the rabbi—should their religious organisations agree—could take up a seat in the House, but a Roman Catholic minister would be disqualified from doing so.
  818
  The matter has been further complicated by a later decision by the Privy Council, which meant that those clergy who are episcopally ordained are subject to disqualification, whereas nonconformists are not. Although the Clergy Disqualification Act 1870 contains a provision that enables clergy of the Church of England to renounce their position so that they are free to stand for election and take up their seat in the House after six months, there is no parallel procedure for the clergy of other religions.
  However, I would not seek such a parallel procedure because it would only make some people less unequal than they are now. If a parallel procedure were introduced, all those people who are episcopally ordained—whether Roman Catholic or Church of England—could renounce their positions and take up a seat after six months, but they would still suffer inequality in relation to ministers who are not episcopally ordained and who could take up their seats with no requirement to renounce their position and wait six months.
  We can conclude that the present framework is inconsistent and discriminatory, deriving from multiple sources over different periods of time. The reasons for the prohibitions have long since lapsed or become irrelevant and, as such, can no longer be justified. Roman Catholic priests are no longer thought of negatively by the state and Anglican clergy no longer represent the fourth estate to the realm. The context in which the decision to implement such restrictions was first taken is no longer relevant in modern society.
  The lack of clarity in the law is made more incomprehensible by the fact that there is no relation between the active engagement of a minister and his eligibility for Parliament. An active nonconformist minister could stand in a constituency where his church is situated and where many of the electors are of the same belief, but a retired episcopally ordained priest who had changed his personal beliefs and had no adherence would be disqualified from taking up a seat. It is clear, then, that it would be too simplistic to say that those who wish to take up seats in the House should simply resign their orders.
  That is especially pertinent for Roman Catholic ministers. The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 states:
  "No person in holy orders in the Church of Rome shall be capable of being elected to serve in Parliament as a Member of the House of Commons."
  It is that definition of holy orders that causes conflict. It can be argued under ecclesiastical law that, once a Roman Catholic priest has been ordained, he will remain in holy orders whether or not he remains active. The law does not, therefore, recognise the status of ex-Catholic priests, so the current arrangements effectively conspire to prevent them from ever taking up their seats, if they are elected. Why should the state legally prevent some ministers from making a choice about their career, while other clergy are free to do so? A civil servant can resign and choose to enter politics, while the existing electoral law prevents some members of the clergy from doing the same.
  It is of course reasonable to argue that there is a deal of tension between the role of a Member of Parliament and that of a practising minister of religion. Whether or not it is desirable for members of the clergy to stand for Parliament is a separate question for debate. However,

  819
  such decisions are matters not for legislation but for the custom of individual faiths or ecclesiastical law. The Bill would officially make the eligibility of the clergy of all religions to sit in this House a matter for the Churches and other religious organisations involved.
  Laura Moffatt: Does my hon. Friend agree that if someone has been ordained as a priest but, no matter how deeply held his views, feels unable to continue as a priest, the House and its Members have no right to prevent him from pursuing another career, if he wishes to do so?
  Miss Widdecombe: Priesthood is a vocation, not a career.
  Ms Ryan: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) says that this is a matter of vocation. The point is that it is not a matter for us, and it is a question of equal rights. However someone's career, occupation or vocation is defined, legislation should not prevent that person from entering the House.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: As I understand it, the hon. Lady is arguing for the Bill on the basis of equal rights for different religions. Does she hold the same argument on the established Church of England? Would she argue for disestablishment?
  Ms Ryan: I thought that I had made myself clear: I am arguing for the removal of the disqualification of clergy; I am not discussing the disestablishment of the Church of England.
  There are no grounds for continuing to distinguish between the clergy of different religions in this matter. Whether or not ministers of any religious groups should be able to be elected to the House is a matter of choice for the electorate and the parties and religious groups involved, not a matter for legislation. This disqualification does not exist in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, local government or the European Parliament; those bodies have not had to consider a Bill such as this.
  The relationship between the various Churches and the state has changed immeasurably since the first discriminatory measures were introduced, and it is now time to reform them. Reform must be based on equal rights for all citizens, be they ministers of religion, ex-ministers of religion or, indeed, not ministers at all. The playing field must be level. We cannot have legislation that lays down different rules for different religious organisations. That is a matter not for the House but for the organisations themselves.
  The implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes these changes even more timely. Existing electoral law could be deemed to be a breach of the convention on human rights on several counts. Article 14 of the convention refers to religious discrimination; article 9 refers to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and article 11 to freedom of assembly and association. Article 3 of the first protocol sets out the right to free elections. It is important that we act to remove clerical disabilities in relation to membership of the House before a situation arises where our human rights record is called into question.
  820
  The Bill will help to clarify—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am being disrupted by chatter from both sides of the House. I wish it would cease. I want to listen to the hon. Lady.
  Ms Ryan: The Bill will help to clarify the relationship between the state and religious groups in this area of electoral law, and will remove some of the complex arrangements for which the state has legislated that create inequality rather than ensure equal rights. Far from interfering in matters that should be left to the discretion of individual religious leaders, the Bill will enable exactly that to happen. It will reduce the influence of the state to some degree.
  The Bill is a modest measure. There are many other issues that we should debate, many of which have been raised by Opposition Members from an sedentary position. However, the Bill can achieve an important reform of equal rights. I commend its Second Reading.
  4.51 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: One of the delights of being a Member of Parliament is that we have the opportunity to explore rare legal and historical byways from time to time, and this is one of those occasions. Perhaps I should start by declaring that I do not have an interest. When volunteers were called for, I was a little slower than others in taking one pace backwards.
  The topic is arcane in the extreme. As a nonconformist—as a Baptist and now a member of the Methodist church—I am not affected by the proposed exemption or legislation, unlike previous speakers who claim so to be. I believe not in the ordained priesthood but in the priesthood of all believers. It would create a problem for the Chamber if that belief were applied in the sense of the Privy Council's decision of 1951. I do not hold with bishops, and to save an intervention from a Conservative Member, it is my party's policy that the Church of England should be disestablished, as the Church in Wales and elsewhere has already been.
  I approach the issue from a direction that is diagonally different from those who have already spoken.
  Mr. Bercow: Even diametrically different.
  Mr. Stunell: It might be diametrically different, but I think that it is more diagonally, and I chose my words carefully.
  Fortunately, all Members are equal, although some are more equal than others. I suspect that the reality is that we all recognise that we are faced with legislation that has long outgrown any purpose or value that it had.
  If we go back to 1801—we are repealing the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801, among other measures—legislation was introduced because a Church of England priest won an election for Old Sarum. That was when the issue arose. The 1801 legislation was

  821
  the product of a specific electorial event to decide whether the Rev. Horne Tooke—a name to conjure with, if ever there was—should take his place in the House.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stunell: Why not? The opportunity to repeat that name is always to be welcomed.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, at that time, there was not an established party system, as there is now. Does he realise that when the 1801 Act took its place on the statute book, there would not have been a three-line Whip? Is he as surprised as I am that the issue before us, which is primarily one of conscience, is subject to a three-line Whip on the Government Benches, whereas on the official Opposition Benches it is subject to a one-line Whip?
  Mr. Stunell: I may have a slight advantage over the hon. Gentleman in age and experience, so I am not at all surprised.
  The Bill attempts to look back only 172 years, since when there has been mess, delay and dither on the issue. Fifty-one years ago, Rev. MacManaway—another name to conjure with—created yet another opportunity for the House to look seriously at the situation. There was much detailed thought, but the opportunity to take action and reform matters was thrown away. Three years ago, the Select Committee on Home Affairs had another go and made recommendations.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made some potent points about why on earth those matters were not considered in electoral legislation that has come before the House since then. However, the fact that opportunities have been missed in the past does not mean that we should fail to take them now. The Home Affairs Committee report stated that there is
  "a picture almost totally lacking in consistency or, in modern terms, any rational basis. Restrictions apply only to Christian ministers and not those of any other faith. They differ between Anglican priests, Roman Catholic priests and non-conformist clergy. And the position differs in England, Scotland and Wales."
  One might have understood the position if Church of England clergy were not permitted to offer themselves for election to the House. After all, bishops have a route into the House of Lords. Extraordinarily, however, the Clerical Disabilities Act 1870 permits them to relinquish and make their way into the House in certain circumstances. On the other hand, Roman Catholic priests, orthodox priests and Church of Scotland ministers who have no route into the House of Lords cannot seek relief or get excused. Retired orthodox priests cannot offer themselves, but imams, shamans and rabbis certainly can. Presbyterians in England are in a different position from those in Scotland, and retired Anglican vicars in Wales are in a different position from those in England.
  The situation is a hotchpotch. Perhaps the most extraordinary thing is that, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, it is not the case that former Roman Catholic priests cannot offer
  822
  themselves to the House. They can, if they have been defrocked. Defrocked priests can offer themselves, but those who have merely retired cannot.
  Mr. Forth: They know what to do about that.
  Mr. Stunell: The right hon. Gentleman would have to go through several stages if he wanted to enter the House via that route. However, that is a matter for him.
  The House already has ordained Members—obviously not ordained by bishops, or they would not be here. However, I hope that provides some answer to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, who asked whether it is appropriate to mix those two careers.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman confirmed the difference between the Church of Scotland and the Church of England. Church of Scotland ministers are not ordained by bishops; they are members of an established church. That is the issue.
  Mr. Stunell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his informed intervention.
  I want to make the general point that it is unusual to hear Conservative Front-Bench Members make the case that those who come into the House should have only one job. It is very much the norm for Conservative Members to have two jobs in Opposition; when challenged, they always claim that that brings advantages to the House. I wonder whether the work load and demands involved in being a Queen's Counsel differ greatly from those of a priest. Certainly, the profession is better paid, but the work load and demands are not very different.
  I want to put it clearly on the record that Liberal Democrat Members certainly want an end to the anomalies that the existing legislation creates. We want to end the outdated religious discrimination that underlies it, and the Bill delivers that, albeit late in the day. It is, in principle, right, and we shall support it on Second Reading.
  Mr. Bercow: Earlier, I made the point that, for Conservative Members, this is a free vote. I asked whether it was for Government Members and, eventually, it became clear that it was not. Is it a free vote for free-thinking Liberal Democrat Members?
  Mr. Stunell: I was about to say that for the Liberal Democrats, every vote is a free vote.
  The question that the Government have not answered, and which they must answer, is whether the measure is at the top of their list of priority reforms for this Parliament. I remind the Minister that the second stage of Lords reform, the introduction of legislation for the devolution of regions in England and a referendum on proportional representation are outstanding. Those all appeared in the Labour manifesto, but the removal of clergy disqualification certainly did not.
  There must be more than a suspicion that, whereas progress on those matters has been slow because the Government fear the loss of influence and of power, the Bill has been accelerated because it is in the interests of their candidate in Greenock and Inverclyde. It is a pity that such a modest and long overdue reform is tainted

  823
  with Government self-interest. It would be nice, just for once, to see reform that was exactly that—reform—rather than it turning out to be expedience dressed up as virtue.
  I seek an assurance from the Minister. Should the unthinkable happen and the Bill not make progress in this parliamentary Session, would he still see it as an urgent priority in the next Parliament, when his party's pressing need for it will have evaporated? The test of reformers is that they are ready to reform, even when it is not solely in their own interest.
  We wish the Bill well; it is long overdue. The pity is that it is tarnished by its cynical timing and its opportunistic intentions.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who said that, as the provision has been on the statute book since 1801, we have dithered in removing it. That is probably true, although it sits ill with the view that the Bill is being rushed through Parliament for the benefit of a particular prospective parliamentary candidate.
  I was interested in the intervention of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who makes some fine interventions on the Floor of the House. He said that in 1801, we did not have the party system. At that time, there was the Napoleonic throne and William Pitt was Prime Minister. Macaulay stated in his "History of England" that the system of parties began in 1843. As this is a wide-ranging debate, I throw in that insignificant and irrelevant piece of information.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Bell: I await the Exocet missile that will come from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
  Mr. Bercow: Not at all. It is always a pleasure to joust, in the friendliest way, with the hon. Gentleman. My question is simple. Why was the measure non-urgent after 197 years of the anomaly, and why has it become spectacularly urgent after 200 years?
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful for that intervention, to which I am able to respond. I imagine that the reason behind the Government's thinking, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred, was that the legislation has the support of the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Church of Ireland, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, and the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland and Ireland. That being the case, the legislation is appropriate for the statute book.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is right. As I said, a private Member's Bill was introduced. The Government did not support it at that stage because we wanted to consult the Churches. We have now consulted them and they have indicated their support. Moreover, a particular case has presented itself and, if we did not change the law now, someone whom the people might wish to elect would be prevented from standing.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and for referring to the case of a particular
  824
  individual. As the House likes its history lessons, we can go back to the case of Charles Bradlaugh, who was regularly elected and would not swear the oath on the Bible, but wished to affirm and could not do so. It was many years before that anomaly was removed from the statute book.
  I speak as the Second Church Estates Commissioner. The Church of England welcomes the Government's intention to legislate to remove the disqualification, except in the case of Lords Spiritual.
  The Bill responds to a long-standing wish of the General Synod and of other Churches. We have had some debate on whether bishops who are not yet Lords Spiritual should be permitted to become Members of the House, and it has been asked whether such a practice will cause a great number of by-elections. I am reminded of a Dean Inge phrase that was liked by Winston Churchill:
  "I've had a great many worries, most of which never happened."
  Some of the scenarios about which hon. Members have heard today are not likely to happen during most of our parliamentary lives.
  However, questions have been asked about Lords Spiritual and I know that the Church of England has expressed concern about factual language and draftsmanship points. Most of those concerns relate to paragraph 8 of the explanatory notes on the Bill. The Church of England is considering the matter with the aid of our legal adviser and we are seeking to iron out rucks in the Bill—a process that will, of course, improve it.
  I do not wish to detain the House—
  Mr. Bercow: Go on.
  Mr. Bell: Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's encouragement, I shall conclude my remarks. The Church of England supports the Bill and wishes it well on Second Reading and in Committee. We hope that it will be safely launched on to the statute book.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: I shall vote tonight on the ecclesiastical issues that are raised by the Bill, rather than on the party political ones. As a matter of principle, I shall delight in voting against the guillotine that the Government are imposing.
  I do not oppose the Bill. We are assured that the Church of England and other Churches were consulted and are content. I should like to declare an interest, as my late father was a Lord Spiritual, or, more technically, a Lord of Parliament—as opposed to a life peer—during his tenure of the See of Truro. A short while ago, during the passage of other legislation, hon. Members discussed the interesting question whether the time had come for them to record in the Register of Members' Interests their religion and denomination. That is an intriguing possibility, as such a practice would clear the air in relation not only to the matters under discussion, but to similar ones.
  The Government are seeking to change the law for the worst possible reasons. The Under-Secretary just managed not to say that the history of the measure started in 1997, but we almost heard him make such a remark. He did not go far back in time, but I shall go much further in deploying my arguments. The introduction of the Bill is

  825
  in the interests of the Labour party and of one man who wants to stand as a Labour parliamentary candidate in the forthcoming election. I do not know Mr. David Cairns and I hold nothing against him personally. I merely point out that, when the previous Government changed the law a few years ago in the interests of one of our colleagues, that person was ejected by his electors at the ensuing general election in 1997.
  I understand that Mr. Cairns served as a Roman Catholic priest. Thus, unlike Church of England priests, he cannot draw up a certificate of relinquishment under the Clerical Disabilities Act 1870. Such a certificate would ensure that he relinquished not his holy orders, but the exercise of them. The Under-Secretary will wish that he had remembered that point. It is not that priests stop being ministers under the 1870 Act, but merely that they relinquish the exercise of their holy orders. As a Roman Catholic, Mr. Cairns has had to obey the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law 1983. Paragraph 3 of canon 285 of that code forbids clerics from assuming public office whenever it means sharing in the exercise of civil power. That is what the Roman Catholic Church says.
  However, the Government are today inviting us to repeal the whole of the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801 and parts of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, the Clerical Disabilities Act 1870, the Welsh Church Act 1914, the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and the Representation of the People Act 1983. We are tinkering, but on a grand scale, and we must pause to remind ourselves why we are doing so. I say "we" not only as a communicant and practising member of the Church of England, but as a Member of Parliament, which itself has been interwoven for hundreds of years with the Church in England.
  The Bill is part of a process of removing civil disabilities on the ground of religion that goes back at least to the 1780s and attempts to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts. Those attempts concerned the emancipation of Roman Catholics, notably the 5.5 million Roman Catholics in Ireland who came within the jurisdiction of Parliament in 1800 and 1801. That pattern of reformation continued as the Church of England functioned throughout the 18th and early 19th century as the religious embodiment of the state. Church and state belonged to each other, and the Church was expected to embody and express the religious aspirations of our nation. The repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts in 1828 and the Catholic Emancipation Act 1829 brought an end to the absolute primacy of the English Church. I stress that it is not only the Church of England but the English Church.
  I want to acknowledge the help that I received in sharpening my ecclesiastical history from the staff of Sarum college in my constituency and especially the Very Rev. John Moses, the Dean of St. Paul's. I commend his excellent book "A Broad and Living Way" to those who wish to get more involved in that esoteric subject.
  How relevant is the subject to the House? Some of my hon. Friends have said that the Bill has been introduced because it is expedient for the Government before a general election, that not many people are interested in it, and that it has a low priority. I have tried to ascertain the Bill's relevance and the state of belief in this country.
  826
  The 17th report of "British Social Attitudes" was published last year. The table for church membership in Britain shows that 46 per cent. of the population declare that they are Christian; 10 per cent. declare that they are of another religion, and 44 per cent. claim to be of no religion. Those statistics are interesting because the trendy talk nowadays suggests that religion is for a tiny minority. The table for church attendance shows that 45 per cent. of the people of this country claim that they go to church, although 13 per cent. say that they go once a week. A little more than 54 per cent. say that they never go to church.
  Do people believe in God? According to the report, 77 per cent. of the people who were polled in 1998 said that they did. Forty-eight per cent. said that they believed in God now and that they always had. Only 13 per cent. said that they did not believe in God now and never had. Again, those statistics are interesting for the doubters.
  The Bill may be perceived as unfinished business and further ad-hocery. However, it is characteristic of the way in which the Churches have reformed throughout the years. In the 19th century, the process of disengaging Church and state was piecemeal and pragmatic, like the Bill. The establishment principle was qualified but not abandoned. It should not be abandoned in the 21st century.
  For 200 years, the British Government have sought religious neutrality for our state. I shall cite some examples: the removal of restrictions on ground of religion for election to Parliament and public office; the abolition of the powers of church courts; the abolition of compulsory Church rates; the secularisation of the ancient universities; the introduction of civil marriages; the provision of public burial grounds and municipal cemeteries; and the establishment of civil parishes.
  Another interesting move was made in the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974. The redoubtable Enoch Powell spoke passionately in the debate. On the comprehensive nature of the Church of England, he said:
  "It was because the liturgy and the articles of religion, being part of the law of the land, were so difficult to alter, were so near as possible to being permanencies, that in age after age successive waves of thought and religious feeling were nevertheless able to find a place within the Church of England and within its unity."—[Official Report, 4 December 1974; Vol. 882, c. 1673.]
  Section 6 of the Measure states:
  "Section 3 of the Submission of the Clergy Act 1533 (which provides that no Canons shall be contrary to the Royal Prerogative or the customs, laws or statutes of this realm) shall not apply to any rule of ecclesiastical law relating to any matter for which provision may be made by Canon in pursuance of this Measure."
  In other words, we must go back a very long time—way beyond 1921 or even 1801—when we are asked to revise these issues.
  In spite of all that, because the Church of England is the English Church, and because of the nature of the reformation settlement and the responsibilities attached to establishment—which the Church of England should trumpet with much greater confidence—the Church of England has an outreach throughout the land unequalled by any other religion, Church or sect.
  The Bishop of Durham said in a debate on the Wakeham report in the House of Lords:
  "The presence of bishops in Parliament can point to an abiding validity of the Christian tradition to public doctrine and ethical norms. It is the national ministry of the Church of England 'by law

  827
  established' that makes this role possible. Through the dioceses and parishes, through a small army of clergy and licensed lay ministers, through church schools and chaplaincies to many kinds of institutions, the Church of England has a vast constituency of pastoral contact which extends far beyond the core of committed churchgoers. The expression 'national church' is not an anachronism."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 2000; Vol. 610, c. 932.]
  The English Church has, therefore, no cause to feel threatened by the Bill. It should, however, wake up and remember why it is the Church "by law established".
  Mr. Bercow: I have listened to my hon. Friend's historical exegesis with interest and respect. I have also noted what he said about church attendances, which I found slightly more surprising. Will he confirm that he is not suggesting that the somewhat better church attendance figures than I had imagined are either an argument for the Bill or against it?
  Mr. Key: The figures are an important matter of background information. Some people have suggested that it is a waste of time for Parliament to consider this matter, and that the people outside are not interested. The figures that I have quoted—they are not my figures—prove my point.
  The Venerable Bede wrote, in his "Historiam Gentis Anglorum Ecclesiasticum", that there was, in the sixth century, an awareness of England and of the English without parallel in other parts of Europe, and that the English nation was the child of the Church. The Church gave its authority to kingship, to law and to the unity of the nation. It provided the King's chief office-holders and was, effectively, the civil service. The state granted the Church privileges and gave it land and money.
  England was never part of the holy Roman empire. The Normans drew England closer to the papacy, but still the English Church fought for independence. The Magna Carta of 1215 asserted:
  "ut ecclesia Anglicana libera sit."
  That means: thus the English Church will be free.
  In 1392, King Richard II stated in statute 16—the statute of praemunire:
  "The Crown of England, which has always been so free and independent as not to have any earthly sovereign but to be immediately subject to God in all things touching the prerogatives of royalty and the said Crown, should be made subject to the Pope and the laws and statutes of the realm defeated and set aside by him at pleasure, to the utter destruction of the sovereignty of our Lord the King, his crown and royalty, and his whole kingdom, God forbid."
  That was too much for the Pope, and Richard II withdrew it on pain of excommunication. However, it was an expression of the independence of the English Church that eventually bore fruit in the reformation statutes of the 1530s.
  School history teaches us—or probably does not, under this philistine Government—that the Tudor reformation was about Henry VIII' s desire to get a divorce from Catherine of Aragon. It was about far more than that. It was about the extent of papal involvement in English life, the relation of the papacy to the Crown, and the meaning of sovereignty in a nation state.
  Henry VIII's reformation Parliament of November 1529 set in train a process that took until Elizabeth I's
  828
  Parliament of 1559 to establish the monarchy as defender of the faith, and—in the Act of Supremacy 1559—as
  "the only supreme governor of this realm as well in all spiritual and ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal."
  Against the background of that and all the strife and struggle that followed the reformation, I wish Mr. David Cairns no ill, but as the House debates the Bill on Second Reading it is well for us to remember that the English Church and state are two facets of one society, inextricably bound together in this nation and both much stronger for it.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: The hon. Gentleman has given us an interesting recital of historical background that brings us to the concept of Church and state. In the same mould, does he accept that during the 19th century, between Gladstone and Disraeli, the argument about Church and state and the established Church rippled on throughout? It will continue to ripple on, but will the hon. Gentleman confirm that if one disentangles Church and state, the monarchy itself comes into focus? Whether we have a republic or a monarchy is the next issue to be dealt with.
  Mr. Key: That will no doubt occupy those who sit on these Benches in a thousand years. I am sad that some hon. Members have not recognised the interweaving of Church and state in this country, which makes it wholly different from any other nation in the world bar none, particularly our continental neighbours. In 1920, the French Church was disestablished.
  Mr. Bell: It was 1903.
  Mr. Key: I was several years out, which is terrible, but that intervention makes the point that the French Church was disestablished. Only this weekend, I happened to be in old Catholic Munich for a security conference. As we looked at the two onions of the Marienkirche, a French academic laughed about the fact that no one ever goes to church in France, saying that it was a load of mumbo-jumbo. I thought, "Well, that's just a bit different."
  Mr. Forth: I am slightly puzzled, I must confess, given my hon. Friend's analysis of the relationship between Church and state and the continued presence of Church of England bishops in a House of Parliament as of right, that he still seems to think that we are able legitimately to legislate as the Bill suggests without giving proper consideration or reconsideration to the related matters of Church and state and the presence of bishops in the other place. How can he suggest that?
  Mr. Key: If I considered such matters in detail, I dare say that I would be ruled out of order. However, I would be happy to explore them because I know that, under the Wakeham proposals, the number of Church of England bishops in the other place would be reduced from 26 to 16. That I regret, but the quid pro quo is that there would be more appointees from other Churches and other religions. I have no difficulty with that. When I was a Minister, I established the Inner Cities Religious Council with a number of distinguished theologians and the Bishop of Leicester, Tom Butler, who is now Bishop of Southwark. Were I allowed to, I should have considered

  829
  that important development under the terms of the Bill. I would be happy for a wider discussion along such lines to take place.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has a legitimate grievance about which, I might add, he chuntered furiously to me earlier. Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason for the problem arising—we do not seem to be dealing with interrelated issues in an orderly fashion—is that the Government have engaged in a disgraceful go-slow on reform of the composition of the other place?
  Mr. Key: Yes, of course. My hon. Friend is right. If I appear to take a rather long-term view, I make no apology for that. The seat that I represent, Salisbury, sent its first Members to the House in 1260. We in Salisbury tend to think long. We also find it important to take in our stride reforms that have taken place over those many hundreds of years. There is an historical continuity about this place and about our country.
  I shall not be surprised if we give the Bill a Second Reading, but I am very surprised that the Government have chosen to rush it through just before a general election, without blushing. It is heroically appalling that they should hurry to the House to legislate so that one of their own party's candidates can stand for election in a few weeks. Nevertheless, that is entirely in character with the way in which the House, over many centuries, has dealt with such issues, the difference being perhaps that 300 or 400 years ago, someone would have been burnt at the stake. I have no intention to vote for that tonight.
  5.25 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Listening to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I could well imagine him conducting a Church of England service in a church in deepest Salisbury. I have to say that I have heard livelier debates at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in Edinburgh. Listening to some of the interventions, I came close to thinking that I should perhaps make a personal statement, given that we are dealing with my would-be successor, Mr. David Cairns.
  I welcome the Bill, which is of great interest to those whom I have the honour to represent. Incidentally—as you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—my constituency is Greenock and Inverclyde, and not, as some hon. Members insist on pronouncing it, "Grennock" and Inverclyde.
  Let me say in response to a couple of interventions from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that I played no part whatever in the selection of my successor. I kept myself at a great distance, feeling that that was the honourable thing to do. Obviously, like every other Member, I tell the truth in this place, so I will say that I wanted to be succeeded by a woman with good, honourable, old-Labour qualifications, but that was not to be.
  Let me also say—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) for giving me the opportunity—that at no time did members of my party behave in a deplorable or underhand way in selecting Mr. Cairns to represent Greenock and Inverclyde, if he is
  830
  successful. If I may borrow a term from industrial relations legislation to respond to a sedentary intervention from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), it could be said that they were in a condition of justifiable ignorance anent this anomaly. Anyway, I hope that the Bill is passed.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Godman: I will in a moment.
  My earlier question to my hon. Friend the Minister about the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly was badly phrased. The Bill brings us into line with the sensible legislation that established those legislatures: the Government of Wales Act 1998, the Scotland Act 1998—I played a large part in the passage of that Bill, along with the late Donald Dewar, who took it through the House in his inimitable style and with his wonderful elegance—and the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
  May I refer the Minister to paragraph 14 of the explanatory notes? It states, among other things:
  "Each of the four statutes—the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, the Government of Wales Act 1998, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998—presently provide that a person who is disqualified from membership of the House of Commons other than by the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 is also disqualified from the legislative body in question. This would disqualify clergymen because they are disqualified from the Commons by the Acts of 1801 and 1829 mentioned above. In order that such clergymen can sit in these legislatures each of those four statutes goes on to provide expressly that a person who is ordained or who is a minister of any religious denomination is not disqualified from membership of that legislative body. It will no longer be necessary to make that express statement as regards the entitlement of clergy to be members of those bodies."
  Mr. Bercow: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman said that the Greenock and Inverclyde constituency Labour party was in a state of justifiable ignorance. It is important to emphasise that, whether it was acting in ignorance or knowingly, it certainly was not acting illegally. The absurdity of the current situation is that it is legal for an individual such as Mr. Cairns to stand as a prospective parliamentary candidate—there is nothing illegal about that—but illegal for him to take his seat. It is important to make that clear.
  Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I know that he will accept my word that members of the Greenock and Inverclyde constituency Labour party acted in good faith.
  Were the Bill not to be passed but Mr. Cairns to be elected by the Greenock and Inverclyde constituency, an important issue might arise to be addressed in a judicial review at the Court of Session in Scotland. I think that if those two events were to happen, there could be an infringement of human rights. However, as the House knows, I am not a lawyer and I never desired to become one, so I may not be entirely correct on that point. Nevertheless, I believe that no one should be denied membership of this place, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Welsh Assembly on the ground of ordination or of being a minister of a certain religious denomination.
  Like the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), I look forward to the disestablishment of the Church of England. I also welcome the point made by the hon.

  831
  Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on the Church of Scotland. The principal representative of that denomination is of course the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, who is chosen annually.
  Paragraph 8 of the explanatory notes mentions Lords Spiritual and the 26 archbishops and bishops who sit in another place. If we are to continue with that place—one of my abiding regrets as a Member of Parliament is that we have not abolished it and replaced it with a senate—I believe that leaders of other Churches and religions should be entitled to sit, as the bishops do, as Lords of Parliament. Some of the other religious leaders might regard sitting next door as a somewhat doubtful privilege, but if the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York can do so, why cannot the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and Cardinal Thomas Winning?
  I know that the Church of England is sympathetic to widening the ecclesiastical membership of the other place. However, I also appreciate that there are complicated elements to the issue that will have to be addressed. I hope that that happens in the next Parliament.
  Paragraph 9 of the explanatory notes states that the Churches were consulted on the proposals and
  "are content for the statutory disqualifications to be removed."
  It therefore seems that the Bill has the approval, although perhaps qualified approval, of the Churches concerned.
  What will happen, however, if a person should decide to give up and return to his or her Church? As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, the traditional view of both Catholics and Anglicans is that holy orders cannot be relinquished, and that although one can renounce the exercise of one's orders, one is ordained for life. The right hon. Lady is of course a recent convert to Catholicism. Perhaps I should say that although I am a lapsed Catholic, I maintain a very keen and paternal interest in Catholic Church matters.
  As the Minister and the hon. Member for Salisbury said, there is a question whether, even if the Bill is enacted, a Catholic priest who is in "good standing"— I think that that is how it is described in Catholic canon law—can serve as a Member of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman mentioned paragraph 3 of canon 285 in the Roman Catholic code of canon law 1983. It states:
  "Clerics are forbidden to assume pubic office whenever it means sharing in the exercise of civil power."
  That is unequivocal, and at first glance it suggests that a Catholic priest cannot in principle hold political office other than in the obvious and special case of an office in the Curia. However, Catholic priests have held senior political positions. One example is the first President of Haiti, who took that office after the fall of the Duvalier family. I assume that he had a special dispensation from the Vatican.
  Would a priest who wanted to stand as a candidate for election to this House while retaining his good standing with his church need a dispensation from his diocesan bishop—or, failing that, from Rome? Alternatively, a priest has the right to petition Rome to have his orders annulled by rescript under paragraph 3 of canon 290 of the Catholic code of canon law. However, that is granted
  "to deacons for only grave reasons, and to priests for only the gravest of reasons."
  832
  Catholic constituents for whom I have the greatest regard and affection have raised the concern that, regardless of civil law on the subject, it appears unlikely that a Catholic priest in a western European democracy would be permitted by his church to hold political office and remain in good standing. I sincerely hope that I am wrong in that belief.
  In conclusion, any cleric—Anglican or Catholic—can simply walk away from his Church and stand as a candidate in an election. However, that person would no longer be in good standing under the law of his Church. My hope is that compassion and sensitivity would determine the outcome when a prospective candidate is caught in such circumstances. If such a problem were to arise with a candidate in Scotland, I hope that Cardinal Winning and his priestly colleagues would show precisely that compassion and sensitivity.
  I welcome the Bill and I sincerely hope that it becomes law before the general election.
  5.38 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), who in opposition used to sit on the Benches behind those occupied by members of my party. We have had a long friendship, although recently we have sparred more than we have supported each other. For example, his final comment concerned the standing of Roman Catholic priests in the western democracies, yet I recall that a priest in the United States was removed from office when he challenged papal authority. That is another possibility that we must bear in mind. The Minister said earlier that we should not introduce theological arguments into our debate, but the harsh reality is that those arguments are part of the debate.
  As the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) propounded, the issue at the heart of the debate is that priests are clerks in holy orders who receive remuneration under the Crown. If this reforming Bill is to succeed, the bar on candidates standing for Parliament who are now in receipt of such remuneration—for example, through membership of a quango—may have to be removed. I drew attention to that issue in connection with the Church of Scotland, which is in a different situation. Over the years, however, there has been a barrier to ministers ordained in the Church of Scotland.
  I am an ordained minister of a sister Church, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. I have not resigned my office; I was relieved from the pastorate. The Presbyterian Church in Ireland allows us to be ministers without charge under the care of presbytery, able to perform duties to help our colleagues and to carry out pastoral work if we are called on to help someone out. Often I do not deal with political or housing issues in my surgery but with some of the issues that regularly came my way when I was pastoring a congregation.
  I am one of those with links with 1950. I was a student in Londonderry, in the constituency of Belfast, West, where Rev. J. G. MacManaway sought guidance from the then Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, who I believe was right in his interpretation. I think that even Professor Blackburn would give that impression. The late Edmund Warnock said that he would be qualified to stand for election to the House of Commons and he was so elected, but the electoral court went into more rarefied arguments.

  833
  I believe that the people of Belfast, West, where I was a constituent at the time, were robbed of a very useful representative, but, at the same time, I can understand some of the arguments.
  I do not believe that anyone wants this place to be full of ministerial or clerical clones. However, the issue seems to be that those who have been priests are barred. I sympathise with that, but when does a person cease to be a priest? I read during the week of an elderly priest who was unfrocked because of some obscene behaviour in the past. It is rare for a priest in the Church of Rome to be unfrocked; they are quite often simply removed from the office of public priesthood.
  The Minister referred to priests being barred because of their activity in political circles. Desmond Wilson in Belfast, West was barred from public priesthood by Bishop Philbin. I remember Gerry Fitt, now ennobled in another place, coming to me in real anger because Desmond Wilson had published a book with a worldwide imprimatur that gave a different opinion of what was happening in Northern Ireland. He said, "I can never understand why Bishop Daly restored him to the office of public priesthood." That day, I was walking through Heathrow airport to get the plane back to Belfast and I met Dr. Daly. I said to him, "Bishop, my constituents and some of your flock have been asking why you restored Desmond Wilson to the office of public priesthood, when Dr. Philbin, your predecessor, removed him from it." The gracious Dr. Daly was rather taken aback that a mere Presbyterian politician should ask him such a question. He stepped back with a little start and, giving that lovely smile, said, "I tried to win him back but I failed."
  I wonder whether the Bill is premature and whether there is any real reason for it. I have no difficulties with people coming here who are elected by their people. I had to face that challenge myself, although, interestingly, it did not come from political circles. When my parliamentary predecessor was murdered, I, as someone interested in public life, encouraged others to put themselves forward, but two of my brothers—not filial but ministerial—from different spheres of the presbyterian ministry asked me, "Is it not your turn?" I could not encourage someone else to stand when danger was involved, unless I faced that danger myself. I prayed about the matter and the doors opened. I believe in and understand the concept of ordination for life. I am an ordained minister for life.
  I am glad that the trite expression "Ye cannot serve God and mammon" has not been used today. After my election, I received several letters expressing that view, but they were unsigned so I could not respond to them. I remind all of us who claim the Christian profession that the Master said those words not to disciples—apostles—but to followers. When we are dealing with issues of conscience, it behoves all of us, even in this place, to put that loyalty to the Master clearly to the fore. If the Almighty could shut doors for Paul, who wanted to go here, there and everywhere, and yet open another door that could not be closed, He had a great opportunity, through the selection and electoral processes, to shut the door on Martin Smyth.
  Today, we are debating whether the law of the land should shut doors on people or open other doors that may cause problems in the future. We glibly say that anyone
  834
  who is a leader of any religious community should have a right to be a Member of this place if he is elected, but would we be as keen if they belonged to the strange cults that have developed in the modern world, and could brainwash other people into selecting and electing them?
  Mr. Fabricant: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument with considerable interest. He presents a powerful case. However, surely those who are ministers of strange cults can be elected to this place anyway. Is not that correct? I look to the Minister for clarification, but he is engaged in a private conversation so I am not getting any help. The Bill specifically aids members of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church.
  Mr. Forth: That is not what the Bill says.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) makes a valuable point, with Lichfield's two lovely towers, but he is wrong this time. It is possible that the earlier argument is rather superficial and we should be careful about following it.
  Mr. Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman share my worry about the Bill? It loosely uses the words "minister" and "a religious denomination" without giving any definition. That could open the door to the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). The measure could be widely or loosely interpreted and might lead us in directions that we cannot yet anticipate.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point and it should be borne in mind. It might be argued that the arguments made earlier were about preventing the election of people who hold offices of profit under the Crown. However, Presbyterian ministers were in that position at one time. There was the regium donum—the gift of the Crown—but many years ago, my forebears commuted their money and invested it in central church funds. As a result, we are under no obligation to the Crown.
  Dr. Godman: Can the hon. Gentleman remind us whether he raised similar objections in respect of membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly during the passage of the Northern Ireland Act 1998?
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I do not believe that that objection was raised. There was a powerful lot of things in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and we did not always have enough time to explore them and expose some of the weaknesses that are still being worked out in Northern Ireland, not least of which is the failure of having an unaccountable Executive—we do not know where we are with them.
  5.50 pm
  Ms Sandra Osborne: I declare a personal interest, which will become clear shortly. I very much welcome the Select Committee on Home Affairs 1997–98 report, "Electoral Law and Administration", which recommended the change that we are discussing. However, I agree with those hon. Members who have said that it has taken some time to institute a change which is

  835
  long overdue. For reasons that will also become clear, it is a matter of great regret to me that the change did not occur under the previous Government.
  In 1951, a Select Committee report on clergy disqualification recommended no change on the basis of practicality. Various hon. Members have argued today that there is no groundswell of clergy desperate to stand for election to the House. That may well be the case, but this is an issue of principle which should be addressed, and it does not matter whether David Cairns or two other people want to stand for election.
  I fully accept that under the current legislation—which dates back centuries, as hon. Members have said—non-Church of England and former episcopalian ordained priests and Catholic priests suffer a double discrimination in that they have no practical remedy, as no provision exists to alter their status if they want to stand for election to, and be eligible to sit in, the House. However, I wish to highlight the issue from a different perspective: for most ministers of religion, especially those who have been ordained and served for a considerable time, it is not an insignificant decision to demit their status.
  The Labour candidate in Ayr at the 1992 election was a victim of the discrimination the Bill will end. He had spent six years at university, training to be a Church of Scotland minister. He then spent 15 years working in some of the poorest areas in Paisley and Ayr. Alongside his parish work he was involved in politics, so it was a natural progression that members of the local party asked him to stand as the Labour candidate in Ayr in 1992. However, as a Church of Scotland minister, he was barred from taking a seat in the House. The Church put no impediment in his way, but the law of the land did.
  To stand for Parliament, he had to demit his status as a Church of Scotland minister—the equivalent of a doctor having his or her name removed from the general medical register, or a lawyer having his or her qualified practising certificate revoked. Can hon. Members imagine the outcry if people had to abandon their right to practise law if they wanted to become a Member of Parliament?
  Mr. Forth: A good idea.
  Ms Osborne: Indeed, but there would be an outcry in the highest places if that were ever suggested and there would no longer be any learned Members.
  When I said that I declared an interest in the matter, I should have added that the Labour candidate in Ayr in 1992 was my husband—in fact, he still is. If he ever wanted his ministerial status back, he would have to petition the general assembly of the Church of Scotland at its annual gathering. When I was elected in 1997—a worthy successor to my husband as candidate in Ayr—I was aware that there had been a time, not so long ago, when I, too, would have been barred from sitting in the House—not because I was a minister, but for the specific reason that I was a woman, and no remedy would have been open to me to circumvent that ruling.
  In 1992, my husband stood for Ayr—a highly marginal seat at the time, although it is obviously no longer one—with no guarantee of winning. Indeed, as most hon. Members will know, he was defeated by 85 votes out of 55,000—a small margin by anyone's standards, except perhaps in Florida. Yet the law requires such people to sign away years of study, hard-won qualifications and a
  836
  lifetime of work and service, perhaps 18 months or two years before an election, to stand for a seat that they may well not win.
  It was ultimately my husband's decision to make that stand, but a democratic deficit is involved. As I have said, the Church itself placed no impediment in his way. Indeed, the Church of Scotland has a long and honourable record of encouraging not only its members and adherents but its clergy to be involved in the political process. I disagree with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) about the clergy's involvement in political activities, as does the Church of Scotland.
  The moderator's annual visit to the House is a well-established and happy occasion. Only last week, the press reported that this year's moderator is ready to join an anti-nuclear protest outside Faslane and has declared himself undaunted by the possibility of arrest as a result. The Church of Scotland's church and nation committee speaks out on all issues affecting the life of the Scottish people and is listened to by the Government at Westminster and Edinburgh.
  Parallel bodies of the Church exist at local presbytery level to speak out on community and social issues. Countless ordinary members have viewed it as a natural extension of their Christian faith to be involved in politics for the good of humanity and society. That involvement can range from going along to the local tenants group, or campaigning for the cancellation of world debt in the poorest nations, to becoming a local councillor, or even a Member of Parliament. Why should one part of the political process be barred to a particular group of Christians—the clergy—and then only to the clergy of certain denominations?
  Many clergy have held elected political office. I think of those who have been councillors. One giant figure of the Scottish Labour movement comes to mind—the Rev. Geoff Shaw. Geoff was the founder of the Gorbals group and went on to lead Strathclyde regional council, serving a population half the size of Scotland's. If he had not died so tragically young, who knows where his politics might have taken him?
  Reference has been made to other clergy who have been Members of Parliament. I know from my own experience that people often refer with some puzzlement to the position of the hon. Members for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea), for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). They are still bemused when I try to explain that they are not clergy of an established Church, debarred under current legislation. Indeed, going back in the history of the House, Scottish Presbyterian ministers—albeit of denominations other than the established Church of Scotland—have made a significant contribution.
  A great figure of the Scottish Labour movement was the Rev. James Barr—a pacifist and socialist. He was elected to the House in 1924 as the Independent Labour party Member for Motherwell. He was a forceful opponent of Ramsay MacDonald's National Government and lost his seat opposing it in 1931. He was returned as Member for Coatbridge in 1935. Along with great early socialists, such as Keir Hardie, he campaigned tirelessly for home rule for Scotland, a minimum wage and temperance. I am sure that he would have given this Government a pass mark of two out of three.

  837
  One of James Barr's claims to fame was that he made one of the longest ever maiden speeches—88 minutes and stretching to 18 columns in Hansard. I considered reading out his speech verbatim to hon. Members, but I thought better of it; I am sure that that would be the last thing they would want to hear. However, I know from personal experience that clergymen often like the sound of their own voices, can make excellent contributions to debate, and tend to be accomplished public speakers.
  Suffice it to say that James Ban was attacking the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act 1925 in his maiden speech. He vehemently opposed any link between Church and state and thought it wholly the responsibility of the Church to support and maintain itself on a voluntary basis. When the union took place in 1929, he felt so strongly about this that he stayed with the rump of the United Free Church. If he had not, he would have found himself debarred from membership of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and, among other matters, has referred to the position of her husband. Does she accept that those hon. Members, such as myself, who are not adherents of any religion support the Bill? Indeed, I do so as a member of the Home Affairs Committee, because the existing position represents a form of discrimination that certainly cannot be justified. Does she also agree that if any criticism is to be made, it is that such a measure should have been introduced years ago?
  Ms Osborne: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. If this Bill had been introduced 15 years ago, my husband would probably still be a practising minister in the Church of Scotland. However, he had to demit his status when he stood as a candidate.
  Another great figure of the Scottish Labour movement was Campbell Stephen. He was elected as MP for Glasgow, Camlachie in 1922 and he was one of the famous Clydeside group of Independent Labour party Members. He, too, lost his seat in 1931 only to be re-elected in 1935. What is not so well known is that he, like Barr, started life as a minister of the United Free Church of Scotland. He gave up his charge in Ardrossan to fight unsuccessfully the Ayr Burghs seat in 1918 and he never resumed his ministry.
  The point of my argument is to illustrate that there is no real difference between a politically active minister of the Church of Scotland and one of any number of other mainstream denominations in Scotland who are not caught up by this arbitrary legislation that debars membership of the House of Commons to ministers of the Church of Scotland.
  I do not think that we should be too parochial when considering this matter. Internationally, clergy have played a significant role in the politics of their respective countries. I think in particular of the African continent and north and central America. Other aspects of the issue, particularly the case of former Roman Catholic priests, will be, and have been, taken up by hon. Members. I have concentrated on the Scottish Presbyterian dimension.
  I would never wish to suggest that being an MP is the highest expression of political involvement. There are many ways of being involved in the political process and
  838
  for many people being an MP would not be their chosen way. George Bernard Shaw might have been thinking of ambitious would-be MPs when he wrote:
  "There are two tragedies in life. One is not to get your heart's desire. The other is to get it."
  The third tragedy might be to be barred from achieving what may not be one's heart's desire at all, but should be a democratic right—to become a Member of Parliament.
  The Bill should not be about any particular person's smooth passage into the House. It is, like the separate case for the repeal of the Act of Succession, an issue of individual human rights—a matter of religious and civil liberties and an opportunity to add to the democratic credentials of the House.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I cannot share the general support for the Bill for a number of reasons. My instinctive reason always in such a case is that, when nearly everyone agrees on something, it is probably wrong. That seems to be so in this case. The fact that the Bill was introduced with smug complacency and the fact that almost all those who have spoken seem to be of one religious persuasion tend to set my antennae quivering. I wonder what it is all about.
  The Minister was originally coy, and then blustered when he was asked why we were getting the Bill now. The answer appeared straightforward once we got it. The Bill is the legitimisation of a Labour candidate, and I can think of no worse reason to change the law of the land. There may be many good reasons for the changes to be introduced by the Bill, but to legitimise a Labour candidate now is the worst possible reason that I can think of. We can dismiss that as a proper reason; it does not explain why we should support the Bill at this time.
  The tragedy is that the local Labour party either selected the candidate in ignorance of the law—that would not say much for the party's support for its local organisations—or, worse, it selected him knowing that the law as it stands would prevent him, if elected by the voters of Greenock and Inverclyde, from taking his seat. Either way, that is not a good recommendation for the House to approve the Bill at this stage, however excellent the individual may be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) pointed out, none of us has met this man, and, in one respect, we have absolutely no interest in whether he is elected. We would rather that a Conservative is elected in Greenock and lnverclyde, but—although I have been away from the Clyde for quite a long time—I suspect that the chances of a Conservative being elected there are as about as strong as the chances of a Labour candidate being elected in Bromley and Chislehurst.
  Dr. Godman: May I point out again to the right hon. Gentleman that local Labour party members were unaware of the anomaly? He should not denigrate decent, ordinary activists in a particular party. How many Members of this Parliament—let alone ordinary activists in a local party—knew of the anomaly?
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman should not get too excited. I will denigrate whoever I like, whenever I like, and for whatever reason I like. I, not the hon. Gentleman, will decide whether the good Labour supporters of

  839
  Greenock and Inverclyde are immune from that. However, my criticism is directed at the professional agent—if there is one—or the Labour party in Scotland, which should concentrate on such matters instead of the other nonsenses that it gets up to. That is where my criticism is levelled. I repeat my point that, because the Greenock and Inverclyde Labour party found itself in this position, that is no reason to change the law. That is my first argument against our supporting the Bill on this occasion.
  My next point echoes a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). If we were to change the law now, that would give rise to legitimate grievance among many people who were aware of the law, respected the law and did not offer themselves as candidates. They would find that they had suddenly been put in a most unfortunate position. For whatever reason, Mr. Cairns is being presented as a candidate and he is having the law changed for him just before an election. However, all the other people who may well have wanted to become candidates and who chose not to because they believed that the law did not allow them to would have good cause to say, "Hold on a minute; this is completely and grotesquely unfair." Believe it or not, the law is being changed to benefit one individual when, for the reverse reason, it could disbenefit many other people.
  Mr. Bercow: It is very rare for my right hon. Friend and me to be at loggerheads, but may I suggest that the thrust of his point runs counter to his general enthusiasm—an enthusiasm that I share—for risk-taking and entrepreneurship? Does he accept that it would have been entirely open to any other individual to put himself or herself forward as a prospective candidate in the knowledge that it was legal to stand but would be illegal to take his or her seat? That person could hope, plot and collaborate with others to campaign for a change in the law and take his or her chance. Why has my right hon. Friend not considered that perfectly estimable possibility?
  Mr. Forth: Of course, it is a possibility. However, in this case it helps if that person is a member of the Labour party and not any other party—a fact that may, unusually, have escaped my hon. Friend's attention. He is right, but I gather that Mr. Cairns is quoted as saying, "Don't worry, chaps. We'll have the law changed, and that will put everything right." My point is that the timing is most unfortunate. Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) rightly emphasised that official Opposition Members would have a free vote, she pointed out that there have been several opportunities recently to change the law.
  Miss Widdecombe: Four.
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend assures me that were four occasions when we could have legislated on this matter in proper time, allowing time for proper consideration and allowing other people to benefit from the change in electoral law. In almost every respect, the timing of the Bill's introduction is not only unfortunate, but unacceptable and unconscionable. The fact that the Government gave priority not to this measure, but to anti-hunting Bills and piffling Bills on vehicle crime says much about their sense of priorities. I shall return briefly to the issue of timing, because it is important.
  840
  I am also uneasy about the Bill because I do not think that it should be dealt with in isolation. In his typically learned and well-researched way, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury provided the background to the matter and brought out strongly the fact that such a Bill cannot be considered as a tiny piece of a large mosaic. It should not be considered entirely in isolation, because it carries with it important constitutional implications, not least, as he suggested, for the position of the established Church.
  As a result of our history, there is an unusually complex relationship between the state and the Churches, especially the established Church. Different Churches and religions have a different status. A Labour hon. Member prattled on, as Labour women do, about equality. She used the word frequently and the implication was that as the issue concerns equality, it must be right to change the law. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury explained, we do not live in an age of equality, certainly in this respect. Our different faiths, religions and Churches have an unequal status in society. Whether that is right or wrong is of huge importance. To single out an aspect of it—a by-product of our history—and deal with it in isolation without tackling other important issues is wrong, but that is symptomatic of the way in which the Government have gone about making piecemeal and unrelated changes in our constitution, which have been to our detriment.
  We are also suffering from that approach to reform of the other place, which has a direct bearing on the Bill. Our constitutional and statutory arrangements contain a right for a number of Church of England bishops to sit in a House of Parliament and participate in the legislative process. That has a bearing on the eligibility of people to be elected to this place. How much sense does it make for bishops of any Church to have a place, as of right, in a Chamber of these Houses of Parliament, and does that have implications for the question of whether people should be eligible to serve in this place? Those two questions are connected, but we are deliberating on eligibility to this House while paying no regard to the composition of the other place. That makes no sense.
  We are being invited to narrow our vision to one individual in one set of circumstances and to change the electoral law of the land, but we are expected to pay no regard to the context within which it was set, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. Having said that, the relative position of different religious faiths and Churches and their representatives should be borne in mind. It is a convention that leading figures of other faiths are given a seat in another place. That might be admirable for as long as that Chamber is not properly elected, which I should like it to be, but it raises the issue of the different status of different Churches. If there are 26 bishops from our established Church in our legislature, why should there be only one chief rabbi or one representative of any other faith or religion? Those are important matters and they relate to the subject of our debate.
  Mr. Bercow: I am anxious to establish—although I think that it will gradually become clear—whether my right hon. Friend is objecting simply or primarily to the cack-handed manner in which the matter has been handled, or to the proposed change on principle. If the Government had not introduced the Bill with such haste and had got on, as we would both favour, with the

  841
  important project of creating an elected other place with no automatic entitlement for bishops to sit in it, would he be in favour of what many of us think is a simple and common-sense measure?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is inviting me to deliver my punch line before I have reached it. As I have such respect for him, I shall accede to his request. My view is simple: whoever is elected by our electoral process to represent a constituency is entirely a matter for the voters in that constituency. Whether people who are elected are acceptable to us is neither here nor there. Debarment by statute is probably wrong. History is important and we should be prepared to adjust our view appropriately, but not in this Bill, not now, and not in the piecemeal way in which we are being invited to consider the matter.
  Although police officers and some others are debarred, I want there to be a minimum number of restrictions on people's eligibility to be elected to this place because it is for the voters to decide. By and large, people in this country get the politicians they deserve.
  Mr. Stunell: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman's approach correctly? Is he saying, "Make me good, but not yet"? Is not a little reform better than no reform? Is not a little movement better than no movement?
  Mr. Forth: Absolutely not. Perhaps I should start my speech again because obviously I have not persuaded the hon. Gentleman of my case. I condemn the Government and their fellow travellers in the hon. Gentleman's party for doing what he has described and claiming it as a virtue. They introduce piecemeal, disconnected and ill-thought-out change for the sake of it. They usually call it modernisation and think that that will fool us, but it does not. My argument is that the Bill is wrong, ill-conceived and has been introduced at the wrong time. That is why I am unhappy with it.
  I want to raise a more sensitive and delicate matter, even at the risk of offending some colleagues and people outside the House—I have, of course, never shrunk from that. I am concerned about possible conflicts of loyalty. My understanding of history does not begin to rival that of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, so I am diffident about raising the issue. However, at the time of Henry VIII and the reformation, the question of to whom people in this country owed their primary loyalty must have arisen. Was it to our sovereign monarch and sovereign state, or to something or someone beyond, which at the time was the papacy? That issue is still alive. Indeed, it might be even more potent in our multi-faith society. Some people might believe that sections of our multi-faith, multi-cultural society have, in some circumstances, not only a divided loyalty, but a greater loyalty than that given to the Queen and the state.
  Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend might agree that, although the cold war is over, instability is all the greater as a result.
  Mr. Forth: Indeed. That is becoming daily more evident, which is why the Bush Administration's concept
  842
  of a missile defence system is something that we can all wholeheartedly support. The sooner they put their umbrella over me, the safer I will feel.
  Mr. John Redwood: My right hon. Friend's point about Henry VIII is important. He was the first successful Eurosceptic, and he showed that a single Act of Parliament can remove the power of European courts. I understand my right hon. Friend's argument and agree entirely with what he is saying about where allegiance lies.
  Mr. Forth: I hope that my right hon. Friend's excellent book, which he launched today in the Jubilee Room, will contain more on that matter. I am sure that we will all be much the better for reading it, although I have not managed to get around to it yet.
  Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the status of Catholics at the time of the reformation. Is he suggesting that Catholics are not loyal to the United Kingdom or have a wider loyalty to an outside force?
  Mr. Forth: No, that is a matter for Catholics. I am simply saying that we should not duck this issue. I confess that my understanding of the intricacies of the Catholic Church is limited, but I am making the more general point that it is possible that the total loyalty that someone has, by dint of their vocation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald called it, expressed in formal terms to a deity or moral authority could clash, in some circumstances, with the loyalty that we should all feel to our state and our monarch. That may manifest itself in many different ways, and it is directly relevant to the Bill because of the removal of the disqualification that we are now discussing.
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: The right hon. Gentleman makes a serious charge, and a great deal of what he says seems to be based on innuendo. Will he give us an example of circumstances in which loyalties may be challenged?
  Mr. Forth: I do not think that I was using innuendo at all; I thought that I was making the perfectly clear point that potential conflict exists and we should not duck that matter or skate over it. My difficulty with the Bill is that in the warm glow of consensuality that is becoming ever more popular in this place and in the body politic, we risk not squaring up to such issues and resolving them to our satisfaction before we move on. Surely, as a political institution, we are still sufficiently mature—although I sometimes wonder—to discuss these matters properly and deal with them or dispose of them before we move on to legislate. That is my point, and if it makes Labour Members uncomfortable, I am doing my job.
  I turn briefly now to one or two of the details of the Bill. My first difficulty is whether the term
  "a minister of any religious denomination"
  is sufficiently precise or accurate to do the job that Members imagine the Bill will do. It strikes me that in this ever-evolving world of denominations, faiths and sects, there is at least the possibility of difficulty arising from the lack of a proper definition of the term "religious denomination". I put it no more strongly than that,

  843
  but with the seeming proliferation of different organisations calling themselves churches and faiths, there could be very real difficulty. We may want to pay attention to that matter in Committee.
  Mr. Stunell: I hesitate to provoke the right hon. Gentleman, but is he suggesting that there might be an occasion when the House would want to proscribe certain religions from putting forward candidates? That seems to be the direction in which his argument is going. If I understand him correctly, he is saying that although this measure might be good enough for Roman Catholics and other well-known denominations, there might be others that we have not yet invented which the House would want to prevent from offering candidates. Is that his thinking?
  Mr. Forth: Yes, it is indeed. I have in mind the possibility of organisations that many hon. Members may find offensive, subversive, dangerous or threatening calling themselves a religious denomination for the purposes of the Bill and seeking to promote their members as politicians or Members of Parliament. We may have to think about that.
  Mr. Stunell: We seem to be moving from a discussion about whether we should repeal legislation that restricts certain people to an argument that we should retain that legislation in case we want in future to restrict certain people who are not currently covered. I look forward with considerable interest to the right hon. Gentleman's amendments in Committee.
  Mr. Forth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman looks forward to that. Let us hope that we have enough time in Committee to deal with all the matters in detail and at whatever length is necessary. However, that is the next debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you would not want me to anticipate that, would you?
  I have another simple query that I am sure the Minister will be able to answer. The heading of clause 2 is "Short title, commencement and extent", but I see no reference in the Bill to a commencement date. When does the Minister envisage that will be? Timing is an important consideration, and here we must pause for a moment and work backwards from when the Minister thinks the general election is likely to be. As the whole reason for the Bill is to allow one individual to be elected to this place, it is obviously essential, if the Bill is to fulfil its purpose, that it is enacted and commenced in time for the general election. We are therefore entitled to hear a bit more from the Minister about whether he believes there is sufficient time left properly to consider the Bill in all its stages in this House and in the Lords before Parliament is dissolved.
  I ask because no date has yet been named for the remaining stages of the Bill, and I understand from the next item of business that the Government are to ask the House to deal with the matter in a Committee of the whole House. We have a short recess coming up, so I assume that the matter cannot and will not be dealt with until afterwards, which takes us to the end of February. That means that the Government will presume upon the House of Lords to deal with the Bill rapidly and peremptorily in time for it to be enacted so that the individual Labour candidate gets statutory cover for his candidature and can come to the House.
  844
  I shall be interested to see whether the Minister has any comment to make about that. It strikes me that, in their typically arrogant way, the Government are making a series of presumptions about the parliamentary process, both in this House and in another place. I think that those presumptions are unacceptable, but the Government have long since ceased to bother themselves with that. Perhaps as a result of the matters that I and other Members have raised, we will pay attention to the Bill in Committee and on Report, and the House of Lords will want to examine it closely. I hope then, at the very least, that the Government are presuming too much about the parliamentary process, and all their plans, ploys and plots to get one person elected by altering the law of the land may well not come to fruition. If that is the case, I will certainly shed no tears.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Stephen Hepburn: I take the opportunity to speak in this debate because it is about fairness and tolerance. I remember that, many years ago, when I was at St. Mary's Catholic junior school in Jarrow, one of the highlights was when the Catholic missionary from Africa or elsewhere came to the classroom to inform us about his work with the poor. That gave us an insight into his vocation and into what seemed to be an idyllic existence, helping the poor in an exotic country. I also remember the tales told in school about the famous Father Rooney from Hebburn, a town in Jarrow. He was a great priest, a fund-raiser for the Catholic Church, who travelled widely and had many famous friends, such as the Kennedys and the Sinatras. He even had a racehorse named after him, such was his notoriety in the Catholic world for his good work.
  Of course, as I grew older, reality sank in and I realised that the priesthood is not the glamorous life that it was portrayed to be when I was a young child. Very few people become a priest because it is such a hard life and such a difficult vocation. That is why those who make it, and those who stay in the priesthood, are such special people. Priests are great men because they have a vocation and a way of life that very few people can follow. Very few people embark on becoming a priest without serious thought. Once they are in the priesthood, they must make an important decision if they want to leave. Some young men get so far, fail and do not bother trying to be ordained. Some are ordained and then decide that they do not have the calling, so they drop out.
  The question is whether those who decide, after they have been ordained, that they do not have the calling, should be discriminated against for the rest of their lives for their honesty. They are honest to themselves, to their God, to their community and to their congregation when they say, "I don't think this life is for me. I want to serve God in the community in a different vocation." Should they be classed as second-class citizens, and should they be discriminated against for the rest of their lives? Surely that is what the debate is about.
  Mr. Key: Is not the greatest discrimination that the Roman Catholic Church refuses to ordain women?
  Mr. Hepburn: I shall continue with the point that I was making. Any sort of intolerance or unfairness should not be tolerated by any society. It is not for me to

  845
  comment on what the Catholic Church does internally. I am talking about what the state can do to try to create a fair environment in which people might prosper.
  We know that the Bill is not entirely about Catholic discrimination, but it was the Catholic issue that caught my eye originally. We know that there are anomalies. Some members of the clergy are disqualified and some are not. Some priests can relinquish their ministry and become Members while others are unable to do so. Certain Christian priests are disqualified whereas ministers of other religious faiths, such as Judaism, Islam and Buddhism, are eligible. I merely point out the anomalies.
  Is it right that a Catholic priest, who decides that he no longer wants to continue in that role and wishes to join society, to marry and to have a family, for example, because the vocation is not for him, cannot become a Member, whereas a practising Jewish rabbi or Muslim cleric can stand for Parliament and become an elected Member? It is obviously not right.
  Ministers of the Church sit in the House. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) made his point clearly. The example should be given again of Bruce Kent, a former Catholic priest. No matter what anyone thinks about him politically, his views were pinned to the mast. He is a CND supporter and a socialist. He has always seemed a loving and caring man to me. He stood for Labour at Oxford in 1992. If he had been successful, he would not have been able to become a Member. There seemed no reason for that.
  The present position is nonsensical. It stems from some historical row that took place about 100 or 200 years ago, or 500 or 600 years ago when Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife. I do not care especially what the reason was. The unfairness should be challenged.
  One valid concern is whether the passage of the Bill will result in the House being awash with clergy. However, that is a matter for the Churches and not for Parliament. If the Churches want people to stand for Parliament, that can be done.
  We are in a new era of fairness, equality, caring and modernisation. We do not stand for discrimination in our modern society. That should not be tolerated on any basis, whether it be age, gender, disability or religion. What goes for Members should stand also for the monarchy.
  When I was younger, there were young people alongside me who decided, "I might go for a calling and go into the priesthood." Some might have been successful and become missionaries, for example. Some might have become great priests doing a great job for local congregations in carrying out the work that suited them. Others may have tried. Some might have been ordained, only to decide that it was not for them. I would hate to see those people condemned for life because of religious discrimination that stems from centuries ago, which we as a responsible Parliament, made up of all parties, seem to be upholding.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn). He represents the area that was the home of the Venerable Bede. On this occasion, I find myself agreeing with him entirely. Perhaps that is dangerous.
  846
  It is extraordinary that we are debating this issue as we enter the 21st century. It is an old hangover from old law and prejudices. There is a list of those people who are not allowed to stand in Parliament. They include, as we all know, undischarged bankrupts, offenders sentenced to more than one year in prison, persons convicted of corrupt practices at elections—they are disqualified for seven years—and those holding offices listed by the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which includes the class of people that we are now debating.
  It includes also senior civil servants, judges, ambassadors and members of the regular armed forces. It is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) in his place. I had the pleasure to speak after he made his powerful maiden speech. The hon. Gentleman was in the armed forces. The list continues with members of the police force and paid members of the boards of nationalised industries. How few such board members are left? Also included are Government-appointed directors of commercial companies and directors of the Bank of England.
  I will not name those who I think are disreputable and those who I believe are to be admired. However, it is astonishing that included in the list are practising clergy of the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Church of Ireland and former or practising priests of the Roman Catholic Church.
  I would not wish to try to emulate or even compete with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) in his historical knowledge, but I read some information that told me that in 1678 there was the second Test Act. It did not effectively prevent Roman Catholics from serving in Parliament, but it required them to make a declaration abjuring transubstantiation, worship of the Virgin Mary and the celebration of mass. In practice, that would bar all Roman Catholics, especially Roman Catholic priests, from serving in this place.
  There might have been a problem at that time with dual loyalty. I usually agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and there might have been a dual loyalty between the Holy See and that of England. I am sure that now there would be no conflict of interest in, to use my right hon. Friend's word, a deity and the House of Commons. Most of us probably believe in a god of some sort, and I hope that most of us exercise our conscience from time to time. Conscience is often dictated by one's religious views, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Islam or whatever.
  I was keen to speak in the debate because I believe that one of the greatest Prime Ministers that we ever had, certainly until the 1980s, was Benjamin Disraeli. He was baptised at an early age, but if that had not happened and if he had followed the religion of his antecedents—Benjamin Disraeli is considered generally as being Jewish—he would not have been able to be Prime Minister. I think that we all agree that that would have been wrong. It is equally wrong now to say that Roman Catholic priests should be barred from membership of the House.
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about Disraeli. We all know the story of why he was baptised by his father. It arose from a dispute with the synagogue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that being the supreme opportunist that he was, even if Disraeli had not

  847
  been baptised, he would have made sure, without the slightest hesitation, of becoming a Christian at the appropriate age so as to be able to come to this place?
  Mr. Fabricant: It is not for me to try to imagine what Benjamin Disraeli might or might not have done. I do not think that he was an opportunist. He was a patriot. He recognised that in years to come there would be a party like the Labour party, which would seek to nationalise everything. He knew that he had to create the modem Conservative party—which he did, in effect. If that is called opportunism, I say "Hear, hear". I remind the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that new Labour tries to emulate today's Conservative party, especially that of the former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Let us not have no doubt whatever about that.
  Although I do not object to the principle of the Bill, I object to the way in which it is being introduced today. As hon. Members have pointed out, the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended in 1998 that such a Bill should be introduced in Parliament. The hon. Member for Walsall, North and I serve on that Committee, but I did not have the honour of doing so when it made that recommendation. One has to ask oneself why the Bill is being introduced now? I have to say that the answer is plain, simple opportunism, and is to do with the Labour candidate who is standing for Greenock and Inverclyde, who earlier fought for Ayr, where he was rightly rejected by the electorate.
  Incidentally, I note that in The Independent, Mr. Cairns was reported as saying that he is "confident" that the law will be changed before the next general election. I wondered how he could be so confident? After all, for my party, the Bill is to do with one's conscience and there is a free vote on a one-line Whip. As I have argued, there are good reasons for introducing the Bill, although perhaps not at this point. I popped out of the Chamber when my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was speaking and checked with an honest and honourable Labour Member—whose name I shall not divulge in the House, lest he be hanged, drawn and quartered—who showed me his Whip. I was amazed that, for the Government, this is a three-line Whip, not a matter of conscience. Mr. Cairns therefore has every right to say that he is confident that the law will be changed before the next election.
  Dr. Godman: If I may say so, I was hoping to leave this place—but that is another story.
  May I help the hon. Gentleman by putting the record straight? He said that Mr. Cairns fought the Ayr parliamentary constituency in a previous election. That is simply not the case.
  Mr. Fabricant: I stand corrected. A previous speaker—I cannot remember who, although perhaps it was the hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne)—said that about Ayr.
  Ms Osborne rose—
  Mr. Fabricant: I think that the hon. Member for Ayr wishes to intervene and set the record straight. However,
  848
  all that I am saying is that I was listening to the debate, and took that information from her. I may have misheard her, but I shall give way to her.
  Ms Osborne: It was my husband, a former Church of Scotland minister, who stood for Ayr.
  Mr. Fabricant: Earlier, I said that, although I am good at languages, I am not good at dialects. I do not mean to be offensive, but I must have misheard the hon. Lady. I happily withdraw my remark.
  Nevertheless, David Cairns is standing for election. Why have the Government left the matter for so long? I do not expect that the Government in power acted a year later on the second Test Act of 1678. However, given that the Home Affairs Committee reported on the need for change more than two years ago, it seems that the Government are motivated to make a change by introducing the Bill now to enable David Cairns to stand for the constituency of Greenock and Inverclyde and, they hope, to be elected.
  That is wrong and it is equally wrong, as I said earlier, that the Government have subjected the Bill to a three-line Whip. That breaks a sort of understanding in the House that, on matters of conscience—no matter what hon. Members have said, this is a matter of conscience—there should not be a three-line party Whip. I am rather pleased that members of my own Front Bench have demonstrated that principle. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has yet to make his speech, but he has said already, as I have, that he supports the general principle of the Bill. However, I know that our right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald is not keen on the Bill for good reasons of religion and conscience. I do not agree with her, but she is free to oppose the Bill because Conservative Members believe that matters of conscience should remain so and should not be a question of party political opportunism.
  Mr. Tony McNulty: What a pile of nonsense.
  Mr. Fabricant: That opportunism has been created, as the Government Whip has just pointed out.
  Is the Minister aware of any Labour Members who oppose the Bill on the ground of conscience? Will they be allowed to vote against i,t or will the full might of the Government Whip be thrown at them, which, in the shape of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), would be a very frightening prospect indeed? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Bercow: I am truly horrified by what has just been uttered by a Member from a sedentary position. Did my hon. Friend overhear the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—who, unless I am mistaken, is a lifelong and inveterate opponent of the death penalty—advocating the death penalty for any Labour Member foolish or brave enough to vote against the Bill?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Perhaps it would be a good idea if we returned to the contents of the Bill.
  Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  849
  In conclusion, the Bill is overdue in the macro-chronology of events. It should have been introduced in the House two and a half years ago and should have been voted on according to conscience. I will support the Bill if it is put to the vote, but what would have been a renowned Bill, which would have been respected in the House, has been degraded by the Government, who have acted opportunistically, for party political ends, in their embittered fight against the Scottish National party in Scotland. For that reason alone, the Bill, as it appears before the House today, is to be deplored.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I rise in response to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who argued that this is a case of allegiance. While I rush to give him historical illustrations, what I mean by saying that this is a matter of allegiance is very different from what it would have meant in the 16th century when these debates were initiated. I do not believe that, in the modern world, the problem case is that of the Catholic priest. Paradoxically, it is that of the Anglican.
  If we look at the list of disqualifications, we see that civil servants have been disqualified from membership of the House. I believe that even the present Government intend to continue that disqualification. That is sound: the argument runs that the prime loyalty of a civil servant is to the Department, the service in general and to a particular Minister who may be either in the House of Lords or the House of Commons. He may also be loyal and responsible to one Minister in the other place and another in the House of Commons. It is therefore thought inappropriate, if not impossible, for someone to stand for election, to continue that prime loyalty to an individual Minister through the civil service and, at the same time, to do the job of a Member of Parliament, exposing the pros and cons of Ministers and subjecting the Executive to the necessary scrutiny and examination. That decision is right.
  One problem in the case of the Anglican priest is that we still have an established Anglican Church. Ultimately, the Anglican priest reports to, or is responsible to, a peer in the other place. There is some similarity or analogy between the argument about the prime loyalty and allegiance of the civil servant to the Minister and the argument that the prime loyalty and allegiance of the full-time, employed priest, through those to whom he reports, is to the bishop who is sitting in the other place.
  There could be a complication, were the practising Anglican priest to secure election to the House. If his career as a priest also flourished and he was invited to become a Lord Spiritual—the ultimate honour in the Anglican Church—he would immediately have to vacate his seat in this House or be faced with a difficult and painful choice. The problem arises both for the individual and for the House as a result of the fact that the Church is still established.
  I am in favour of the Church remaining established. Perhaps the Government intend to introduce legislation to disestablish the Church, in which case the Bill would be more consistent and would make more sense, but the
  850
  Government are putting the cart before the horse by including serving Anglican priests in the current legislation.
  Mr. Stunell: I have been following the right hon. Gentleman's line of thought carefully. Does he think that we should pass legislation to forbid the sons of the remaining hereditary peers to stand for election to the House, on the ground that one day there might be a by-election?
  Mr. Redwood: No, that would not be sensible. Given the way the hereditary peers have been treated by this miserable Government, a further insult to them would hardly be justified or sensible.
  The Bill deals with a far more important set of cases. I hope that when the Minister responds he will try to answer my dilemma. I broadly welcome freedom. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and other colleagues, I want to open up access to the House as widely as possible. I am a democrat. I want as many people as possible to have the opportunity to come forward. I certainly do not wish to penalise anyone for having a faith other than my own.
  There are elements of the Bill that I therefore find attractive, but I am worried by the general conundrum concerning the role of an established Church. It used to mean a great deal. The relationship between Church and state has been carefully thought through and worked out.
  If the Minister wants to win over someone like me to his cause, I hope that he will explain how it is possible for us to continue—rightly, in my view—with a disqualification for a civil servant who reports to a Minister and could otherwise get into a conflict of interest, but not to have similar worries about an Anglican priest who reports to a Lord Spiritual and bears allegiance to the established Church of the country, which is still carefully interwoven with our partly written and venerable constitution. I hope that that point will be cleared up.
  I hope, also, that the Minister will say more about the timing of the legislation. I was disturbed by the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who believes strongly that the Bill is a rush job, with a particular candidate and a particular election in mind. Good law is not made out of hard cases. These matters need considering in the general and in the round, and the relevant legislation should be put through when it is not particularly contentious.
  If it is the Government's plan to rush the legislation through before the election for electoral purposes, we can discover that if the Minister will give us an honest answer about the timing of the Bill's coming into force. I would be more swayed if he promised me that the legislation would not come into force in time for the likely general election in April or May this year. We would then know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield had, uncharacteristically, been too sceptical about the Government, and that they had no intention of legislating for hard cases in the run-up to an election.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Is he seriously saying that he wants to keep the disqualification on the statute book, and that he would vote for the Bill only if it did not become law until after the general election, so that someone would be prevented

  851
  from standing in a constituency where he might be elected to Parliament simply because he was a priest, although no longer practising as such? Is that really the right hon. Gentleman's view?
  Mr. Redwood: No, I was not saying that that was my view, but I have found out something very interesting about the Minister's intentions. Although he has not been prepared to write into the Bill, or to tell the House, the date by which he wants the legislation to pass and come into effect, we have now discovered that it is a rush job and that the Government failed to think about the matter in good time, over the past three and a half years, when we could have had a more leisurely discussion and the House could have given the Bill proper consideration. Now they suddenly have a problem and they are trying to rush the Bill through before the general election.
  I repeat that that is not a good way to legislate. I do not want to trespass on the debate that might follow on the timetable for considering the legislation, but it is relevant to this important debate on its principles that there is no date in the Bill, and that the Minister seems to have expressed the wish to move rapidly to a conclusion.
  Dr. Godman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Redwood: I shall give way when I have dealt with the Minister's point. [Interruption.] I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). This is a debate, and I am delighted that hon. Members are taking it seriously.
  I shall complete my answer to the Minister. I am not saying that people should be barred from standing for election. I have just explained that, in general, I welcome the broadening of eligibility as much as possible. However, I have raised one issue, and if the Minister can deal with that satisfactorily, he may well sway me, even as regards Anglican vicars. I have already said that I have no problem with other types of minister. I was always referring to people who are practising and are on the payroll in their Church, not to people who have ceased to be on the payroll and are moving on to an entirely different career.
  Dr. Godman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. May I point out to him that if the Bill becomes law, it will bring us into line with the laws governing election to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly? He speaks of the relationship between the state and the Church. May I remind him that this Parliament governs a multinational state, not an English state?
  Mr. Redwood: I agree that this is a Parliament for the whole United Kingdom, but it is also the Parliament responsible for the established Church that covers the biggest part of the United Kingdom. We know that successful battles have been fought in the past to disestablish Churches in the United Kingdom. I understand why that happened, and I understand the historical context.
  There is still an established Church for the largest part of the United Kingdom, and the way in which that Church is established and its relationship to the House of Commons are important parts of our inherited constitution. I am
  852
  asking the Minister to explain a little more how it will be changed, damaged or improved if the legislation goes ahead. From what I have heard so far, I do not think that that issue has been thought through fully.
  The fact that the same rules do not apply in the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly does not surprise me. If, in Scotland, there is no established Church like the Anglican Church in England, there is not the same complication as the one that I raised for the Parliament of the Union. That is exactly my point. The fact that the Minister remains in his seat suggests that he cannot answer the conundrum.
  Mr. Stunell: It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman was not present for some earlier speeches, when he would have heard a number of times that the Church of Scotland is directly affected by the legislation. In the light of that, will he reconsider his last remarks?
  Mr. Redwood: I do not need to reconsider my remarks. I did not say that the Church of Scotland was not affected by the legislation. I said that it was in a different position. I am speaking of the established Anglican Church and its relationship to this Parliament. That is not a matter for the Scottish Parliament and it is not a complication in the case of Scotland.
  Ms Osborne: The Church of Scotland is the established Church of the Scottish nation.
  Mr. Redwood: The Church of Scotland has arrangements with the Scottish Parliament different from the arrangements that the established Anglican Church has with the Parliament of the Union. That is my point. I am interested in the latter, because I am a Member of the Parliament of the Union. As the hon. Lady knows, I am not a member of either the Scottish Church or the Scottish Parliament, so that is not my direct concern. The Bill is of direct concern to the House of Commons, which is the Union Parliament and also the Parliament of the established Anglican Church.
  Mr. James Gray: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I speak as the son of the moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland is an established Church in this Parliament. Its relationship to this Parliament is precisely the same as that of the Church of England.
  Mr. Redwood: I cannot accept what my hon. Friend says. Of course, the Church of Scotland has an arrangement in which this Parliament has a legitimate interest, but it does not have the same arrangement as the established Anglican Church, because of the differing histories of those Churches. I, as an Anglican and a Member of this House, am primarily interested in that relationship, which is the dominant relationship because the Anglican Church is the established Church of the largest part of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene as the Second Church Estates Commissioner. The Church of England fully supports the measure before the House and believes that it has no relevance or significance to the established Church.
  Mr. Redwood: I am delighted about that, but it does not surprise me. Of course the Bill provides a greater

  853
  freedom. If a civil servant were present and it was proposed that we should remove the disqualification of civil servants from the House of Commons, he might say that it was an excellent idea that provided greater freedom. However, that would not necessarily mean that it was the right thing to do.
  I do not want to prolong my remarks, as I know that hon. Members want to make progress. However, I hope that the Under-Secretary will clarify the Bill's bearing on the important constitutional balance that was fought over and debated for many centuries in order to achieve an established Anglican church for the greater part of the United Kingdom. Will he describe the Bill's impact on the reporting lines of the clergy in respect of Lords Spiritual? I suspect that he will argue that there is no truth in my analogy between a civil servant reporting to a Minister and a vicar reporting to a Lord Spiritual. Why does he believe that to be the case?
  7 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I rise to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), with whose remarks I agree almost entirely. I am sorry that I have not been present to hear all the speeches that have been made. I was especially sorry not to hear the one by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who understands better than most people the history of the matters under discussion.
  The House must carefully consider any proposed changes to its composition and should not introduce them in a hurried fashion. A number of modifications have been made to the electoral system during the current Parliament. Indeed, we debated other disqualification measures last year, when the Government proposed that people who owed no allegiance to this country should nevertheless be entitled to sit in Parliament, even though the taking of an oath of allegiance is a condition of membership of this House.
  The Bill is important and deals with a matter that is not to be trifled with. Even if we live in more secular times than we used to, I greatly deplore it. Nevertheless, the Church of England is the established Church in this country. Every coin in our pockets bears testimony to that fact, as each coin of this realm carries the two letters "FD", which stand for the term "fidei defensor". Her Majesty the Queen is defender of the faith—the Anglican faith. That is inextricably bound up with this Parliament and the way in which it enacts legislation. That is why I believe that the matter should not be dealt with hurriedly.
  Miss Widdecombe: The title "fidei defensor" was granted by the Pope, and related to defence of the Catholic faith.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that additional information, although it does not detract from the fact that Her Majesty is defender of the faith today. I understand that the title was conferred by the Pope on Henry VIII, so she is correct, but I hope that she will agree on today's practice, in which Her Majesty
  854
  is the defender of the faith. Perhaps the cardinal archbishop will have noted her enthusiasm to leap to the defence of her newly espoused Church.
  Miss Widdecombe: It was seven years ago.
  Mr. Howarth: Seven years is not a long time in my right hon. Friend's political career, past or future.
  When the Select Committee on Clergy Disqualification considered the matter in 1951, it reported that no evidence was
  "offered to Your Committee of public demand for an alteration of the law."
  The same applies today. I have not received from my constituents any letters urging me to change the law. I have not even received letters from members of the clergy in my constituency, or anywhere else in the country, urging me as a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs to bring about a change in the law. The Bill appears to have sprung out of the ether.
  Mr. Forth: Has my hon. Friend received any letters from Labour candidates asking for the law to be changed?
  Mr. Howarth: I confess that I have been sent no letters by Labour candidates, although I have received a letter from a Member of Parliament—the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). The letter begins with the words "Dear colleague" and is signed by the hon. Lady herself, who I do not think is present. It states:
  "I am writing to each of the members of the Home Affairs Select Committee to alert you to the above measure, which is receiving its second reading on Tuesday 6th February. This government Bill is entirely based on a recommendation of your committee, which in turn formed the basis of a Ten Minute Rule Bill that I introduced unsuccessfully in June 1999.
  I am taking the liberty of enclosing some notes that I have prepared."
  In the attached notes, she sets out the Church's view and explains why she believes a change in the law to be necessary. However, she does not refer to an important fact of which I have since been advised: her research assistant is intended to be the Bill's immediate beneficiary.
  I find it astonishing that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden did not come clean with me and other hon. Members. Why did she not explain that she had a clear interest, because her research assistant was a candidate in Greenock and Inverclyde and was to be the first and principal beneficiary of an extensive and wide-ranging proposal to change the law governing the composition of the House of Commons? It appears that the Bill is not a matter of conscience for the Labour party or even of implementing a recommendation made two years ago by the Home Affairs Committee. Instead, it appears that it has been produced hurriedly—indeed, I suspect that it was formulated at the last minute—in order to benefit a chosen Labour party candidate.
  I ask the Under-Secretary to imagine what would have happened if the Tories had done the same thing. Mr. Campbell would have been weaving his way around all the Fleet street editors saying, "What a disgrace. The Tories want to use Parliament to change the ancient laws of this land simply to benefit one of their own."
  Mr. Redwood: Is my hon. Friend saying that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) paid a research assistant, out of House of Commons research allowances, to produce a brief recommending a measure that would advance his future career, but not revealing that that was the case?
  Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend asks an important question that I cannot answer. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden is not in the House and I am relying on a briefing, so I may be entirely wrong. However, she may have paid her research assistant to produce the briefing and then have failed to tell hon. Members what was going on. It is no good the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland shaking his head. That is the perception that the Government are promoting.
  I am not against the Government saying that they have a problem. They could have told us that they had a good candidate and wanted to clear the way for him to stand for Parliament and take his seat if he was elected. They could have said that the matter focused attention on the fact that, as Professor Blackburn pointed out, the law was somewhat archaic in this respect. Furthermore, they could have told us that they wanted to seize the opportunity provided by an individual case to tidy up the law. If the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department had said that in the first place today, I would have understood. However, they did not do that. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden cited the report of the Home Affairs Committee and sought to dress up the issue as a matter of principle.
  Caroline Flint: Is it not a convention of the House that hon. Members should inform other Members if they intend to launch a personal attack on them? The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) began the onslaught. I cannot explain why my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) is not present; there may be serious reasons for her absence. However, if she is to be attacked, it would have been courteous to inform her in advance. The attack is obviously premeditated.
  Mr. Howarth: I am sorry if the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) perceives my comments as an attack on the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden. Does the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden expect me to remain silent on a matter about which she has written to me, not only as another Member of Parliament but specifically as a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which produced a report that she cited to support her contention? She has claimed the Bill as hers. I cannot account for her absence today; I understand that there may be good reasons for it. However, her absence should not prevent me from taking the opportunity to point out my anxieties about the submissions that she made to me. She chose to stay away; I did not choose to exclude her from the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not absolutely sure of the facts, but it is possible that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) has a very good personal reason for not being present today.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for that guidance. I made the point to the hon. Member for Don Valley that there
  856
  may be good reasons for the absence of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden. I was not criticising her for her absence. However, she took the trouble to write to me, but she did not declare that she had a specific interest in the measure. I believe that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) is good enough to acknowledge that by nodding his head.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be a good idea to consider the content of the Bill.
  Mr. Howarth: I am more than happy to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was trying to respond to a challenge from the hon. Member for Don Valley.
  Mr. Redwood: I should like to respond to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). My comments were not premeditated. I listened to the debate and a question occurred to me. I should be delighted if the matter could be cleared up. I was not attacking the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, but I should like to know the precise relationship that we are considering and how the research reached my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Howarth: Like my right hon. Friend, I generally support the idea that the law should be tidied up. I was a member of the Home Affairs Committee, but I was not present to vote on the conclusions of the whole report on electoral law reform. I made it clear during our discussions, when Professor Blackburn appeared before us, that currently ordained and serving clergy of the Church of England were debarred from membership of the House for the good reason, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham explained, that they are represented in the other place by the Bench of 26 bishops.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham explained why it would be difficult for a clergyman who had been ordained in the Church of England to serve in the House while answerable to his—or nowadays her—bishop, who might sit in the other place. The Anglican clergy are all over the place on some important issues, and their presence in this place would be a disaster for the Church of England, of which I am a staunch member. It would not be beneficial for the Church of England to have many practising clergy here.
  If a clergyman resigns from the Church of England and ceases to run a parish, or resigns from the Catholic Church, as Mr. Cairns has done, it is logical that such people should be able to stand for Parliament. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with the current arrangement whereby some of the nonconformist Churches permit their ordained members to serve in the House. That seems to work, and I have no desire to turn the clock back and exclude them. However, as long as we have an established Church with 26 bishops in the other place, allowing currently practising clergy from the Church of England to serve in this place would cause difficulties and overturn the longstanding relations between the House and the Church.
  Mr. Key: I have been to the Library and confirmed that David Cairns is employed in the House out of the public purse. Does my hon. Friend share my distress at the Government's refusal to come clean about Labour Members being on a three-line Whip and at our discovery that the man who stands to benefit directly and financially

  857
  from the Bill works for a Labour Member of Parliament in the Palace of Westminster? The Government did not tell us that.
  Mr. Howarth: You have already ruled on the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but perhaps you will permit me to say that, sad to say, my hon. Friend makes an important and valid point. What would the Minister think if the Government were Tory and had put Conservative Members on a three-line Whip? The Opposition would have gone berserk. I do not oppose the Government's attempt to change the law, because some legislation is anachronistic and needs reforming. However, that is not the reason that the Government advanced.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I do not want my position to be traduced in the way some hon. Members have traduced it. I introduced David Cairns to the debate. I mentioned him first and pointed out that he was a Labour candidate. I also said that I believed that, whatever political party a candidate represents, it is right that legislation should not prevent electors from voting for that person. I believe that the hon. Gentleman shares that view.
  Mr. Howarth: I am sure that hon. Members are grateful to the Minister for making that absolutely clear. I am also acutely aware that a former hon. Friend sought to change the law. I do not oppose the principle of the Bill, but it is unfortunate that the reason for it was not made clear at the outset. I accept that the Minister mentioned it in his opening speech, but we should have advance knowledge of the reasons for measures. We know why the Criminal Justice and Police Bill and the Hunting Bill were introduced. However, I had to get a briefing from the Library to learn the reason for the Bill that we are discussing. I subsequently received the letter from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden that said that she had introduced a ten-minute Bill in 1999. I picked up a briefing this morning on which I read Mr. David Cairns name. I therefore discovered the true purpose of the Bill only this morning.
  Mr. Fabricant: I was present for the opening speeches. The Minister was less than open, unusually for him, when I asked him whether there was a three-line Whip. He did not volunteer the information that David Cairns is a paid employee who works in the House.
  Mr. Howarth: I understand my hon. Friend's point.
  I shall not support the Bill in the Lobby. I do not believe that we should stick to the status quo, but I oppose the proposal that all clergy, whatever their denomination, whether currently practising or not, should be allowed to stand for the House of Commons. I believe that Church of England clergy should be excepted because they are answerable to their bishops who sit in another place.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: This has been a good and instructive debate, to which 14 right hon. and hon. Members have contributed. This is a grim, and arguably gruesome, occasion for me because it is one of the relatively rare—and, I hope, decreasingly common—
  858
  occasions on which I find myself substantially in agreement with Labour Members, to whose defeat I have dedicated the past four years. I also find myself somewhat out of sympathy with a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, which is a deeply uncomfortable experience.
  Rarely do I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and I feel somewhat unclean at the prospect of siding with him in a Division. However, Conservative Members have a free vote and, in the event of a Division, I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not all go into the same Lobby. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made it clear that she had substantial reasons for conscientious objection to the Bill, which would cause her to vote against it. For my part, I have studied the Bill and the sequence of events that form the centuries-long background to its introduction, and I am sympathetic to it.
  The presentation of the Bill has, however, been badly handled, shabbily introduced and inappropriately conducted in typical new Labour fashion—in other words, in a disingenuous, untoward, hasty and arrogant fashion that is contemptuous of the rights of the House of Commons. Nevertheless, one has to make a judgment about the content of the Bill, and I agree with its provisions.
  There have been good, well-considered and carefully thought through contributions from both sides of the House. In circumstances such as these, we should try to disagree with one another while respecting one another's motivations. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan), who argued the classic position in support of the Bill that keeping the disqualification on the statute book was undemocratic, a violation of rights and an historical anachronism, and that the time had now come to dispense with it. A similar argument was developed in witty and entertaining fashion by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and, with his customary gravitas, by the parliamentary representative of the Church Commissioners, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell).
  We are accustomed to the historical exegesis of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), which I always find entertaining and from which I always learn things of which I was previously ignorant. His speech today represented no exception to the general rule.
  I understand and respect the motivation of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and I accept without question his assurance that his constituency Labour party selected Mr. Cairns in ignorance, perhaps, of his background, but, certainly, of the fact that unless the law were changed, he could not take his seat in Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made a perfectly legitimate point about the level of intelligence, or information, in that constituency Labour party. That is a fair point to make, but I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde that his constituency party did not know that this problem would arise. It is now for the House to decide how we want to tackle the issue.
  Dr. Godman: I think that I used the term "justifiable" in my arguments about my constituency activists. May I

  859
  point out to the hon. Gentleman that a large number of my constituents are Catholics, and that the Catholic Church in Scotland supports the Bill?
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, and I shall go on to say something about support for the Bill in a moment. May I also clarify an observation that I made a moment ago, which was possibly infelicitous? When I referred to the intelligence level of people in the constituency Labour party, I was not suggesting that they were dim-witted. I used the word "intelligence" in the sense of the possession of information.
  The hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) explained clearly the background to her strong support for the Bill, and that is respected. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst gave a characteristic tour de force, and he was joined in that enterprise by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth).
  It is not surprising to note that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is a supporter of the Bill, as he frequently supports the reform of institutions that he judges to have become antiquated and indefensible. He gave us another example today of his relatively modern outlook on politics. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) is no longer in the Chamber. He, too, made a sincere contribution, and that is respected.
  The position on disqualification is obviously anomalous. Whatever view we take, we all recognise that. The disqualification applies to some people and not to others. It applies to members of the clergy in the Church of England and Ireland—but not Wales—to ministers in the Church of Scotland, to Roman Catholic priests, significantly, and to priests ordained by a bishop, all of whom are disqualified from sitting in this House.
  There are no similar disqualifications for ministers of other religions. Nonconformist ministers are unaffected by the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801 and the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. We are, therefore, specifically concerned with the practical effect of the 19th century legislation, which is to constrain non-Church of England, former episcopally ordained priests, including Roman Catholic priests.
  I shall not dilate on the MacManaway case. However, an awareness of that case and the follow-up to it are essential to an understanding of the issue. The individual concerned, the reverend, had been ordained a priest in 1925 by the Bishop of Armagh, but subsequently relinquished all his rights as a priest in the Church of Ireland. The question arose as to whether his election in 1950 in Belfast, West should be allowed to stand.
  The Minister, who is undoubtedly well versed in the intricacies of the matter, will be aware that a Select Committee considered whether Mr. MacManaway's election was void. In a report in 1950, it concluded that immediate legislative action was necessary to clarify the law. Regrettably, the Home Secretary at the time referred the issue to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council at the request of this House, and that Committee concluded that the use of the words
  "ordained to the office of priest or deacon"
  860
  meant that that disqualification extended beyond priests and ministers of the established Church to all episcopal ordinations.
  I challenged the hon. Member for Enfield, North earlier on the subject of the rather pusillanimous response of the Select Committee on Clergy Disqualification as long ago as 1952–53. I emphasise that point, to which I know all my right hon. and hon. Friends are keenly attending, because the Select Committee recognised that the situation was anomalous. It then pondered whether to recommend reform, but timidly retreated from the fray. It stated in memorable and, frankly, damning words:
  "Your Committee think that it would not be desirable to introduce any legislation to deal with the anomalies ahead of any general legislation which may hereafter be contemplated to deal with the qualifications and disqualifications of Members generally."
  In a nutshell, that meant that the Select Committee at the time saw that there was a problem, worried that it was a hornet's nest and did not want to stir it up. I politely suggest that, 48 or 49 years on from its inconclusive and hedging report, there is now a good case for acting and for not allowing the problem to fester any longer.
  Two key developments have brought us to where we are now. The first is the Select Committee on Home Affairs report of 1997–98 on electoral law administration. Giving evidence in that report, Professor Robert Blackburn, whose contribution was mentioned earlier, said that answering the question "Can a priest stand for Parliament?" involved consulting no fewer than nine separate Acts dating back to the 16th century. Significantly, the professor also said:
  "The present situation whereby the disqualification of clergy operates in a discriminatory fashion between different faiths is no longer acceptable."
  Many, and perhaps most, right hon. and hon. Members agree with that verdict. If we agree with that verdict, if we believe that there is a case for change and if we consider there to be no reason for the discrimination to persist, I do not believe that objections to the procedure—there will be a free vote, however—and to the Government's rather grubby handling of the matter should allow us to neglect the big issue, which is whether the Bill is right or wrong.
  Miss Widdecombe: It is wrong.
  Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend, chuntering from a sedentary position, suggests to me that the Bill is wrong. I say to my distinguished boss, who will be Home Secretary in a matter of weeks, that she thinks that I am wrong, but I know that she is. That will have to do for tonight as that was a risky thing to say to the person who will soon be Home Secretary.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Although many may agree with my hon. Friend that it is wrong to discriminate between different faiths when considering whether people are eligible for election, does he agree that it seems a bit daft to go ahead with the Bill when we are doing nothing about the most appalling discrimination in the other place? The Home Affairs Committee report referred to the Church of England, which has a number of bishops sitting in the other place even though other Churches such as my own and the Church of Scotland have no entitlement whatever. Instead of introducing a Bill to sort out a problem for one

  861
  candidate in one seat, would it not be wiser to consider discrimination between the faiths throughout the parliamentary system?
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend speaks a lot of good sense, but my response must be that two wrongs do not make a right. I share his enthusiasm for speedy Government action to reform the composition of the other place. For my part, I favour a fully elected second Chamber and wish to goodness that the Government would get on with that important project. However, the fact that they have chosen not to do so in no way justifies us failing to take the right decision on the merits of this case, although the overall position lacks consistency and has no rational basis. It ought to be changed.
  I must tease right hon. and hon. Members about matters tactical for future reference. They had a good case, but they spoiled it in two material particulars, at least as far as I and, I suspect, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are concerned. First, most Conservatives—certainly those of us here present—could not give a tinker's cuss as to the view of the European convention on human rights about the matter. The fact that we might be under pressure from the European convention or as a result of passing the iniquitous, ghastly, risible, detestable Human Rights Act 1998 matters not a jot as far as many of us are concerned.
  Secondly, Labour Members should not ruin the argument by jabbering on about the merits of Father Bruce. I refer, of course, to the fortunately defeated Labour candidate in the Oxford, West and Abingdon constituency in 1992. If there were one good reason to keep the discrimination, it might conceivably be to keep out the discredited former leader of communists, neutralists and defeatists. Really, that cuts no ice with me. Even though I have no regard for Monsignor Kent, I could not bring myself to do other than support the Bill in a Division. I could not have brought myself to do other than that even when he was standing for Parliament and would have taken his seat in the House if elected.
  I make my final observation by way of an appeal to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. As Conservatives, we oppose wholesale change and we believe in gradual reform. We favour evolutionary rather than revolutionary development, but we most certainly do not oppose change on principle. My view, which hails from that of Burke, the father of modern Conservatism and one of the most distinguished statesmen ever to serve in the House, is as follows:
  "The state which lacks the means of change lacks the means of its own conservation."
  A good case has been made. The content of the Bill is sound. We can no longer defend the current iniquity. That is why, if there is a Division, I for one shall vote for the Bill, though I know that many will be inclined to do the opposite.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: With the leave of the House, I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for supporting a measure introduced by the Labour Government, which he will not do often. I wish
  862
  that I could thank the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), but we shall wait and see how she votes.
  I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Buckingham. In passing, I remind him that the support given by Conservative Front Benchers to the Human Rights Act 1998 is noted by us and will be commented on by us at every possible opportunity. May I deal with the free vote and the Whip? The Conservatives have a free vote because their Front Benchers are split. As usual, they are rowing among themselves, but they want to make a virtue out of a quarrel. Just because they cannot agree does not mean that everyone else has the same problem.
  Labour Members are united: we oppose discrimination; we oppose the disqualification of priests; we support equality; we support the Bill. This is a Government Bill, it is whipped and the Whip will be applied, but Labour Members, even on a three-line Whip, are not obliged to vote against their consciences. If any consider the Bill to represent an issue of conscience, they can exercise their conscience. Furthermore, Opposition Members are under a one-line Whip. They are not only split, but have been told that they need not even bother to turn up for the vote. We heard all that verbiage and nonsense about matters of conscience, but this is not enough of a matter of conscience to make the Opposition ask their Members to turn up to vote. That is the shambles of today's Conservative party, but enough of party politics: let us deal with the more serious points raised by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.
  The right hon. Lady does not believe that priests should be both Members of the House and practising holy orders. I understand that view, but, with the greatest respect, that is not the issue. Whether priests should be MPs is a matter for the internal rules of their Church. The issue is whether the state should intervene to forbid priests of the Catholic Church, the Church of England and the Scottish Church from being MPs when most other religions encounter no such state prohibition. The Government believe that the state should not exercise that prohibition, but should leave it to the people to decide who their representatives should be and to the Churches to decide their own internal rules.
  The right hon. Lady also said that she did not believe that a priest should sit in this place. Although David Cairns remains a priest under canon law, he no longer practises as a priest and no longer celebrates mass. That does not mean that he is not a practising Catholic, which he remains. The law, because of the way in which canon law operates, forbids him from becoming a Member of Parliament. I believe that that is wrong. Obviously, the right hon. Lady is entitled to her own view. However, if she believes that no clergyman—even a man not practising his holy orders—should be allowed to sit in the Chamber, does she therefore favour extending the ban to cover all ordained ministers, such as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)?
  Miss Widdecombe: Theology is not much discussed these days, but the Minister will know that there is a massive difference between priest and minister—and I said "priest".
  Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Lady did indeed say "priest", but if she takes the principled view that those

  863
  who are ordained should not be Members of the House, surely she cannot seek to use the law of the state to exclude only Catholics and members of the established Church.
  The right hon. Lady also asked why we have not used the Representation of the People Act 2000 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to make the changes. There are a number of reasons, and the obvious one is that the short titles did not allow it, although we could have dealt with that. At that time, we were awaiting responses from the Churches to inquiries about their views and, following the publication of the Home Affairs Committee report and the selection of David Cairns as a candidate, we wanted to ensure that we knew those views before legislating.
  Let me add that at that stage we were not sure whether the legislation was needed. We were exploring the possibility of non-legislative means and considering whether there was a way in which, within the law, David Cairns could become a Member of Parliament. Following a full investigation, the level of doubt was high enough to make us feel that we should present this Bill.
  Miss Widdecombe: I thank the Minister for his elucidation, but two issues are being considered. The first is the case of David Cairns, an ex-Roman Catholic priest; the second is the question of serving clergy.
  It was always clear that the second issue would have to be addressed through the law, and that there would never be any question of a non-legislative option. I think that the Minister is trying to make the best of a very bad job. He knew about the position for a long time, but did not do anything about it until faced with an immediate case. We have already dealt with the disqualifications legislation; the word "disqualifications" should have made it possible to encompass this provision in that Bill.
  Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Lady is not making an entirely unfair point. It is because we are now faced with the case of a particular individual who wishes to stand for Parliament, and who would be excluded under existing legislation, that allowing the current law to stand has become an immediate question of unfairness. I have always been clear about the fact that the David Cairns case is the reason for urgency. As the hon. Member for Buckingham said, the existing law is wrong, and it would be unjust to allow that law to prevent someone's election because of that person's former membership of the priesthood.
  The right hon. Lady said that the process was all too rushed. I think that after 200 years we are entitled to argue that when a case such as the one we are discussing arises, getting rid of prejudice—far from being too rushed—is long overdue.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) asked why we had waited so long. To some extent, I have already dealt with that. Parliamentary time is always at a premium, and many members of the hon. Gentleman's party constantly demand the presentation of this or that Bill. Members of Parliament are here to be legislators, after all, but the injustice of David Cairns's position is manifest, which is why we had to present our Bill now. That is not opportunist; we are dealing with the practical circumstances of an individual, and a case of injustice would have had to be dealt with had we not presented the
  864
  Bill. The hon. Gentleman may not care about injustice. He may well feel that those who seek to deal with a particular injustice are mere opportunists. I say that this is a matter of principle—and I am glad to note that the hon. Gentleman will support it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) said that we were discussing an issue of equality. It is indeed the case that the Catholic Church, the Church of England and the Church of Scotland are subject to restrictions that are not placed on other religions. It is time to end that inequality.
  In what I considered to be the best speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) said that this was an issue of principle, regardless of whether David Cairns was involved. She was entirely right. We should all heed her description of the problems that arose in her constituency and the way in which she and her husband were personally affected—it lent a particular conviction to her passionate contribution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) set out his case with characteristic clarity and, again, passion. He asked whether a priest could renounce the priesthood. Catholic priests can be defrocked; indeed, a Catholic priest who had committed child abuse in my constituency was defrocked yesterday. I am very pleased about that, as I cannot think of a better case for defrocking, but David Cairns—whose case has brought this issue to the fore—is not a defrocked priest, but a priest who no longer celebrates mass and acts as a priest. He cannot cease to be a priest without enormous difficulty, which is why we should ensure that he is not prevented from becoming a Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: The Minister rightly says that no one should be disqualified from holding an office in the state, serving this Parliament or otherwise, simply because of his or her religion. Do the Government consider that that applies to the position of head of state?
  Mr. O'Brien: There are always exceptions to every rule, and there are always exceptions relating to those who can stand for Parliament. The hon. Gentleman was not present earlier—I know where he was: no doubt he was working very hard on the Hunting Bill—but if he had been, he would have heard the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) list all the people who, for various reasons, were prevented from standing for Parliament. I certainly accept that in many instances there were justifiable reasons for restricting their candidature, but this is not such a case.
  We listened carefully to the hon. Member for Belfast, South. He has the benefit of being ordained, and as an ordained person he illustrated the value of not shutting the doors, as he put it, on members of other religions who are also ordained.
  I turn now to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), which I always do with particular pleasure. He said that the Labour party in Greenock and Inverclyde had selected someone in breach of the law. As I have said, the law was unclear at the time, and the party cannot therefore be challenged on that basis.
  I welcomed the right hon. Gentleman's support for the principle, although I do not think he liked the Bill or its timing. I hope I have been straightforward about why the timing was necessary.

  865
  The right hon. Gentleman seemed to question the loyalty of Catholics to this country. Catholics will be deeply offended by his comments. He says he does not care about that, and it is certainly his right to make such comments, but I think he will find that many conclude that some of the old prejudices are still rampant on the Conservative Back Benches. I suspect that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald will have to watch her back.
  Mr. Winnick: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present when I intervened on the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but his questioning—it could only be described as such—of Catholic loyalty to this country, and having a wider loyalty, was surely unacceptable and, indeed, downright disgraceful.
  Mr. O'Brien: I agree. The right hon. Gentleman always seeks to be provocative, and on this occasion he was indeed provocative. There is no justification for questioning the loyalty of Catholics to this country: many sacrifice their lives fighting for it and seeking to protect it. I am sure that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will feel that his comments were unjustified.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that Catholic priests would not come here because the Church would not allow them to do so; but former priests will, I think. The Church of England is content for its clergy to be here if they choose to be so, but it is indeed the case that the Catholic Church does not allow practising priests to become MPs.
  In an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) asked why a priest who no longer acted as such should be banned from Parliament, while a rabbi, mullah or Methodist minister could be an MP. That, I think, sums up the Government's basic case.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst asked another question, which I forgot to mention earlier: he asked whether there would be enough time to deal with the Bill before the election. I can only say, "I hope so; I do not know; wait and see." He also asked for the commencement date of the legislation. It will come into force by Royal Assent, and an amendment will be tabled for that purpose at the Committee stage. He asked about the definition of "minister". It is in the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978. I do not think that we have had any problems with that definition, and we are relying on it.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked whether a Church of England minister could be subject to instructions from a bishop. I thought the analogy with a civil servant's allegiance to a Government Minister was particularly spurious, but there is no evidence to suggest that a Church of England minister who became an MP would be suborned by a bishop, whether he belonged to the Church of England or the Church of Scotland.
  The right hon. Gentleman began to dig a deep hole for himself when he challenged the established position of the Church of Scotland. At that point, it looked rather as
  866
  though he had wandered into the debate at a late stage, with a speech that he had not particularly considered. Indeed, I think that that is exactly what had happened.
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman does me less than justice. I was very clear about the different established position of the Anglican Church and its very special relationship with both Houses of Parliament. He has also not done justice to the question that I asked. Will he explain to the House what difference it will make to the role of the established Church if junior members of the priesthood of the established Church can be Members of Parliament, in the lower House, when the spiritual peers are in the upper House?
  Mr. O'Brien: I can see no particular change that that would create in relation to the established Church. A bishop would not seek to suborn a Member of this place. That is just not going to happen, and it is an entirely spurious point. The right hon. Gentleman can accept that or not, but it is certainly my view.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: May I echo the position that the Minister has just confirmed? It is totally impossible for the Church to suborn its bishops in the Lords and have them vote in a particular way. The idea that they could suborn a Member of Parliament is ridiculous.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He proves the point that I was making about the way in which the right hon. Member for Wokingham made his point.
  Whatever justification there may or may not have been in the past, there can now be no reason to keep measures on the statute book that prevent ordained clergy, though they be few in number, from being elected to serve in this place. The Government are firmly of the view that Catholic priests should have similar status to Church of England clergy and that both should be able to present themselves to the electorate unless they have a voice in another place.
  The Bill is a small but significant measure that will remove unfair and anachronistic legislation that prevents both serving and former ministers of religion from taking seats as Members of Parliament if they are elected. It deserves the support of all hon. Members and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill (Programme)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill:

  House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill (Programme)

    Committee
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
    2. Proceedings in the Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Eight o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is Thursday, at Five o'clock on that day.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    3. Any proceedings on consideration, and proceedings on Third Reading, shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on that day or, if that day is Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
    Programming Committees
    4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House or on consideration and Third Reading.

    Lords amendments and further messages from the Lords
    5. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any Lords amendments, or on any further messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
    7.52 pm
    Mr. Bercow: I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), chose to move the motion formally because it is a matter of the greatest importance. We have just had a debate about the merits or demerits of the Bill itself, and now we proceed to the issue of its consideration and the time allotted thereto.
    I am not remotely embarrassed by the fact that there were differences of opinion among Opposition Members about the Bill's merits, and I tell the Minister—who, in fairness, in a slightly light-hearted and good-natured fashion teased us about those "divisions"—that it is not surprising that there should be such differences. We are talking about an issue of conscience rather than one of party politics. Just because the new robots who permeate the Labour Benches all subscribe to the same view—because that is what they are told they have to do upon pain of the most dire consequences being visited upon them—it does not follow that Conservative Members operate on a similar basis. I am not at all embarrassed by the fact that there are genuine differences of opinion among Opposition Members about a matter that should not be party political.
    The question that we have now to consider is whether the Government's proposed allocation of time for the Bill is adequate. The first point is that—on this occasion, as on so many previous occasions when we have debated a timetable motion—it is peculiarly difficult, if not impossible, to state with confidence whether the time will be adequate. One of the principal reasons why, at this stage, we can have no idea whether the proposed time will be adequate is that we do not know how or to what extent right hon. and hon. Members will seek to amend the Bill. Without knowing how many amendments there will be, how complicated their content will be, or how strongly held opinions on both sides of the House might be, it is absurd to speculate on whether there will be sufficient time to consider the issues.
    The Government's programme motion clearly states:
    "The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House."
    For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that that proposal in itself is right and proper. This is a constitutional measure, and it is perfectly reasonable that it should be
    868
    considered by a Committee of the whole House. However, the Government's subsequent proposals in the motion are singularly inadequate. Paragraph 2 states:
    "Proceedings in the Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Eight o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is Thursday, at Five o'clock on that day."
    We are invited to conclude, I say to this packed and attentive Chamber, that that will be adequate time for our deliberations. Judging by today's debate, however, I am not at all sure that there will be adequate time. In today's debate, including my own speech and the Minister's reply, there were no fewer than 16 speeches. The subject of those 16 speeches was the general principles of the Bill, the background to it, the rationale for it and the likely consequences of it. We were of course also talking about a Bill with two clauses and two schedules.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Perhaps I can gently tease the hon. Gentleman with the fact that sitting with him on the Front Bench is one Whip and sitting behind him are three Opposition Back Benchers who are obviously very worked up about the Bill. It seems that among the assembled ranks of the Conservative Opposition there is not, as he suggests, great interest in either the programme motion or the Bill itself. Moreover, he supports the Bill.
    Mr. Bercow: I do support the Bill, and I am not overly embarrassed about that. I am, however, grateful for small mercies. It is the most enormous relief to me—it will save me the loss of sleep that I otherwise would have incurred—that I have not had to go through the Lobby with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). That is obviously very satisfying from my point of view.
    Nevertheless, the Under-Secretary is right that I support the Bill. However, I think that he is unwise—indeed, rash—to make the observation that he has just made. The first point is that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been strenuously devoting themselves to the terms of the Bill since we began debate shortly after 3.30 pm. Consequently, although we all know the fearsome constitution of the Under-Secretary, some of my hon. Friends have repaired for cups of tea.
    My second observation—or prediction, and only time will tell whether I am right or the Minister is correct—is that when we consider the Bill in a Committee of the whole House, there will be far more than merely three of my hon. Friends behind me. Several hon. Members will be wanting conscientiously and in detail to consider and to speak in support of or in opposition to not only the Bill's clauses, but the amendments that have been tabled.
    Mr. O'Brien: How many hon. Members?
    Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman challenges me, rather vulgarly, to say precisely how many hon. Members will attend the debate. I am not psychic; that is not among my qualities. I do not know and I cannot be sure, but I say confidently that it will be more than three. I also say that, just as size is not everything—I have very good reason for regularly making that point—numbers are not everything either. Despite our disagreement on this issue, I would sooner have one of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) than six dozen of the right hon. and hon. Members who pepper the Government Benches.
    Mr. Stunell: May I give the hon. Gentleman one very small sliver of comfort? Liberal Democrats Members also

    869
    support the Bill and oppose the programme motion, for many of the reasons that he is outlining. We also believe that size is not everything.
    Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I respect his good intentions. However, I am bound to say—I hope that he will not take it the wrong way—that I do not know whether that intervention and that assurance of Liberal Democrat support for the official Opposition's position is intended to make me feel better or worse. We shall have to see. It is rare indeed to have a Conservative-Liberal Democrat alliance in this House.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that I for one feel extremely strongly about the Bill. I have nothing against Catholics; if the Catholic Church wants its ordained members to stand for Parliament, that is fine by me. In the debate on Second Reading I explained why I take issue with my own Church, the Church of England. I did not call for a vote at the end of that debate as I wanted to spare my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) the personal humiliation of having to go into the Lobby with Labour Members, instead of joining me, as he so often does.
    Mr. Bercow: I am indebted to my hon. Friend. His natural kindliness and his conscientious regard for my preservation are greatly appreciated. However, I know that the Minister is not at all embarrassed about the Government's draconian behaviour and that he will want me to return to the point that I was making about timing.
    The key part of the motion states:
    "Proceedings in the Committee of the whole House shall … be brought to a conclusion at Eight o'clock on the day on which those proceedings commenced."
    For the edification of people outside the House listening to our proceedings, I must explain that that means that if there is a statement after 3.30 pm—which is commonplace, especially when the Government are keen to truncate consideration of a Bill—it is possible that we would not start consideration of the Bill until 4.30.
    If the Government were inconsiderate and malicious enough to hold two statements on that day—and those statements might be followed by a Bill under the ten-minute rule—it is entirely conceivable that consideration would not begin until 5.30. The House would therefore have two and a half hours to digest, consider and pronounce a verdict on a Bill that is a crucial constitutional measure and to which an unknown number of amendments might have been tabled.
    The Minister must not underestimate the Bill's significance. He said that it was small but important. He is right; it is not a megameasure, but it is important, with potentially important ramifications. We should have adequate time in which to debate it.
    The motion suggests that, if Committee consideration of the Bill falls on a Thursday, we should finish by 5 o'clock. However, it is entirely conceivable that any statements on a Thursday might run until 2 o'clock or even 2.30, so that proposal is, frankly, alarming.
    The Government display an overall disdain for the House—habitually, unselfconsciously, and almost unknowingly. That is what so distresses Opposition
    870
    Members. Even those of us who consider, as I do, that the Bill is sound in principle, believe that the House ought to be able to look at the detail and that the Government should be willing to entertain any amendments that might be tabled.
    I am very confident that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will table a number of amendments to the Bill, and I should not be surprised if other Conservative Members also have proposals in mind to improve it. We need proper time to consider such proposals but, so far, it is not clear that that time will be made available.
    The Minister is usually fairly candid in his public utterances, but he is being a little shifty about the Government's intentions. My right hon. Fried the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst challenged him in characteristically robust fashion about whether the Government intended and expected to get the Bill through both Houses of Parliament before the general election. There was a slight twinkle in the Minister's eye and what bordered on a smirk on his face when he said that he did not know and that we would have to wait and see.
    To judge by the Government's enthusiasm for the rights of the prospective Labour candidate for Greenock and Inverclyde—and I do not cavil at that enthusiasm—they will break a leg to ensure that the Bill is rammed through Parliament in time for the general election. They will do that with no regard for the reservations that some of my colleagues feel about the Bill.
    It is a great pity that the Government should display such haste in this matter, and such indifference to the rights of the Opposition.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that he would prefer that the Bill were not put through the House before the general election, as the Government hope to do? If so, is he suggesting that the law as it stands should be allowed to prevent David Cairns from standing for Parliament?
    Mr. Bercow: The answer is simple. Speaking for myself, I do not suggest for a moment that a deliberate attempt should be made to prevent the passage of the Bill in order to frustrate the legitimate political ambitions of the prospective parliamentary candidate for Greenock and Inverclyde. However, getting the Bill right is the paramount—indeed, the only—consideration in my mind, as it should be in the Minister's mind.
    I do not know Mr. David Cairns, who may or may not be an estimable fellow. I have no strong feelings about him either way. I defend his rights, as I would those of other people, but Parliaments's overriding responsibility is to pass good law and to prevent the passage of bad law. To ensure that we achieve that, we need adequate time. My concern is that we do not have that.
    The Government should have been prepared to consult on the matter. Instead, they indulged in their usual hole-and-corner and devious manoeuvres. Had they not done so, we might have reached a better outcome than the motion before the House this evening.
    8.6 pm
    Mr. David Heath: I find myself in uncharacteristic agreement with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). As my hon. Friend the

    871
    Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said, we support the Bill and want it to reach the statute book. We appreciate that there are good reasons why the Minister should want to press it through the House with a degree of urgency, but the timetable on which the Government are insisting has not been debated or discussed. They are trying to railroad it through the House—an attitude that Liberal Democrat Members find deplorable.
    As we have said, we will be happy to vote against the motion, if it comes to a vote. We do not believe that the House's business should be conducted in that way. No amendment has been tabled yet, and we do not know how much consideration will be required by those hon. Members with an interest in the Bill, yet the Government have insisted on this programme motion. We oppose it for that reason, and urge the Government to think again.
    I do not think that the Government's action is hole-and-corner or deceitful. It is a quite flagrant abuse of the House to use programme motions on every Bill, yet that is what the Government have done since this Session began. However, it is perverse for Opposition Members to stand up and complain at great length about lack of time on programme motions.
    I shall not detain the House, beyond making it clear that we do not believe that this is the right way for business to be conducted.
    8.7 pm
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Bill is straightforward, with two clauses and two consequential schedules. Clause 1 is the substantial and major clause, as clause 2 deals merely with the Bill's short title, commencement and extent. I cannot see any great need for prolonged debate on the Floor of the House on the detail of the Bill: there was not even a Division on Second Reading, so the level of controversy aroused is clearly minimal.
    The Government's proposals for the timetable motion are in order and entirely reasonable. I believe that the House should be able to deal with the Bill within that time scale.
    Question put:—
    The House proceeded to a Division—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
    The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 570.

    Division No. 106]

    [8.9 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Best, Harold

    Ainger, Nick

    Blackman, Liz

    Allen, Graham

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Borrow, David

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Austin, John

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Banks, Tony

    Browne, Desmond

    Barron, Kevin

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Battle, John

    Burden, Richard

    Bayley, Hugh

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Benton, Joe

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    872

    Cann, Jamie

    Hendrick, Mark

    Caplin, Ivor

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Caton, Martin

    Heppell, John

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hesford, Stephen

    Chaytor, David

    Hill, Keith

    Clapham, Michael

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Hope, Phil

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Clelland, David

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cohen, Harry

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Coleman, Iain

    Hurst, Alan

    Colman, Tony

    Hutton, John

    Connarty, Michael

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cooper, Yvette

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Corbett, Robin

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Corston, Jean

    Jamieson, David

    Cousins, Jim

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Cox, Tom

    Cranston, Ross

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Crausby, David

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Cummings, John

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Joyce, Eric

    Darvill, Keith

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Davidson, Ian

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Lammy, David

    Dobbin, Jim

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Doran, Frank

    Laxton, Bob

    Dowd, Jim

    Lepper, David

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Edwards, Huw

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Efford, Clive

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Ennis, Jeff

    Lock, David

    Etherington, Bill

    Love, Andrew

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    McCabe, Steve

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Flint, Caroline

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Flynn, Paul

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McDonnell, John

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    McFall, John

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    McGrady, Eddie

    Foulkes, George

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Galloway, George

    McIsaac, Shona

    Gapes, Mike

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    McNulty, Tony

    Gerrard, Neil

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    McWilliam, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Godsiff, Roger

    Mallaber, Judy

    Goggins, Paul

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Martlew, Eric

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Maxton, John

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Meale, Alan

    Grocott, Bruce

    Merron, Gillian

    Hain, Peter

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hanson, David

    Miller, Andrew

    Healey, John

    Moffatt, Laura

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    873

    Morley, Elliot

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Mudie, George

    Skinner, Dennis

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Olner, Bill

    Snape, Peter

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Spellar, John

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Pearson, Ian

    Stevenson, George

    Pickthall, Colin

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Pike, Peter L

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Plaskitt, James

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Pollard, Kerry

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Pond, Chris

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Pope, Greg

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Purchase, Ken

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Rammell, Bill

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Rapson, Syd

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Tipping, Paddy

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Todd, Mark

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Touhig, Don

    Trickett, Jon

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Rooney, Terry

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Roy, Frank

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Ruane, Chris

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Ruddock, Joan

    Watts, David

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    White, Brian

    Salter, Martin

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    874

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Woolas, Phil

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Wills, Michael

    Winnick, David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Mr. Clive Betts and

    Wood, Mike

    Mr. Mike Hall.

    NOES

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Livsey, Richard

    Bercow, John

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Body, Sir Richard

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Malins, Humfrey

    Burnett, John

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Burstow, Paul

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Flight, Howard

    Oaten, Mark

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Öpik, Lembit

    Fraser, Christopher

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Rendel, David

    Gidley, Sandra

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Gill, Christopher

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Sanders, Adrian

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Shepherd, Richard

    Greenway, John

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Stunell, Andrew

    Hammond, Philip

    Syms, Robert

    Hancock, Mike

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Hayes, John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Horam, John

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

    Willis, Phil

    Key, Robert

    Tellers for the Noes:

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Mr. Oliver Heald and

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Mr. David Heath.

    Question according agreed to.

    Political Parties
    8.24 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I beg to move,
    That the draft Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Disapplication of Part IV for Northern Ireland Parties, etc.) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.
    I am grateful for the opportunity offered by this debate to explain why the Government believe that the order is necessary.
    During the debates on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, clause 70(1), which permitted the Secretary of State to exempt the Northern Ireland parties from part IV of the legislation, was covered at some length.
    In some parts of the House, the strength of feeling about those exemptions was made clear, so I want to explain why we think they are still necessary if all the parties in Northern Ireland are to function on a fair and equal footing with their counterparts elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
    In the course of my speech, I hope to demonstrate that the only way to ensure fairness and equality for political parties in Northern Ireland is to recognise and allow for the special circumstances in which politics has to operate there.
    First, I briefly remind the House of the purpose of the order. The order exempts political parties in Northern Ireland from registering the source of their donations and exempts them from the specified list of permissible donors set out in the Act. The exemptions are to last for four years but can be revoked before that time, although they may also be renewed after the four-year period.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: The four-year period is an upper limit. Given that we really want to move on from these provisions as quickly as possible, will the Minister consider reducing the time to two years?
    Mr. Howarth: Later in my speech, I intend to address the circumstances in which we might need to consider a review of the legislation. As matters stand, a review could be triggered by events rather than at a particular point in time. I shall reflect on the hon. Gentleman's comments and if we see some merit in the argument, we could return to it when the order is debated in another place.
    The order is based on the recommendations of the Neill report. After taking evidence in Northern Ireland the Neill committee made two specific recommendations. The first of these was that
    "the Government should consider in the context of the development of the peace process whether it would be expedient to introduce a short term and reviewable exemption from the reporting requirements in respect of donations made to political parties in Northern Ireland."
    That recommendation reflected the widespread concern expressed to the committee that the publication of names and other details of donors could and, in some cases, probably would lead to intimidation. The recommendation has been accepted because we have no intention of endangering people's security, nor of inadvertently discouraging them from donating to political parties.
    876
    The second recommendation acknowledged the importance of the Good Friday agreement and of our relations with the Republic of Ireland. As a consequence, the committee recommended that
    "in relation to donors to political parties in Northern Ireland, the definition of a permissible source should also include a citizen of the Republic of Ireland resident in the Republic subject to compliance with the Republic's Electoral Act 1997."
    Again, we accept that recommendation. It is a matter of some regret, however, that it did not prove possible to draft the definition of a permissible source in quite the way that the Neill committee envisaged.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate that the Minister said that it was not possible to define the phrase, "permissible source", but can he tell us what definition is used in the Republic's electoral law? Which circumstances govern such subscriptions there?
    Mr. Howarth: At the moment, the Republic of Ireland has no equivalent legislation. I intend to comment further on that matter as I develop my speech, and I shall then cover the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.
    The Electoral Commission—a United Kingdom-based organisation, which will have the responsibility for policing the arrangements—could not reasonably be expected to verify whether those in the Republic of Ireland who made donations were in compliance with the Republic's law, even as it stands.
    A consequence of accepting the second recommendation—that donations from the Republic of Ireland were to be permitted—was that there was no way of preventing donations from elsewhere in the world being routed to Northern Ireland via the Republic.
    Although we recognise that we are making an exception to our own policy on party funding, I hope that the House will understand, and perhaps agree, that we should not make provisions that would be impossible to police. It must be recognised that if anonymity is needed and donations from the Republic of Ireland are to be allowed, the amount of checking that can be completed in an entirely separate jurisdiction is very limited.
    To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) at moment ago, I am aware that the Irish Government are examining the arrangements regarding foreign donations to political parties. That is clearly a matter for that Government, and it would not be appropriate for me to express a view one way or another on what they should do. However, I recognise that such a change in law in the Republic of Ireland would have implications, depending on how it was framed, for the exemptions listed in the order. I therefore acknowledge that, in those circumstances, it would be proper to review the exemptions, and I am happy to assure the House that we would do so in the light of any changes in Irish law.
    To ensure that the exemptions were considered necessary, I undertook a round of consultations with many of the political parties in February 2000. To be fair, that round of meetings revealed that there was a range of views among the Northern Ireland parties about the matter. On the whole, however, a majority of the parties at that time expressed fear for the safety of those who were named as donors—whether individuals or businesses—and thought that anonymity should be

    877
    permitted. There was also a general recognition of the role of the Republic of Ireland in Northern Ireland's political life, which is, of course, entirely consistent with the Good Friday agreement.
    As the House will probably remember, because of the concerns expressed about the exemptions—not least by the official Opposition—we promised that there would be a second round of consultations before the order was presented to the House. To fulfil that commitment, I invited all the Northern Ireland parties to a second round of meetings, which took place in January this year. During that round of meetings, it became apparent to me that the consensus for the exemptions has, to some extent, broken down. Nevertheless, even those parties which thought that complete anonymity was not warranted still sought an assurance that names could be given on a confidential basis to the Electoral Commission.
    I hope that the House will understand that it is no reflection on the Electoral Commission when I say that no such assurance of complete confidentiality can be given. In any case, some of the parties have already indicated to me that a list compiled on a confidential basis, not to be published and available only to the commission, would still be enough to frighten away their donors on the grounds that there may be a leak and inadvertent disclosure.
    As a Government, we have a responsibility to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland can make contributions to political parties without fear of reprisals or intimidation of any kind. We also have a responsibility to ensure that democratic parties are allowed to flourish. In my view, the only way that we can achieve this is by allowing complete anonymity for four years, so that the democratic process in Northern Ireland is not vulnerable in any way to those who would intimidate or inflict violence on others.
    Similarly, there are sound reasons for allowing contributions from the Republic of Ireland. The truth is, however, that we do not have any realistic or reliable way of checking whether such money originated outside the Republic of Ireland. So, while we regret that these exemptions are necessary—I say that in all sincerity—there is a need to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland can be allowed to show their support for their chosen political parties without having any reason to fear for their own safety. Even those Northern Ireland parties that wished for full transparency acknowledged the need for some protection for certain groups of people.
    For the reasons I have just given, we will obviously, as I said earlier, keep the need for the exemptions under review. If the political situation changes in the Republic of Ireland or the fears for the security of donors recedes, we will come back to the House and revoke the order. On the other hand, if, after four years, the Government's view is that the exemptions are still needed, we will seek to renew them for a suitable period and will come to the House with an affirmative order as we have done tonight.
    Mr. John Bercow: Although we respect the way in which the Minister is moving the order, many of us think that, at heart, it is a miserable measure. Does he not accept that the conduct of politics is not only about political parties but, not least in the context of Northern
    878
    Ireland, about cross-community organisations? Will he confirm that, if the order is passed and there is subsequently a referendum on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein will be able to take money from abroad, but a cross-community organisation that is manifestly and indisputably committed to peaceful means will not be able to do so?
    Mr. Howarth: I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman seeks to make. If he cares to elaborate on it, I shall try to give him a considered answer. If he is implying that the measures are designed purely to facilitate Sinn Fein, he is quite wrong.
    Mr. Bercow: I intended to be clear; I am sorry if I was not. My point was that it is entirely conceivable that an organisation that was not a political party could and would have a view about the yes or no answer to a question in a referendum but, unlike a political party, it would not be able to receive funds from outside the country.
    Mr. Howarth: The exemption in the order is designed entirely to cover political parties. It has no bearing on the conduct of a referendum. Other parts of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 deal with referendums and, if the hon. Gentleman has any concerns about them, I suggest that he takes them up with the Home Office. We are dealing exclusively with the funding of political parties, and the two relevant issues that flow from the Neill committee report.
    Mr. Öpik: I had assumed that a non-political organisation could get funds for a referendum or something else from wherever it can secure them. Will the Minister clarify whether that is the case?
    Mr. Howarth: In general terms, it is the case. The point that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made related to the fact that referendums are covered by the Act and he wanted to clarify whether there was a difference between a referendum and the provisions in the order. If that is the clarification that he sought, I am happy to confirm that there is a difference. Although a referendum would be funded on a different basis, that would apply across the United Kingdom. My case is that the funding of political parties is subject to different pressures in Northern Ireland.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I want to press the Minister on that issue. The order is on political parties, elections and referendums, but referendums do not always affect the whole of the UK; some have been held in Northern Ireland specifically on Northern Ireland issues. Does the fine print in the order mean that cross-party groupings and non-party groupings can get money from anywhere and that it is only political parties that are restricted on donations?
    Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman reads the order, he will see that the headings refer to Northern Ireland parties, the disapplication of schedule 7, which covers political parties, the registration of the meaning of a registered political party and the registration of donations by regulated donees in Great Britain. It does not mention referendums that are held only in Northern Ireland or UK-wide.

    879
    Referendums would be affected only if a political party chose to campaign on them. The considerations that relate to any other means of fund-raising would apply in those circumstances because they are disapplied from the Act. There may be circumstances in which resources that were donated to a political party could be used for campaigning in a referendum, but presumably that would not be the purpose for which those general campaigning funds had been raised.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Perhaps I can help the Minister. When challenged on this matter during the Bill's passage in another place, Lord Bassam said:
    "I fully accept that the situation as it stands will mean that a Northern Ireland party would be able to use foreign donations in any future referendum … Another consequence … which I do not seek to hide is that a Northern Ireland party could use foreign funds in a referendum but any other permitted participant could not. I do not pretend that the position is ideal."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 768.]
    Mr. Howarth: I am in no way disagreeing with my noble Friend. I said that in those circumstances it would be possible for political parties to campaign in a referendum as described. However, the Act sets expenditure limits on campaigning generally in referendums. Unlimited expenditure of any kind would be penalised.
    I feel bound to draw one further factor to the attention of the House. At least one party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, which is represented in the House tonight, has been fund-raising in anticipation of the exemptions. I also understand that some of its prospective donors have promised funding on the basis that the Northern Ireland parties would be exempted and not identified. In view of the fact that we signalled that the order would be introduced, it was not unreasonable for the party to do that. However, if we were to backtrack on that commitment, it would represent a breach of good faith. In those circumstances, we are honour bound to meet that commitment. Having made those important points, I commend the order to the House.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: We strongly and passionately oppose the motion, for reasons that I and others outlined during the passage of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill through both Houses of Parliament.
    The Minister's speech was uncharacteristically confusing, and I did not think that his heart was entirely in it. I hope that he will forgive me if I am a little critical.
    Mr. George Howarth: To dispel any misgivings that the right hon. Gentleman might have, I can assure him that, whatever my speech conveyed, my heart was properly in it. I have given the measure careful consideration and I believe that, in the circumstances, it is exactly the right thing to do.
    Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to the Minister. I shall be happy for him to intervene again, but perhaps I could first make a little progress.
    Our first fundamental objection concerns the fact that it has been decided, rightly, that political parties in our country should no longer accept overseas donations.
    880
    When my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) became Leader of the Opposition, one of his early decisions, before the Neill committee reached its conclusions, was that the Conservative party would not in future accept overseas donations. There was no real dispute about that during the Bill's passage. Our concern is that Northern Ireland is being treated differently.
    I passionately believe in the Union of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. As a unionist—and I emphasise the small "u"—I believe that, wherever possible, Northern Ireland should be treated in exactly the same way as the rest of our country. It is fundamentally wrong that political parties in Northern Ireland are able to obtain funds from abroad when parties based on the mainland are not.
    I am particularly concerned that the measure is largely, but not exclusively, a sop to political parties that are still close to violence and inextricably linked to paramilitaries. I willingly acknowledge to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that I am obviously excluding his party. I acknowledge also that, as the Minister said, the hon. Gentleman and his party are anxious to obtain money from abroad. I think it fundamentally wrong for any party to do so, and it is particularly sad that the majority of parties that will try to do so have past and present paramilitary links. That is the first fundamental reason for our opposition to the motion.
    Secondly, there is a red herring in the debate. The Minister says that even if we banned donations from abroad in Northern Ireland, the security situation means that there could be threats to donors, so their names would not be revealed and we would not know whether the donations were from abroad. We fully accept that, in the present climate in Northern Ireland, it would be wrong to publish the names of donors, whether individual or corporate. There is nothing between us on that point, and I do not think that any Member would think that publication was wise at the moment. The Minister and I hope that the situation will change, and that such precautions will not be necessary in future if the peace process that we support reaches a logical and happy conclusion.
    I beg to differ on one point. I notice that the Minister was particularly cautious in his reference to the Electoral Commission, when he said that he hoped that it would not be insulted by what he had to say. On the commission's behalf, I would have accepted those remarks, had they come from some Ministers, as an insult, but I did not in this case. However, the commission is a neutral, secure body, and if the commissioners alone were given the names of donors, they would be able to establish whether or not they were foreign. It is therefore an excuse and a red herring to use legitimate concerns about publicising donors' names in this instance. There would be no problem in giving them to the Electoral Commission alone, and we should do that.
    There is another separate and serious aspect of the Act and the order. I think that we have established that the Minister was incorrect when he started to suggest that the order had nothing to do with referendums. As I illustrated in my intervention, it clearly does; I quoted his ministerial colleague in another place, Lord Bassam of Brighton, at some length. That is another of our serious complaints about the order.

    881
    It is conceivable that there will be a border poll in the future. It might even be advantageous at some time to have a further border poll. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned, it is outrageous that a political party—for instance, Sinn Fein—can obtain money from abroad to campaign in such a referendum, yet a cross-community group supporting the peace process and the Union would not be allowed to do so. That is far from a level playing field; indeed, it is unfair and unreasonable.
    The Minister will know—it could be that the note coming from the officials' Box is confirming this—that the situation is straightforward, and that political parties can obtain money from abroad but groups campaigning in a referendum that are not political parties cannot. These are groups with which he and I would probably want to associate. In anybody's book, that is deeply unfair and wrong.
    The Minister said that this does not really matter, because there are severe limits on how much each political party can raise from abroad in a referendum campaign. I remind the House that there are rather generous limits, with which I do not quibble. Each political party is allowed to raise £500,000 for each referendum campaign. That is not a trivial amount. In the case of Sinn Fein, much of it might come from abroad. That gives it a distinctly unfair advantage.
    In general, I have the greatest reservations about referendums. I believe in our parliamentary democracy wherever possible. We should use this elected Parliament to make decisions. If the electorate does not like the decisions that we make, it has an opportunity every four or five years to put others in our place who might make more favourable decisions. However, I acknowledge that occasionally there is need for a referendum. One of the obvious examples, going back over the past 60 or 70 years, was the border poll to which I referred earlier.
    If we are to have referendums, it is vital that there be a level playing field. The last referendum to take place throughout the United Kingdom was conducted in 1975. The Minister and I were perhaps on the same side of the argument. I campaigned for a yes vote—[Interruption.] Apparently, he did not. I nevertheless welcome the Minister's conversion.
    I still believe that Britain's future is within the European Community, but I had great reservations about the funding that turned out to be available to the two different campaigns. That is why limits must be set and why, wherever possible, there should be equality of campaigning so that the British people can make a decision in any referendum that is based on equal spending and equal advocacy by both sides. On reflection, 26 years later, that did not happen in 1975, which is regrettable. I think that I would have won and the Minister would have lost—as in fact happened—even if the funding had been different. However, the matter was rather distasteful, and it appears more distasteful as the years go by. We therefore learned a lesson from the 1975 referendum, and we should ensure that the same thing never happens again.
    I hope that I have expressed clearly my serious concerns about specific referendums in Northern Ireland, of which the most obvious is about the border poll that
    882
    will probably take place in the near future. I should now like to move on to the wider issue of referendums elsewhere in the United Kingdom and I shall explain, Madam Deputy Speaker, why I am not trespassing out of order. The most obvious referendum to come up Europe-wide—that is a wonderful Freudian slip, but I mean United Kingdom-wide—in the foreseeable future will be on whether or not we should join the single currency. Again, I suspect that the Minister and I would be on opposite sides of the argument, which is a pity. However, it is essential that we have a level playing field.
    I should like to look at the situation in Northern Ireland. Political parties registered in Northern Ireland would be able to obtain £500,000 abroad and add that to the referendum campaign throughout the UK. The Minister will say that they are not allowed to pass that money on to political parties on the mainland, but they will have to. They can take advertising space and publish leaflets. It is quite easy to spend £500,000 on a referendum campaign on a single currency. That would however be wrong, and it would influence unduly what happened in the campaign.
    I shall give a spurious example which, I hope, is not sensitive in the context of Northern Ireland politics. The Conservative party in Northern Ireland is a registered party in the Province, and it could spend £500,000 on billboards and advertising, quite separately from the separately registered Conservative party on the mainland. It could spend that money on the same campaign as the Conservative party, but it would pay for different advertisements in different places. We could easily take a logical step further and divide the Conservative party in Northern Ireland into individual constituencies, so that there are separate Conservative parties registered for Strangford, South Down and Belfast, South. Each party could then accept £500,000 from people who were against entry to the single currency. We could direct that money to them and they would spend it on the referendum.
    I believe that the Minister would think that wrong and unfair and that it would act against his desire to join the single currency. Lest there be any doubt, may I add that the Conservative party would have no intention of doing what I have just said? I am simply saying that that option would be available to us; it drives a coach and horses through the order, which is highly dangerous.
    Mr. Öpik: I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as highly dangerous. He has just answered his own point: he is being theoretical and building a castle in the air, but has also pointed out the real fact that no responsible party in the Chamber would undertake such action. I accept his concerns—although we have different views—since parties could indeed do that. Surely, as he said, wherever possible Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK should be the same. On this occasion, however, there are mitigating circumstances that, perhaps, would lead to the need to have a temporary difference. Would the right hon. Gentleman not accept even a partial justification on that basis?
    Mr. MacKay: No, I do not accept that. The only exception is the fact that, in the rest of the United Kingdom, the names of donors who give more than a certain sum have to be published, whereas that is not the case in Northern Ireland, for legitimate security reasons. Northern Ireland should be treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom only in respect of security issues.

    883
    I take issue with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). I said that I had deliberately used a sensitive example that would not offend people in the House and in Northern Ireland—the example of my own party in Northern Ireland. I went on to say, quite reasonably, that we would not abuse the order in that way.
    However, political parties in Northern Ireland may feel strongly about a certain issue. For example—the hon. Member for South Down will correct me if I am wrong—the Social Democratic and Labour party is closely and legitimately linked to the Labour party, takes the Whip in the House and is strongly in favour of joining the single currency. Under the order, there is no reason for the SDLP not to accept large donations from abroad for the euro referendum and to pay for a great many pro-euro advertisements in the campaign on the mainland.
    There would be nothing wrong with the hon. Member for South Down doing that. We know that his party is a democratic, non-violent party which has substantial support in the Province and always acts with due propriety. It would not be doing anything illegal or out of order if the measure were passed tonight.
    The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is wrong if he thinks that that is just wild theory, with no chance of being realised. The House must always make sure that the laws that it passes are tight, exact and well defined; otherwise, they can be abused. That in turn brings the House into disrepute and causes serious problems later. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire may be relaxed about the order being so open to abuse, but that is not a prospect that the Liberal Democrats, with an honourable history over many years, have ever countenanced in the past.
    Mr. Steve McCabe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. So that we do not become obsessed with hypothetical models, will he confirm that the order would last for four years? If his concern is about a referendum, is he conceding that there will be a referendum within four years? If so, he obviously knows which party will be in power.
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman's seat is one of our leading target seats in the west midlands, as he knows full well. I believe and expect that there will be a new Member for Hall Green in the next Parliament, but I do not want to trespass on the hon. Gentleman's personal grief.
    I say to the hon. Member for Hall Green, as I said to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, that we must legislate for every possibility—even the horrendous possibility of the re-election of a Labour Government, and the re-election of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). Much as I hope and expect that that will not happen, I would be unwise and not fulfilling my parliamentary and legislative duty if I did not take it into account. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
    To return to the serious arguments against the order, I conclude and summarise by saying that the order is wrong because it treats Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the United Kingdom, without good cause. The order is wrong because it prays in aid the security situation and the non-publishing of donors' names, although the electoral commissioners could scrutinise any money coming from abroad. The order is wrong because it will allow abuse and an uneven playing field for referendums in Northern Ireland and possibly elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. John Burnett: The right hon. Gentleman makes some powerful points. If the
    884
    Electoral Commission is to scrutinise contributions in camera, what happens when there has been a breach of the law? What sanctions will be imposed, and will any subsequent litigation also be dealt with in camera?
    Mr. MacKay: I have no doubt that the Electoral Commission will take the same action and impose the same sanctions as it would in relation to a party that is registered elsewhere in the United Kingdom and which is found to be taking money from abroad. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary nodding.
    The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) is a lawyer, so I shall not try to second-guess him on whether subsequent court action or appeals should be heard in camera. Off the top of my head, my answer is that they should not be. I would trust the commission, which is an independent body. Indeed, I think that it has the confidence of all political parties. Once again, the Under-Secretary nods. If it finds abuse in Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom, the commission should act accordingly. If the political party and donor in question think that they have been wrongly treated, perhaps because the donation did not come from abroad, the decision can be tested in the courts. That is fine and proper. It is up to the donor and party to decide whether to pursue the case. The more I reflect on the hon. Gentleman's question, however, the less I think that the court case should be heard in camera.
    For all the reasons that I have given, I believe that the order is profoundly wrong, and I hope that the House will reject it.
    9.6 pm
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: I rise to speak on behalf of my party in support of the order. I should like to return to the practical reality of political life in Northern Ireland and move away from the castles in the air to which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) referred.
    In the SDLP's submission to the Neill committee, we stated our firm belief in
    "the principle of openness, transparency and accountability in the funding of political parties in the context of a normal and modern democratic society."
    We asked the committee to be sensitive to the practical difficulties of applying such principles in what is still a deeply divided, sectarian and troubled society. That is where Northern Ireland is today. It is different from Great Britain—a difference that is addressed through its exemption from the requirements of section 65 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
    In past years, the SDLP party headquarters has been bombed five times. Our members have been physically intimidated and abused, and their property has been damaged and destroyed. Only two weeks ago, the constituency headquarters of my colleague Alban Maginness, the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Belfast, North, were bombed. That context creates fear. We cannot say that it does not exist and that Northern Ireland is the same as Great Britain. It is not the same, and that is the problem that we are trying to address in order to sustain a proper democratic process. Of course, members of other Northern Ireland parties have suffered equally, and Members of Parliament have previously paid the ultimate price of political violence by having their lives taken from them.

    885
    We have resisted violence over the years and have tried to create a normal political society. We have been tested in every possible way by sectarianism and violence. Now, every morning in news bulletins, we hear about pipe bombing. That is where we are at. In that context, we asked the Neill committee and the Government to exempt Northern Ireland parties for a trial period of four years to ascertain whether we could achieve some normality and subsequently be covered by the whole Act.
    I am a wee bit surprised by the comments and attitudes of the Conservative and Unionist party spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), because the Ulster Unionist party agreed with us on the matter and made similar requests to the Neill committee. Jack Allen, the central treasurer, said in paragraph 6667:
    "Over a number of years, because of the political situation in Northern Ireland, people did not want to be identified with political parties … because of the risk factor in Northern Ireland."
    That statement was supported by the late president of the Ulster Unionist party, Josias Cunningham, when he referred to foreign donations in paragraph 6676.
    Funding from the Republic of Ireland cannot be banned because such a ban would contravene section 2(1) of the Ireland Act 1949, which states:
    "notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty's dominions, the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law … in any part of the United Kingdom".
    That is the answer to jibes about such funding.
    The exemptions in the order were originally proposed by the Neill report, which states:
    "The Government should consider in the context of the development of the peace process whether it would be expedient to introduce a short term and reviewable exemption from the reporting requirements in respect of donations made to political parties in Northern Ireland."
    I stress that that is a proposal from the Neill committee, not from the Government. Nothing could be more specific than that recommendation from the report on standards. The proposal is reflected in the order.
    During the drafting and in the debates, we lobbied jointly with the Ulster Unionist party until the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 was passed and the two exemptions for recorded donations and foreign fund-raising were made. There was consensus throughout the discussions between us and the top officials at the centre of the Ulster Unionist party. Our chair and central treasurer received a letter, which stated:
    "As you know, business people and individuals are already wary of making donations to political parties and are likely to be even more sensitive if their donations are to be recorded"—
    recorded, not publicised. The letter continues:
    "I am afraid that reassuring people and organisations that their donations will be recorded but not published will make no difference."
    That is a statement from the Ulster Unionist party in a letter to us. I have not quoted it out of context. The last phrase of the letter asks us to feel free to refer to it in our discussions with anybody, so I am not betraying any confidence by using those quotations.
    Something subsequently happened. The leader of the Ulster Unionist party insinuated or even said that the Under-Secretary had misled the House. However, I have
    886
    the submission to us from the Ulster Unionist party in writing; it is there for the public to see. The Under-Secretary did not mislead the House.
    Furthermore, the SDLP, with the approval of the Electoral Commission, supported the Bill on the basis that the Northern Ireland parties would be exempt from recording donations. As a result of the Act and with the guidance already received from the Electoral Commission, we have informed potential donors in good faith that there will be no requirement to declare their donations at least for the four-year exemption period.
    We believe that our future will be based on normalising politics in Northern Ireland, and we look forward to a normality of the kind enjoyed by Members of the House here in Great Britain, but not, as yet, by us. We look forward to a normality in which people will be free publicly to express their support for a political party, to put their party posters up in the windows of their homes and businesses without fear of intimidation, and to donate openly to political parties without fear of threats to themselves or their families.
    I pray and hope that that day will come, but it is not here yet. Meanwhile, we must be conscious of the potential threat to individual personal security if donations are disclosed or written down in any way. I ask all hon. Members, who are democratically elected and proven to subscribe to the democratic process, to trust us. We shall not usurp any powers, or do any wrong.
    Hon. Members may be worried about the wrongdoers doing wrong, but they will continue to do wrong anyway. They will have the advantage of doing wrong and not being caught. If a paramilitary organisation wants to get funds from Timbuktu, it will get funds from Timbuktu irrespective of any legislation passed by this House. However, the democratic political parties, which form a bulwark against such activities, must be given the ability to sustain themselves until the day arrives when we have normal politics in Northern Ireland. I support the order.
    9.16 pm
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: I would very much like to see normalisation in Northern Ireland, as would the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). Indeed, I think that we all would. We are making good progress, but we are not there yet.
    In some of our debates on Northern Ireland, it almost feels as though we are so focused on the issues and so willing to accommodate Northern Ireland in its efforts to achieve normality that we sometimes fashion individual bits of policy round the needs of individual parties, or perhaps even round individuals in Northern Ireland. Is that not a great model for Parliament, in which politics fits itself round the needs of a community in transition rather than expecting the community to fit round the needs of the policy-makers? In that context, it is reasonable, on a judgment call, to make this exemption. My party has consistently felt, throughout the debates on this issue in the House and elsewhere, that we probably need to make the exemption, as long as it is temporary.
    We have been told by the Minister and by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that individual donors could be at personal risk. The hon. Member for South Down cited some examples that I found very persuasive. There have been real examples of intimidation of a nature that we do not tend to experience on the

    887
    mainland of the United Kingdom, which alter the political environment for providing donations and support to particular parties.
    For now it is, therefore, probably defensible to protect the anonymity of the individuals making such donations. However, four years seems to be too long a time for such an exemption. A two-year exemption would make much more sense, not least because having to re-justify it sooner would provide a driver and a focus for the Government. It would still be an exemption, and the right hon. Member for Bracknell rightly described it as one that should, preferably, not exist at all.
    As I understand it, under a two-year exemption the political processes of the House would require the Minister to ensure that the order was laid again in the upper House, because it would be hard to rescind it in two years' time and it could not be modified. Will the Minister consider re-laying the order in a format that incorporates a two-year upper limit when it goes to another place? That might involve a little more administrative messing about than he would have wanted, but a 24-month exemption just makes more sense. To that extent, I agree with the implication in the comments of the right hon. Member for Bracknell that we should get out of these arrangements as quickly as possible with regard to Northern Ireland.
    However, I disagree that the measure is a sop to party politicians who are involved with paramilitary organisations. The hon. Member for South Down, who spoke for the SDLP, can hardly be described as public enemy No. 1. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bracknell did exclude the SDLP—[Interruption.] I am acting as a messenger for the right hon. Gentleman, who rightly points out that he went to great trouble to do so. [Interruption.] If he wants to say more, he will have to intervene because I do not get paid to speak for the official Opposition.
    The right hon. Gentleman seemed to miss the fact that the SDLP is obviously one of the key organisations that need the exemption now. He acknowledged that the SDLP was not culpable in a paramilitary sense, but perhaps did not acknowledge that it is typical of a party political organisation that clearly thinks that there is a political imperative for the exemption in the short term. That is a persuasive argument and we must respect the people on the front line of Northern Ireland politics who say that they need the exemption.
    The right hon. Gentleman also said that, wherever possible, Northern Ireland should be treated in exactly the same way as the rest of the UK. The crucial words are "wherever possible". Northern Ireland has done a good job of catching up, but is not there yet. He also regards it as outrageous that political parties could take money from abroad and said that it is fundamentally wrong for political parties to obtain money from abroad. Not that long ago, his own party did exactly that. Northern Ireland is only about five years behind the rest of the UK, which is not bad. We must recognise that the normalisation of Northern Irish politics will happen, but it must be given the space to allow that.
    Incidentally, it is equally outrageous that political parties on the mainland are willing to accept enormous private donations—£5 million, for example. That implies that, on occasion, the wealth of donors to political parties represented in the Chamber can have an impact on
    888
    the ability of those parties to campaign effectively. The Liberal Democrats have long talked about state funding and I would like to think that the implication of comments in the debate is that other parties now seriously recognise its benefits. We could remove the cheque book's influence on the quality of debate and the strength of campaigning here on the mainland.
    Whatever hon. Members feel about the situation, the problem will go away because some time in early summer, when the Liberal Democrats form the next Government, we shall return to it and make sure that everything is put right. Until then, let us continue apace with the normalisation of Northern Irish politics and acknowledge, in all seriousness, that we have room to differ. In fairness, the right hon. Member for Bracknell and his party have been consistent throughout the debate. This is a judgment call, not a matter of principle, and I tend to side with the Minister and the hon. Member for South Down. The right hon. Gentleman and his party simply take a different view.
    Time will probably tell who is right, but, for now, we are prepared to live with the risk. I remind the Minister again that, although we agree that the order should be approved, two years would be better than four. I say to the right hon. Member for Bracknell that we still think two years better than none.
    9.23 pm
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), especially if we have to wait until the next Liberal Government come to power for improvements to be made. There are problems. I understand the points made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), but we have not given enough credit to people in Northern Ireland who have carried on democratic politics despite all the fierce opposition that has been directed towards them.
    I have lost colleagues—one I replaced as Member of Parliament for Belfast, South and the other, who represented Belfast, South in the Assembly, was one of the brightest young lawyers on his way up in the United Kingdom—and seen other members of our party brutalised and killed. I understand something of the terror, but the harsh reality is that we are discussing not that but how Northern Ireland has constantly been made somewhat different from the rest of the United Kingdom. Some Members of the House, who have continually made us different, have the audacity to say, "But Northern Ireland is different."
    If the order is passed, registered parties in Northern Ireland will not have to adhere to a specified list of permissible donors, make quarterly reports with respect to donations or make weekly donations reports during election periods. An individual donor will not have to make a report to the commission if he or she has made an aggregate donation of more than £5,000 in any given calendar year, and the commission will not have to keep a register of donations reported to it.
    I understand why the secretary, chairman and treasurer of the Ulster Unionist party may say that they are concerned about even reported donations to the commission, given that the Parades Commission released names submitted to it to a Sinn Fein representative. That, however, does not strike me as a final answer.
    Our main concern relates to foreign funding. I know that in earlier years, for a considerable time, the SDLP was a major beneficiary of the National Democratic

    889
    Institute, which trained and funded the party for election and other purposes. The order, however, does no service to the people of Northern Ireland. It fails to provide transparency in the financing of Northern Ireland political parties.
    In recommendation 24 of its fifth report, the Neill committee said:
    "Political parties should in principle be banned from receiving foreign donations".
    The order permits foreign funding for Northern Ireland. It is true that the committee said in recommendation 29:
    "In relation to political parties in Northern Ireland"—
    the Minister referred to this—
    "the definition of a permissible source should also include a citizen of the Republic of Ireland resident in the Republic subject to compliance with the Republic's Electoral Act".
    I should like to know what that really means, and why we are being asked to sign a blank cheque.
    The Neill committee incorporated a Northern Ireland exception in its fifth report. That exception was not to benefit the Ulster Unionist party or any other unionist party, but to benefit Northern Ireland nationalist parties. We know that nationalist parties in Wales and, in particular, Scotland may well have benefited from exceptions, but no exception was made for them. What is before us might be called a Northern Ireland nationalist party order—or, to be more exact, a Sinn Fein rather than an SDLP order.
    The order will go beyond the Neill committee's recommendation of an exception for Northern Ireland parties. It will permit financing by any country, not just the Republic of Ireland. That was not recommended by the committee.
    Republicanism is international—Irish republicanism, that is. It goes beyond Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Indeed, it is abroad that the romantic message of "mother Ireland" sells best. Men like Martin Galvin find those in the United States easy prey: they have not witnessed the misery and brutality of the Provisional IRA campaign in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom for the past 30 years. Galvin has now declared his support for the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA.
    Lest we forget what those groups are doing in Europe, I remind the House of a recent report in the Swedish paper Aftonbladet that the IRA was raising funds through a restaurant it was running in Stockholm. That money could easily be used for the Armalite or the ballot box, such is the fluidity of the relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA.
    Ulster Unionists have an exceptional problem because our people regularly say that we do not do enough. However, they would not allow us to be funded by the types of sources used by Sinn Fein-IRA. Those sources include not only foreign donations, but the proceeds of criminal acts in the community.
    What about records and transparency? Disapplying chapters I to III of part IV of the 2000 Act to Northern Ireland will result in all the provisions on donations not being applied. The term "permissible donors" will mean nothing. All sources will be permissible; indeed, the concept of permissibility will not even exist. Unlike in the rest of the United Kingdom, if a party in Northern Ireland
    890
    cannot identify the source of a donation, there will be no issue. Anonymous donations will continue to be permitted in Northern Ireland.
    Hon. Members have suggested that, because of the terror, business men do not want to be identified. When I was a young assistant, we were building an extension to a church. A certain business man said to my senior, "We see that you've made a start. We'll give you a £100 contribution." That was almost 50 years ago, when £100 was a fair sum. The church was extended and the hall was built. However, regardless of how closely one searches the records, one will find no mention of a £100 donation from that business man. I think that, sometimes, people who are interested only in making money for themselves, not in supporting democracy, say that they do not want to be seen to be supporting a political party.
    Unlike in the rest of the United Kingdom, no improperly obtained funds will be subject to forfeiture in Northern Ireland because there would be no concept of improperly obtained funds. In Northern Ireland, funding sources will not need to be voluntary, as is implied in the term "donor", and racketeering will continue to be a legitimate form of funding for paramilitary-linked parties. The order will ensure that the
    "evasion of restrictions constituting an offence"
    will not apply to Northern Ireland. Then again, as there will be no restrictions, there will be no restrictions for one to evade.
    Northern Ireland parties will not need to concern themselves with reporting on donations weekly, quarterly or otherwise and regardless of whether they are made in an election period. Although disapplying part IV will reduce administration for Northern Ireland parties and might be perceived as beneficial, there is clearly no benefit in comparison with what is being lost by not subscribing to the rules and regulations that will apply to the other United Kingdom parties. It is essential that, sooner rather than later, Northern Ireland political parties, like political parties elsewhere in the United Kingdom, are subject to the rules on funding sources.
    Only Sinn Fein and other paramilitary parties will really benefit from a non-regulated system and a lack of transparency. It is they—not the Ulster Unionist party and other constitutional parties in Northern Ireland—who have something to hide.
    At the beginning of the debate, hon. Members had exchanges with the Minister on referendums. It is strange that there is confusion even about those. We cannot have referendums without the involvement of political parties, but, in Northern Ireland, political parties will not be restricted. Conversely, the order seems to provide that cross-community groups could be restricted. Additionally, if referendums were to follow the precedent set by the 1973 border poll and the United Kingdom European referendum, the sums provided to one side could entirely skew the result. Not for one moment am I suggesting that Ulster Unionist people will vote to withdraw from the Union. However, the weight of funding available for publicity could have an adverse effect on turnout. That is why it is important for us to consider the matter again.
    The Belfast agreement, with its concept of the principle of consent, provides for the possibility of such a referendum on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. I shall be brief, as other hon. Members want to speak and I do not want to curtail the time available for

    891
    the Minister's response. However, as I said, we do not believe that extravagant campaigning by republicans and nationalists in any future referendum on Northern Ireland's constitution would persuade Unionists to be anything other than Unionists, but there could be an adverse effect on turnout.
    A further anomaly is that those organisations set up especially to campaign in a referendum under the Belfast agreement would be banned from receiving foreign funding. If we read the legislation aright, those parties are dealt with in a different part of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Minister seems to have missed that.
    Campaigning organisations have been dealt with, and I noticed that the hon. Member for South Down was a little puzzled when his party was referred to as the sister party of the Labour party. I do not understand that, as he and his party leader have regularly proclaimed that both parties belong to the socialist federation.
    Mr. McGrady: The hon. Gentleman must have misinterpreted my facial expression to reach that conclusion. I am sorry to have misled him in that way. I agree that there is a good relationship in the socialist international between my party and the Labour parties of these isles.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate that clarification. I did not have my glasses on, so I put the hon. Gentleman's response down to a facial aberration. However, he merely confirms what the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) suggested—that it is possible for the SDLP to get money and use it to promote the Labour party's position in Great Britain. I hope that a miracle will happen, and that a Conservative party in Northern Ireland will get £500,000. I should be especially glad to take the crumbs from the table if that happened in Belfast, South.
    Finally, I turn to the matter raised by the hon. Member for South Down. I do not challenge his quotations, but he said that he had noticed a change in the submission made by the Ulster Unionists. In evidence to the Neill committee, Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Allen—my party's former president and current treasurer, respectively—said that we would be reluctant to have a public register for security reasons. However, we can still argue for transparency coupled with security. A register could still be maintained by the electoral officer or the Electoral Commission, so that the security of donors would not be compromised for transparency. It is important that the books are clearly open, so that no one could be hoodwinked in a general election.
    9.38 pm
    Mr. Peter Robinson: I recognise that the Minister wants an opportunity to respond, and I simply wish to put on record my party's position on this matter.
    First, I thank the Minister for the courtesy that he has extended to my party in our meetings on this matter and other electoral issues. He has kept us abreast of the Government's thinking and he knows our views. We have been on common ground for the most part, but there is a degree of difference in regard to this motion that we must set out.
    892
    It was interesting to hear the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) talk about amounts of money that might be put into a Northern Ireland context. Most hon. Members from the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties would probably roll around on their Benches with laughter if they knew just how little political parties survive on in Northern Ireland. It is a pittance compared with the funds available to parties on the mainland. Therefore, a level playing field becomes all the more important, because the position is easily distorted when a party or group is capable of bringing in resources from outside Northern Ireland.
    That is why funding from outside Northern Ireland becomes particularly important. It has distorted the position to the detriment of the SDLP, although it would not admit it. Substantial funds from outside Northern Ireland have assisted Sinn Fein-IRA in bettering the SDLP in almost every by-election in recent times, and increasing substantially its share of the votes in every general election as well. Such distortion is a result of the influence of those outside the territory of Northern Ireland. That is wrong. For that reason, and a number of others, we are opposed to foreign donations.
    I agree with the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who has left the Chamber, that Northern Ireland is different from other parts of the United Kingdom with regard to the dangers of people being identified with a political party. If people are seen to donate money to a Unionist party, they might believe—correctly or not—that there is a danger of being targeted by a republican organisation. Equally, if a firm is seen to donate to a nationalist party, it might see itself as open to being targeted by what are described as loyalist paramilitaries. This will ensure that firms do not easily give money to political parties.
    I find it laughable that the hon. Member for South Down raised the issue. There is a recent instance in which a firm identified itself with a democratic political viewpoint and the SDLP hounded it. The Ulster Unionist party has had a discussion within its ranks about matters relating to the Belfast agreement. A firm—McCann Erickson—provided a viewpoint which was consistent with those whose views are against the Belfast agreement, and did so publicly. It was hounded by the SDLP. When I was Minister for Regional Development, I received questions from SDLP Members wanting to know how much McCann Erickson was getting in Government contracts. The clear implication was that if a firm was against the views of the SDLP or the First Minister, it should not receive contracts from Departments in Northern Ireland. More than that, the SDLP went to Mr. Hennessy, the controller of New York, and got him to apply pressure on McCann Erickson, threatening the job of the person who had been prepared to put his head above the parapet.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his illustration of what happens in Northern Ireland is true of businesses throughout the kingdom, and that it is regularly said in company reports that no charitable or political donations have been given during the year?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, indeed. There is clearly a difficulty with firms putting their heads above the parapet and identifying themselves, albeit by subscription, with political parties. That is a reality with which we have to live.

    893
    There is an element of the Bill that is too important for us to allow it to be overcome. Our submission to the Minister and the body that considered it was that we should allow firms to have their donations recorded and the Electoral Commission should be told the nature of those donations to each of the political parties, but there should be no publication of that list. That would have ensured that the political parties were acting in the best interests of the electorate, and that people in the United Kingdom would have the safety of knowing that the matter was properly scrutinised.
    I think that the issue of what happens when a matter is brought to court was rather bogus. Almost daily, the courts in Northern Ireland decline to allow the names of individuals and groups to be published. The case would be against the political party, not against the organisation which subscribed to it. That could easily be kept out of the public arena. It could be overcome by the Minister, while allowing Northern Ireland to stay as far in step with the rest of the United Kingdom as possible, given the special circumstances.
    I regret not being able to speak for a longer time; I realise that the Minister is keen to respond to the debate. It is important, however, to record our opposition. We are opposed to permission being given for nationalists—we should be clear about that—to receive foreign donations. We oppose the refusal for publication to be withheld; the Electoral Commission should receive details of all donations to political parties in Northern Ireland.
    9.45 pm
    Mr. George Howarth: The debate has been genuinely useful. Differing opinions have been expressed—indeed, every possible variation of opinion on the matter has been expressed during this short debate. It is both useful and important that those voices are heard.
    I shall deal with two or three of the points that have arisen. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, in effect, that the order was a sop to Sinn Fein. He may think that. He may even doubt the sincerity of Sinn Fein; he is entitled to do so—as, no doubt, will others. I can only tell him that in the two consultations on the issue that I have held with Sinn Fein during the past 12 months, its publicly stated position, repeated to me, is that the party is content with complete transparency and that it does not seek exemptions for Northern Ireland.
    I realise that there will be scepticism in some parts of the House as to whether Sinn Fein's private position is the same as that stated publicly. However, if I was planning to give a sop to Sinn Fein, it would be somewhat surreal to offer something for which the party had never asked. I should certainly receive no credit from Sinn Fein for doing that, so such speculation is bizarre.
    I do not doubt that Sinn Fein, along with every other party in Northern Ireland, will benefit from the exemptions. That is unquestionably the case. My major concern is that the SDLP, both in representations to the Neill committee and to me during two rounds of consultations, has made it absolutely clear that there are legitimate grounds for the exercise of an exclusion for four years.
    894
    The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has been entirely consistent. Last month, he repeated what he told me 12 months ago. His party has concerns, although its members believe that they could be addressed in a different way.
    We should listen carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who made an important contribution. It is not for me, for the right hon. Member for Bracknell or for any Member to say that the requirements would pose a particular problem for the SDLP. It is right, however, that we listen to the SDLP. Its position has been perfectly consistent. From the beginning, the SDLP has pointed out that, in an ideal world, the party would want complete transparency with no exemptions, but that, in its particular circumstances in Northern Ireland, such exemptions are right and proper. My hon. Friend put that case fully and well.
    I have been persuaded not by Sinn Fein but by my hon. Friend and by a party that is represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly—the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition. It, too, feels that the matter is important and that if the exemptions did not apply, the party would be damaged.
    The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has made it clear that there was some movement in his party's view on the issue. In no way do I condemn his party for that; any party is entitled to change its point of view over time, and I accept that his party had genuine reasons for doing so. The hon. Gentleman is a serious politician and he takes such matters seriously. I hope that he will accept that our intentions are not to favour nationalists or anyone else. The order was drafted and the exemptions exist because we have a concern for all of the political parties in Northern Ireland.
    I shall make a brief point in response to the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast, East. He believes that foreign funding can be separated from registration. He has repeatedly told me that on behalf of his party. Frankly, the difficulty is that if there is not a register, it is impossible to track whether or not foreign donations are being made to any political party—one piece of information depends on having the other, and it is not possible to separate the two. The hon. Gentleman would concede that that is the case. However, he says that he would like the Electoral Commission to hold that information, but not to publish it. That is his party's stated position. In no way do I wish to impugn the commission's integrity, but I have to say in all honesty that there can never be any guarantee that the information will not leak out in some way or another.
    I shall give the hon. Gentleman a perfectly reasonable example. If there were reason to believe that a donation was made improperly and the commission felt that it had to investigate the matter, the very act of launching an investigation could prejudice the secrecy of the register. The hon. Gentleman well knows that, in Northern Ireland, a rumour has only to start in Coleraine in the morning and he will probably hear about it in Belfast in the afternoon. Such is the nature of all political information. If an investigation were under way, there could be no guarantee that the information could be kept entirely confidential.
    On referendums, I simply say that such matters are set out in schedule 14 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Of course, political parties could be involved in referendums, but equally, as I said earlier, they are subject to strict limits. I will not trade

    895
    reminiscences with the right hon. Member for Bracknell about where we were respectively during a referendum in 1975, but when he was campaigning for a yes vote, I was the leader of the Huyton no vote campaign, which consisted of me, as the secretary of the Huyton young socialists, the Huyton Communist party and two Conservatives, who ran a ballroom dancing academy. What else we had in common, I do not know.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 123.

    Division No. 107]

    [9.54 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Ainger, Nick

    Cummings, John

    Allen, Graham

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Darvill, Keith

    Austin, John

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Banks, Tony

    Davidson, Ian

    Barron, Kevin

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Battle, John

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Dawson, Hilton

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Benton, Joe

    Dobbin, Jim

    Best, Harold

    Doran, Frank

    Betts, Clive

    Drew, David

    Blackman, Liz

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Borrow, David

    Edwards, Huw

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Efford, Clive

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Ennis, Jeff

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Etherington, Bill

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Browne, Desmond

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Burden, Richard

    Flint, Caroline

    Burnett, John

    Flynn, Paul

    Burstow, Paul

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Foulkes, George

    Cann, Jamie

    Gapes, Mike

    Caplin, Ivor

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Caton, Martin

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Gerrard, Neil

    Chaytor, David

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Clapham, Michael

    Gidley, Sandra

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Goggins, Paul

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Clelland, David

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Cohen, Harry

    Grocott, Bruce

    Coleman, Iain

    Hain, Peter

    Colman, Tony

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Connarty, Michael

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hancock, Mike

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hanson, David

    Corston, Jean

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Cousins, Jim

    Healey, John

    Cox, Tom

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Cranston, Ross

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Crausby, David

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    896

    Hendrick, Mark

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Heppell, John

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Morley, Elliot

    Hill, Keith

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Hinchliffe, David

    Mudie, George

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Hope, Phil

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Olner, Bill

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Hurst, Alan

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Hutton, John

    Pearson, Ian

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Pike, Peter L

    Jamieson, David

    Plaskitt, James

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Pond, Chris

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Pope, Greg

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Pound, Stephen

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Joyce, Eric

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Purchase, Ken

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Rammell, Bill

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Rapson, Syd

    Kemp, Fraser

    Raynsford, Nick

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Rendel, David

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Laxton, Bob

    Rogers, Allan

    Lepper, David

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Leslie, Christopher

    Rooney, Terry

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Roy, Frank

    Livsey, Richard

    Ruane, Chris

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Lock, David

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Love, Andrew

    Salter, Martin

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sanders, Adrian

    McCabe, Steve

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Sheerman, Barry

    McDonnell, John

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McFall, John

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    MoGrady, Eddie

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Skinner, Dennis

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    McNulty, Tony

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    McWilliam, John

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Snape, Peter

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Soley, Clive

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Spellar, John

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Martlew, Eric

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Maxton, John

    Stevenson, George

    Meale, Alan

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Merron, Gillian

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Miller, Andrew

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Mitchell, Austin

    Stunell, Andrew

    Moffatt, Laura

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    897

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Watts, David

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    White, Brian

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Timms, Stephen

    Willis, Phil

    Tipping, Paddy

    Wills, Michael

    Todd, Mark

    Winnick, David

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Touhig, Don

    Wood, Mike

    Trickett, Jon

    Woodward, Shaun

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Woolas, Phil

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Vaz, Keith

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Mrs. Anne McGuire and

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Mr. Jim Dowd.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Horam, John

    Amess, David

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Baldry, Tony

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Key, Robert

    Bercow, John

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Blunt, Crispin

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Body, Sir Richard

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Boswell, Tim

    Lansley, Andrew

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Leigh, Edward

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Brady, Graham

    Lidington, David

    Brazier, Julian

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Loughton, Tim

    Burns, Simon

    Luff, Peter

    Cash, William

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    McCrea, Dr William

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Collins, Tim

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Cran, James

    Malins, Humfrey

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Maples, John

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Mates, Michael

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Day, Stephen

    Moss, Malcolm

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Evans, Nigel

    Ottaway, Richard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Page, Richard

    Fallon, Michael

    Paice, James

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Pickles, Eric

    Fraser, Christopher

    Randall, John

    Gale, Roger

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Garnier, Edward

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Gibb, Nick

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Gill, Christopher

    Ruffley, David

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Green, Damian

    Shepherd, Richard

    Greenway, John

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Soames, Nicholas

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Hammond, Philip

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Hawkins, Nick

    Spring, Richard

    Hayes, John

    Steen, Anthony

    Heald, Oliver

    Streeter, Gary

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Swayne, Desmond

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Syms, Robert

    898

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Whittingdale, John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Wilkinson, John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Townend, John

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Tredinnick, David

    Yeo, Tim

    Trend, Michael

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Walter, Robert

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Waterson, Nigel

    Mr. Keith Simpson and

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Mr. James Gray.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
    That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],
    That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John Mc William, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
    Motion made,
    That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
    Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
    Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
    Line 52, at the end insert the words:—
    '(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Dowd.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS
    Motion made,
    That—

    (1) this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01 (HC 47); and

    (2) the Resolution of 5th June 1996 on the Language of Parliamentary Proceedings be amended accordingly by inserting, after the word 'Wales,', the words 'and at Westminster in respect of Select Committees'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

    Hon. Members: Object

  PETITION

    Nuclear Waste
    10.10 pm
    Mr. Bob Russell: This is the "Colchester says no to burning nuclear waste at Bradwell" petition. It is the petition of Susan Brooks, Judith Lunn, Bridget Searle and 1,570 residents of Colchester and surrounding areas.
    The petition declares their opposition to the burning of low level nuclear waste, including oils and solvents, at Bradwell Nuclear Power Station, Essex. The Petitioners state that burning does not destroy radioactivity; instead it spreads radioactive particles into the atmosphere to be inhaled and ingested internally by populations downwind such as those living in my Colchester town constituency and surrounding areas including Mersea, Brightlingsea and Clacton. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons takes action to prevent low level nuclear waste, including oils and solvents, from being burned at Bradwell Nuclear Power Station.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table

    School Bus Services
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    10.11 pm
    Caroline Flint: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting me the opportunity to present this short but, I think, important debate.
    Time and time again over the past three to four years since I have been a Member, I have sat through and contributed to many transport debates. The school run and its contribution to congestion on our roads has often been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have sometimes found it annoying that parents continually are blamed for using a car when I think that there are real reasons for them choosing to do so. So far, we have not come up with an expanded proposal to change their minds.
    I think that there are three reasons why parents choose to take their children to and from school by car. First, there is the issue of safety, whether that is road safety or the risks that parents feel their children may face from other adults. Most parents will not let their children go unescorted to school.
    Secondly, the reality is that more mums work. In doing so, they have to drop off their children at school and get to work on time. With the opening hours of school, that is not always possible to do either by walking or by using other forms of public transport. That being so, they choose to use the car.
    We expect people to travel further to their place of work than was expected of them many years ago. That is all the more true in some communities such as mine of Don Valley, where many people used to have work literally on their doorstep in the local coalmine. Today, as part of our regeneration, we are having to challenge people to move further to work, and to provide transport in order for them to do so.
    Thirdly, we have seen the deregulation of bus services, which is the legacy of the previous Tory Government's 18 years of office. That has left many parents unable to rely on public transport. When time is at a premium, I do not blame any parent for using the car to save time. For many of them, there is no other practical choice. I want to show how the experience of a journey as day to day and mundane as that of being taken to and from school, for many children and older pupils at Don Valley, can be reformed to contribute to improving the larger picture that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), must always consider. That is a picture of too many cars crowding into too many bottlenecks at peak hours, and too many public transport services as yet unable to resolve the congestion problem, which is made worse by the school run.
    I have spoken to transport providers, local authorities, schools and parents, and the message is clear. The deregulation of bus services by past Conservative Governments is continuing to have a disastrous effect and impact on the provision of rational local bus services that meet people's needs and, especially, the needs of children and young people.
    My concern this evening is primarily school transport. However, in offering new options on the way forward, I hope that I can help the Government to reduce congestion.

    901
    Up to 20 per cent. of morning rush-hour traffic is that of parents doing the school run. I want to help our children by reducing road accidents and creating the safe travel to and from school that the Government seek. I want also to help our schools by reducing late arrivals and support working parents, for whom time on a weekday morning is at a premium. I also hope that I can help the Government to support our local transport authorities and councils by contributing to the sensible planning of complementary services, quality education and quality public transport to and from school.
    My hon. Friend the Minister will know that, under the Education Act 1944, local authorities have a legal obligation to provide school transport, based on a reasonable walking distance to and from school of two miles for children under eight and three miles for older children. The three-mile walking distance dates back to section 74 of the Elementary Education Act 1870, under which a reasonable excuse for school non-attendance was that there was no elementary school within three miles of home.
    I am afraid that things appear to have moved on very little in 130 years, as we are still applying those two and three-mile rules. I contend that those rules are out of date, and I ask any parent in the House to walk their five, six or seven-year-old child up to two miles to school every day. In this day and age, it is just not practicable to expect parents to walk their under-eight children up to two miles to school and their over-eight children up to three miles. For many parents, therefore, the use of the car is an understandable necessity.
    As a constituency Member of Parliament, I believe strongly that good policy derives from understanding the life style and goals of ordinary people. We politicians are at our best and most useful when we can help the many, not simply the few, to meet those day-to-day challenges. A parent from Warmsworth, who was paying £100 a term to send her children to their catchment school by public transports commented:
    "It would be cheaper to take my children to school in a car, but as a responsible family we try to use public transport as much as possible and agree with Mr Prescott's ideas of cutting congestion during the school run."
    When I raised my constituent's case with my hon. Friend the Minister, he observed in September 1999 that only a quarter of secondary school pupils travelled to school by bus. Only 4 per cent. of primary school pupils travelled to school by bus—the same figure as in 1975.
    A parent from Sprotbrough, whose children have a free bus pass because of the distance at which they live from school, was concerned because what the children thought was a school bus was full, and they were left at the bus stop because the operator had registered the bus as a commercial service; the bus had picked up additional fare-paying school children on its circular route. A grandfather wrote to me concerning his grandchildren, who attended a local primary school just under two and a half miles from their village of Blaxton. On occasion, those children were left stranded at the bus stop after school because the public service bus was full on arrival at the stop. Young primary school children were left for 35 minutes on a cold, dark evening while their grandfather, without a car, waited at home, distressed at their failure to arrive home on time, but powerless to respond.
    902
    Children attending a school outside their catchment area face a problem, as they are at the mercy of deregulated bus services which, as we know, may be varied or cancelled with 42 day's notice. Last July, my constituents in Rossington, whose children attend the Hayfield school in Finningley, had a bus service going from Tickhill via Rossington and Bawtry to Finningley. In September, however, the bus route by-passed the less affluent area of Rossington altogether, leaving those children isolated and potentially excluded from attending their chosen school. Children in the villages of Edlington and Sprotbrough have encountered similar problems in travelling to the Danum school in Doncaster.
    Those children benefit from the exercise of parental choice. My hon. Friend is a transport Minister, but he will be aware of the anomaly that, on the one hand, parents have some opportunity to choose schools beyond their catchment area, which local authorities accept, while on the other, local authorities have no responsibility for assisting with those children's travel to school, so that they fall victim to the whim of deregulated commercial bus services which may, or may not, meet their needs. I could cite many more cases and, no doubt, those stories are replicated throughout the country.
    I shall clarify my proposals. First, a dedicated school bus service should be available to every child, whatever the distance at which they live from school. I should like the two and three-mile rules to be scrapped. However, I am not demanding that all children, however close to a school, should have a free bus service. It would be far better to make a low-cost flat fare available to every child, regardless of the distance at which they live from school, but I honestly believe that children living 200 or 300 yd from school will not be queueing up to pay bus fares.
    Low-income families could qualify for free bus passes on the same basis as they qualify for free school meals, with no extra bureaucracy. All children could be offered season tickets, with parents being offered discounts for purchasing a season ticket in advance. If children from low-income families automatically received season tickets, there would be no stigma and, possibly, school attendance may improve.
    Evidence from South Yorkshire shows a fall of nearly 10 per cent. in peak-time car journeys during the school holidays. Nearly one in 10 cars are on the road exclusively to take children to school, while a further 10 per cent. of cars do the school run prior to the rush to work. How many car miles would be saved if a reliable, dedicated school bus service was available?
    My second proposal is that local authorities or transport authorities should be obliged to work with schools to provide a transport plan for all the pupils. Thirdly, the transport funding of local authorities must be reconfigured to place emphasis on funding the provision of school transport.
    In South Yorkshire, concessionary fares for 4.5 per cent. of all schoolchildren account for more than 20 per cent. of expenditure on school transport. In Doncaster, provision for children with special needs account for well over half of the funds for school transport held by the local authority. I respect those children's needs, but by extension, I also believe that all children, parents and society will gain from a comprehensive and inclusive school transport strategy.

    903
    Although the UK is certainly not the USA, I see some attraction in the no-frills yellow bus, which my children see on "The Simpsons" cartoon programme every day, which offers a door-to-door service. The idea of a dedicated yellow bus service has attracted considerable interest, including from my own transport authority, the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive.
    My hon. Friend knows of the widespread enthusiasm for school travel plans from the many bids that he received from local authorities to fund the preparation of local travel plans. I understand that 263 bids were received for work or school travel plans, and that a majority of them related to school travel. I also understand that my hon. Friend is funding 111 posts to prepare those local plans.
    Is that the precursor of a radical expansion of school transport? Will we see a quantum leap in the number of children arriving at school by means other than by car, or will we simply see a large number of safe walking routes established at minimum cost which, to be honest, appear to miss the point? For many of those children, the answer is a bus.
    The Government—the most radical Labour Government that the country has ever seen—have laid the foundations for a first-class transport network in the national transport plan. For that, I compliment my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues on all their work.
    South Yorkshire is a centre of transport excellence, which will be enhanced when Doncaster has its own airport, located within minutes of the east coast main line and a short bus ride from Doncaster's new interchange. However, plans for school transport look undeveloped, and safe walking routes are only a small part of the solution.
    We may never solve every problem, and different communities may need different solutions, but time and again we seem to overlook the central role that the school bus could play in contributing to sustainable transport. Knowing my hon. Friend's shared commitment to safe travel, traffic reduction and the efficient use of the road network, I urge him to ensure that when he and the Government are re-elected for a second term, we create an efficient, locally delivered school bus transport strategy.
    10.22 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) for raising the matter of school bus services. I thank her for her courtesy in giving me notice of some of the main issues that she intended to discuss in the debate. I hope to offer her an encouraging response.
    It goes without saying that we all want to be sure that children travel to school in safety and, wherever possible, by sustainable modes of transport. As my hon. Friend rightly observed, 18 per cent. of cars on the road in urban areas at the peak of the morning rush—that is, at 10 minutes to 9—are taking children to school.
    The proportion of journeys to school by car has almost doubled since the mid-1980s, to 30 per cent., with 38 per cent. of primary pupils and more than 20 per cent. of secondary pupils travelling to school by car. Bus use has remained relatively stable, at around 20 per cent. Walking
    904
    and cycling have declined, although 53 per cent. of primary pupils and 42 per cent. of secondary pupils still walk to school.
    We know that children sitting in cars in congested, slow-moving traffic can be exposed to pollution levels three times higher than those outside the car, yet there is a range of alternatives to the car for the—usually short—journey to school. There is a widespread perception that healthy, sustainable travel to school largely involves walking and cycling, rather than bus use. The vast majority of children who live within a mile of school do walk, but because the average journey length has increased to 1.5 miles for five to 10-year-olds and 3.3 miles for 11 to 16-year-olds, fewer trips are now within walking distance. The bus should therefore be a positive choice for more parents and their children.
    Caroline Flint: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a lack of adequate discussion and consultation on the production of transport plans to meet the needs produced by school reorganisation? Such reorganisation can occur in the form of school closures, which happen because of falling numbers, or as a result of the conversion of the structure of primary, middle and secondary schools to a two-tier system.
    Mr. Hill: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The production of such plans is one of the tasks that we expect the 111 travel plan co-ordinators for schools and firms, whom she mentioned, to address as school mergers develop. The Government have just introduced those co-ordinators, at a cost of £9 million.
    Buses take up far less road space than the cars that are needed to carry an equivalent number of passengers. More bus travel during the peak school run would cut congestion on the roads and thus help to reduce vehicle emissions. With a few hopeful exceptions, bus travel has steadily declined during much of the past half century and is only now starting to show signs of recovery. Bus travel to school allows children to socialise with their peers, to gain greater independence and self-confidence and to learn important skills such as an understanding of timetables.
    Bus travel is safer than car travel, and by ensuring that children use buses, we might even encourage them to become lifelong public transport users, with all the benefits that that would bring. Greater bus travel to school would benefit both schoolchildren and the environment, but getting pupils out of cars and on to buses requires partnership. Local authorities need to work in partnership with operators, parents and other stakeholders to achieve that aim.
    The Government have put buses at the heart of our integrated transport plans. We have set ourselves the target of increasing bus passenger journeys by 10 per cent. by 2010. Local authorities have just received a good revenue support grant settlement, and there has been substantial growth in Government funding for the third year running. There will be a national average increase of 4.4 per cent. in general grant money next year. The settlement took into account the increase in bus contract prices that is being experienced in a number of areas.
    We are also providing growing support for rural bus services, including continuation and expansion of the rural bus subsidy grant scheme; its contribution will increase to

    905
    £140 million over the next three years. In addition, £60 million will be provided for the rural bus challenge and we are introducing a new urban bus challenge to improve transport links for deprived urban areas, which will provide £40 million over the next three years. We are also implementing a range of policies to improve bus services generally.
    All those measures are encouraging bus operators and local authorities to work together to drive up quality, frequency and reliability, and to extend bus coverage. We have now put in place arrangements that give a proper role to local authorities and ensure a clear system of local transport planning. At the same time, we recognise the need to harness the commercial expertise and innovation of the private sector.
    I perfectly understand my hon. Friend's concerns. She would like a national school bus strategy to be established. I understand that to mean that she wants an increase in free home-to-school transport and in other local bus services that serve schools. We are working towards implementing the recommendations made to Ministers by the school travel advisory group, which is known as STAG, on the use and availability of buses for the journey to school. STAG wants walking, cycling and bus use to return by 2010 to the levels of the mid-1980s. That would mean that 80 per cent. of primary school children and 90 per cent. of secondary school children travelled by such means.
    We are aware that many people feel that the current statutory walking distances—two miles for pupils aged up to seven, and three miles for those aged eight and above—that govern qualification for free home-to-school transport are unreasonable, and that legislation does not support parental preference on school choice. Indeed, my hon. Friend made that point forcefully. We know that, of the children who live between one and three miles from school, more than 60 per cent. of those aged five to 10 and about 30 per cent. of those aged 11 to 16 currently travel by car. Recent research has shown that a significant number of those children might be expected to travel by bus if the statutory walking distances were reduced. Reduced congestion benefits could then be expected, especially in urban areas.
    To that end, STAG recommended that better use be made of the substantial resources already devoted to statutory school transport, so that arrangements are better targeted on safe, healthy and environmentally friendly travel to school.
    Let me remind the House of the real purpose and function of statutory school transport. It is not and never was designed to be an all-inclusive school transport service. It is a safety net to ensure that no children are denied the right to attend a suitable school because they live too far away, have special needs or face a dangerous journey.
    Caroline Flint: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Hill: I would rather not. I have much to say and relatively little time. However, I appreciate the customary devotion and assiduity that my hon. Friend brings to such matters.
    The amount budgeted for and spent on statutory school transport by local education authorities has been increasing above inflation in recent years. It is now a
    906
    substantial sum—more than £440 million in 1998–99. However, some two thirds of the figure is spent on pupils with statements of special educational needs. That leaves approximately £150 million for the 7.5 million pupils of compulsory school age who do not have statements. It gives local authorities little scope for additional discretionary provision.
    My colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment are, however, considering proposals for pilot schemes to enable local authorities to test the supply and take-up of additional school transport for children who are not currently entitled to free transport. In advance of that, my Department has invited tenders for a survey of attitudes to test the likely take-up of additional school transport services and the extent to which it would be influenced by a range of factors, including fares.
    Statutory school transport is not the only source of assistance. Local authorities have the power, but no duty, to establish concessionary fare schemes in their areas under the Transport Act 1985. About 40 per cent. of shire counties have a scheme for young people, though few are countywide, and some do not provide fare reductions in the morning peak. By contrast, in the metropolitan areas, all six passenger transport authorities provide flat fares or half fares on local buses that are valid in the morning peak. Those schemes are supported by Government subsidy.
    In the shire areas, it is common for discounted fares to be offered commercially by private sector bus operators, and the discount is usually half fare. In London, Transport for London, rather than local authorities, operates a discount scheme for young people at roughly half fare. It is regarded as a commercial scheme without Government subsidy, it covers the five to 18 age group and it is available in the morning peak. In the light of that, STAG also recommended that affordable bus travel to school be made available to all children in compulsory education. My Department plans to discuss that further with major bus operators.
    The Department has also commissioned consultants to identify current best practice in increasing bus use for the journey to school. We consulted local authorities, schools and bus operators, and they identified many examples of local action to promote bus travel for the home-to-school journey. The consultants reported last year and we shall shortly publish a guide for local authorities, bus operators and parents groups that draws together the main lessons from the study. It will be full of real-life examples of the way in which schools, parents, bus operators, local businesses and the police have worked together successfully to increase travel to school by bus. We hope that the guide will stimulate other authorities, and especially operators, to consider the further measures that they can take.
    We know that some local authorities and bus operators are currently developing innovative school bus schemes. One is in Surrey, where the recent local transport plan settlement conferred large sums of Government money on a pilot project that provides direct transportation from home to school for 40 primary schools in the county. Other schemes are based directly on the American school bus system. We are watching their development with interest. My hon. Friend is evidently doing so too.
    The Department has been working with the bus operators FirstGroup to identify where American yellow bus vehicles might be modified to meet construction and

    907
    use requirements, and where special authorisation might be required. I understand that FirstGroup has agreed to make all the required modifications to ensure that the vehicles comply with the conditions of initial fitness regulations. It will hold urgent discussions with the Department on the further modifications that are required to fulfil the accessibility regulations.
    Any exemptions granted to FirstGroup vehicles will have to be fully justifiable, and other operators will need to be treated in a similar fashion. I have already received representations from other vehicle manufacturers, operators and groups representing disabled people. My ministerial colleagues and I have given an assurance that the Government remain totally committed to a fully
    908
    accessible public transport system, and that will be borne in mind when deciding whether those vehicles are to be accepted on UK roads.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing the debate. My colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment and I regard the issue of promoting travel to school by safer and more sustainable modes as very important. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that we are currently very active in this area. I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend this evening, just as I welcome all other constructive suggestions about further work to be done.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Hospices
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
9.30 am
Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to be able to introduce this debate on the future of hospices. I do not intend to take more than my fair share of the time. It is good to see other hon. Members here and I am sure that the Minister will want the maximum time to respond to some of my questions. This is an important issue, which was covered, quite by chance, a couple of weeks ago on BBC television news. The way we treat very sick people is an important part of our health provision, our social care and our general humanity.
I should like to thank Jean-Luc Priez, the chief executive of my local hospice, Cotswold Care in Minchinhampton, and David Praill, the chief executive of Help the Hospices, for their help in preparing this speech. I do not want to spend long looking at the history of hospices, but it is important to put them into context. They have achieved greater prominence recently, but they have been with us for some considerable time. We can look back to the initiatives of the Duchess of Norfolk and the work of the different bodies that represent hospices, such as the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services and the Independent Hospice Representative Committee, both of which are well known to the Minister.
I should like to make four key points. I shall consider the current position of the hospice movement and the problems that it faces, and perhaps come up with some solutions. I shall consider first the background to the hospice movement; secondly, Cotswold Care in my constituency, which is an exemplar of the best that the hospice movement can provide; thirdly, what the hospice movement has to offer more generally, and, finally, the problems that the hospice movement faces.
There are three types of hospice. There are the NHS hospices, of which Britain has about 20, and those organised and run by large national charities, such as Marie Curie Cancer Care and the Sue Ryder Care, both of which draw down a lot of money from the NHS. I wish to consider the third type of hospice, which is the voluntary or independent hospice. There are 200 such hospices in the country, 180 of which are independent charities in their own right. They receive much less largesse from the NHS and that is the root of their problems.
Independent hospices are essentially local, meeting local needs. They offer impressive care to their immediate community. For example, they provide 70 per cent. of all in-patient care, 87 per cent. of all day care and 44 per cent. of all home care. They are not some marginal group. In many respects they form the core of the hospice movement. The problem is that they tend to
170WH
receive sporadic funding from the NHS. I am never sure whether it was a tablet-of-stone arrangement or one of those informal agreements, but the previous Government ended the 50:50 funding relationship between what the state tended to provide and voluntary or charitable donations back in October 1996. If my local hospice is anything to go by, there have been significant problems ever since.
The average funding from the NHS is about 30 per cent., but many hospices receive much less than that. That level of funding tends to be capped and has been declining over time. There is much evidence of differential funding from health authorities. The primary care trusts seem to be somewhat unclear on the position of hospices and certainly on how to fund them, if we are moving in that direction. I will deal with that later.
My local hospice, Cotswold Care, is amazingly successful and highly thought of in the community, with a high recognition factor. It opened about 12 years ago and is based on a good and well-organised site just outside Minchinhampton in my constituency. The workers, under Jean-Luc Priez, whether paid or voluntary, are very highly thought of in the community. They cope with about 15 patients a day on four days a week, providing them with all manner of support, such as counselling, therapy and so on. On the fifth day, there is specialist provision for people who suffer from particular diseases, such as multiple sclerosis. The hospice also has an out service to cater for patients who live in the community and the recently bereaved. The main social worker has a case load of about 60 patients.
As I said, the recognition factor is high. I have been involved in correspondence on the issue and was pleased to receive a reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), in which she says that she
"greatly appreciates the valuable work undertaken by all hospices like Cotswold Care."
That is why I am using it as an exemplar of the very best in hospice care.
The health service increasingly uses hospices, whether it be the health authority or the primary health care teams that pay the money into them, and there are different referrals to those bodies. However, unless my local hospice is different from others, which I do not believe, the difficulty is that hospices are almost certainly working on an annual deficit. Cotswold Care has an annual budget of about £500,000 and runs, year on year, a deficit of about £60,000. The only way in which the hospice can do that is by drawing down its reserves, which have been good and of an order that has allowed it to maintain its service. However, those reserves will not exist for ever. The hospice is in the third year of an operational deficit and now has to consider whether to make cuts in its services. Given that 62 per cent. of its expenditure goes on direct patient care and that it must raise about £450,000 every year, it is obvious where cuts would have to be made, which everyone in the area would find reprehensible.
Last year, Cotswold Care received £48,000 from the NHS, which in effect represented no real increase in funding. It has been trying to obtain a service level agreement, but without success. It is reaching the stage at which it must think seriously about what it can afford and which part of the service it may have to withdraw.

171WH
The staff consists of about 80 people, 22 of whom are formal members of staff while the rest are volunteers, which shows the high level of volunteering in the sector. People give hours of their time willingly and in different ways. They do not just drive people around, but contribute pretty high-level skills, such as counselling, to ensure that people receive the support service that they need.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not also important to remember the work done by volunteers in their continuous fund raising? My hon. Friend has referred to the deficits and difficulties that hospices face. The Pendleside hospice for Burnley and Pendle could not survive but for the dedicated day-by-day work done by volunteers in raising funds every year.
Mr. Drew: I totally agree. The point is that hospices would inevitably close without voluntary fund raising, so we should in no way underestimate its importance. One problem in fund raising, which my hon. Friend has helpfully mentioned, is the competition with various other fund raising activities, whether in the charitable sector or in the NHS. I have corresponded with Ministers on behalf of Cotswold Care hospice, which feels done down. The NHS is trying to raise money in different ways—for example for cobalt units and chest campaigns—and that money must come from sources that the hospice would also seek to tap.
Legacies are another problem. They are not necessarily in decline, but are ferociously fought over, and cannot by themselves provide an answer. St. Peters in Bristol has done wonderful work in that area, but legacies are not necessarily the answer.
I invite the Minister to come to see the excellent work done by the Cotswold Care hospice, particularly some of its new work. It has recently taken on hospices at home, a genuine partnership with the NHS that, although better funded, is not fully funded, which brings out my underlying point about what we need to do.
Independent hospices have five key advantages: first, they save the NHS money, and we should not pretend otherwise. Without them, their work would almost certainly have to be picked up by the NHS or by some inferior service. Secondly, hospices are the epitome of care and caring. Thirdly, they provide ultimate professionalism, but they also use volunteers to bolster that professionalism. That is the best use of the voluntary sector, which is of interest to many of my hon. Friends.
Fourthly, hospices deal with a Cinderella area that has traditionally been, if not ignored, certainly underfunded and isolated. It would be tragic if we lost some hospices because of funding difficulties. Fifthly, and never to be underestimated, they support individual carers and families who have suffered bereavements. We need to build on their work, rather than see that area decline.
What problems face hospices? I will ask my hon. Friend some questions on that as I finish my speech. Clearly, we recognise and welcome the uplift in cancer and palliative service funding. However, hospices do not seem to fit easily into the system. Discussions have been
172WH
held between the hospice movement and the Department of Health on the cancer strategy, but there has been no concordat. The Government have come to an understanding with the private sector, but not with hospices. By 2004, the NHS will have invested an extra £50 million in palliative care. It would be good to see how that will be spread among hospices. We accept that it is difficult to give each hospice the same relative funding, but we need some yardstick so that we can know how funding will be invested, and who will receive it.
Hospices face the same cost pressures as every other part of the health service, and increased pressures are arising, principally from wage costs. In addition, if we need to bring people back to the NHS, they can come from a limited number of sources, and one of those sources would be hospices. We still have an on-going battle with some general practitioners. Thankfully, we have turned the corner in my area, but some GPs need to be persuaded that hospices have a valuable part to play and that they should commission care accordingly. I would welcome any comments from my hon. Friend on whether that is one of the ways in which we can provide resources.
We must, at all costs, prevent downsizing, which, as I have said, would take resources directly from patient care. We need to understand where hospices will stand in relation to primary care trusts, not just as regards mainstream hospice provision, but concerning minority groups, whether ethnic or socially disadvantaged, who must always have access to a range of services. It would be tragic if we were hamstrung by the problems that I have mentioned.
I do not expect the Minister to answer my questions in detail, but hope that she will consider them. First, will she voice the Government's support for the hospice movement, whether through the cancer strategy, palliative care or any other initiative, and will she say how valuable the Government consider hospices to be? In particular, how will the cancer strategy be funded in order to support the hospice movement and give it its fair share? Is it possible to see a model of what local health authorities would be expected to provide and what would be a minimum level of the extra funding?
Will my hon. Friend consider other means by which funding could be provided, including, principally, the new opportunities fund of the lottery, which I must say, is both an opportunity and an uncertainty. Some money has been set aside, and it has been suggested that £23.5 million will come from the opportunities fund initiative, but independent hospices will not necessarily receive that money. It would good to know what can be done to engineer some more funds from that source.
If there is an additional funding requirement, how can we build on the services that hospices already operate? I have mentioned the new development of hospices at home, and it would be good to see whether counselling and bereavement services, which have a locus in the health service, could be run more in tandem with the hospice movement. What form of concordat can delivered that would be similar to that for private health, about which I have talked already?
Given the current funding problems, how will hospices be able to struggle on, and is there a short-term solution to those problems, in addition to whatever may

173WH
be developed in the medium to long term? Finally, will my hon. Friend spell out the role of hospices in the cancer strategy?
I have made a case for additional funding, and I make no apology for that. The debate is timely because of the problems that hospices will face in coming months as they make decisions on their budgets. I leave the Chamber with one thought: an adage always applied to hospices is that we should help them to help us, and it would be wonderful if that could provide the principle under which the Government applied funding to the movement.
9.46 am
Mr. David Ruffley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing a truly important debate. I first discovered the importance of the hospice movement when I became a Member of Parliament in 1997; I had no previous experience of it. I have benefited from advice and many meetings with members of the St. Nicholas' hospice in the centre of Bury St. Edmunds, particularly Mr. Bob Jones, the chief executive, and Mr. Roger Curtis, the fund raising director. I am here to speak today, not just because of their prompting and helpful advice, but because of the people of Bury St. Edmunds, who are responsible for an absolutely colossal achievement in terms of the amount of voluntary effort and financial support that they put in to running St. Nicholas'. I will later give some indication of the magnitude of that achievement.
The hospice movement is important to my constituency because of the palliative care that it delivers. The importance of that specialist care has undoubtedly increased over the past 10 years. Ten or 15 years ago, people who would have died quick deaths after diagnosis—typically, though not exclusively, of cancer—now live longer because of improved treatments and medication. But that involves a compromise. Living longer, perhaps in difficult circumstances, requires greater support in a range of areas, socially, psychologically and medically. Sometimes, it requires support in an in-patient setting at St. Nicolas' hospice, and at other times it means support in a day setting at home. What is clear is that demand for those services is rising, if not exponentially then certainly massively. Successive Governments have acknowledged that, and the cancer plan unveiled last year by the current Government goes a long way to acknowledging the experience that I have had in my constituency.
The cancer plan acknowledges that our hospices are among the best in the world. It goes on to acknowledge that not enough is being done to meet unmet demand by stating that:
"The care of all dying patients must improve to the level of the best."
It is perfectly clear from what the Government have said that there is unmet demand. The cancer plan goes on to say:
"For too long, the NHS has regarded special palliative care as an optional extra. The NHS has relied upon the good will and funding of charities".
In paragraph 7.24 it continue:
"Hospices have rightly argued that the NHS should invest more in palliative care services."
174WH
I acknowledge the Government's important statement in that part of the cancer plan.
Bob Jones, chief executive of the St. Nicholas' hospice in Bury St. Edmunds, wrote to me recently, saying:
"The contribution of hospices is now fully recognised, and clearly the Government wishes to involve them, the voluntary hospices, centrally in the development of cancer services and we applaud that. However, this must be on the basis of secure funding for the future. There cannot be reliance on ever increasing fundraising to meet the gap."
There is simply a limit to the amount of voluntary fund raising that can deliver sufficient funds to keep voluntary hospices such as St. Nicholas' going and doing the job that they want to do.
The importance of St. Nicholas' hospice is emphasised by some interesting statistics. The hospice runs five charity shops, which raise a net profit of £120,000 a year. The hospice's own lottery raises £120,000 a year, net profit. In addition, it holds many fund raising events and these, together with legacies, have brought in £500,000 a year. Those are colossal sums of money. Many local people have had members of their family or friends of friends receive care, assistance and—I do not think the word too strong—love at St. Nicholas' hospice.
Gifts also come, large and small. Of the 3,000 gifts received last year, including legacies and financial donations, 2,400 were of less than £100 and 600 were of more than £100. Some were significant bequests. St. Nicholas' hospice raises huge amounts of money. It receives 40 per cent. of what it needs from NHS grants, but it does magnificent work of its own. It serves a catchment area in south Norfolk and west Suffolk with 250,000 people. It has 160 volunteers, and I would endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Stroud. His experience is clearly the same as mine: there is a great deal of local support of a non-financial kind from volunteers. At St. Nicholas' hospice, we have a 10-bed in-patient unit, a 15-patient day hospice, a bereavement counselling service, and the Nicky's Way initiative, which is a separate bereavement counselling service for young children. The latter is an important innovation, and one of the first of its kind in the country. We have a team of six Macmillan nurses who undertake fine and dedicated work among local GPs and with terminal patients in their homes.
There is a great deal of ambition at the St. Nicholas' hospice. It moved into its current premises in 1993, but has wanted to grow. It had a new building project with a capital value of £920,000it does not let the grass grow under its feet. The management and governing body are innovative, and received £350,000 from the National Lottery Charities Board. They are working hard to raise additional money above the hospice's annual running costs to extend the in-patient and day centre areas, and to construct a new building called the Ark, which will house new counselling and bereavement services that are innovative not just in East Anglia, but throughout the country.
A huge amount of money is required to satisfy the ambitions of a hospice that wants to grow, not stand still, and I shall outline some of the pressures faced by the hospice this year. There is expenditure of £92,000, due mainly to medical price inflation, but also to an increased pay award for nurses, the new deal for junior doctors and pension contribution increases, amounting to an increase of at least £50,000.

175WH
This financial year the hospice received a grant from the Suffolk health authority of £642,000—a 4 per cent. increase. That grant is welcome, but the hospice lacks a clear statement of the future path of grant via the NHS in the county. It is difficult to plan for years, rather than for one year, ahead. That problem becomes especially acute when a hospice is as ambitious as the one in Bury St. Edmunds. As a result of cumulative pressures, the hospice is running a deficit for the first time in several years. The trainee GP post runs out within a year and it seems unlikely that it will continue. The Macmillan community specialist nursing team is the only one in the eastern region not to be 100 per cent. NHS funded. We want future resourcing to secure the full complement of the excellent Macmillan nurses at St. Nicholas' hospice.
In a spirit of co-operation, I want to ask the Minister some questions. I believe that the present Government, in common with the previous Government, are listening to the hospice movement and recognise its huge importance. I endorse the powerful and detailed points made by the hon. Member for Stroud. The NHS benefits from the voluntary activity of hospices in Bury St. Edmunds. The NHS is incomparably better off for the hospices, which deliver palliative care that mainstream hospitals are insufficiently specialist to deliver, so to what extent will the £50 million extra announced under the cancer plan be targeted to purely NHS hospices? Will there be favouritism? Will the two NHS hospices in East Anglia get the lion's share of the £50 million allocated to the area? I hope not.
Is it intended that the £50 million should plug the gap where provision for palliative care is almost nonexistent? Only one third of health authorities have developed palliative care strategies, which is a surprisingly low figure. In my part of Suffolk, we benefit from good strategy, which includes good, co-operative relationships. Will success stories, such as St. Nicholas' hospice, be a victim of their own success because the areas without such good provision will get most of the new money? There is a new philosophy afoot in Whitehall and the Treasury in the public service agreements and the comprehensive spending review that suggests that the successful providers of public services might reap the reward of increased funding. It is hugely important that good performers such as St. Nicholas' hospice in Bury St. Edmunds should be encouraged by receiving increased funding; but under the Government's public spending regime, more money goes to plug the gaps in inadequate public service provision.
Areas such as Suffolk cannot draw down money from the new opportunities fund because, understandably and fairly, it is targeted at socially disadvantaged groups, especially those areas with large ethnic minorities where there is no tradition of palliative care. As west Suffolk has a very small ethnic minority population, it is unlikely that it will receive money from the new opportunities fund. Admirable though it is, the announcement about that fund will not help my constituency.
Does the Minister think that there should be a national funding agreement to take account of voluntary hospices' provision? Is she considering a concordat with the hospices, signed by the Government,
176WH
similar to the agreement with the private sector for non-palliative services announced last year by the Secretary of State for Health? Does she think that the present regime, which leaves matters to local negotiation, is working satisfactorily? Does she believe that agreed service levels have been properly set and that there is adequate monitoring of service levels, taking into account the allocation of resources? Have she and her Dept measured the shortage of provision and compared it with funding shortages, and, if so, when will that work be published?
Finally, can the Minister give us some comfort about the allocation of the £50 million of national cancer plan money? This is a plea for the rural areas, which may not be economically disadvantaged or have a high concentration of ethnic minorities, but which nevertheless have great needs that are not being met. There is no reason why the demand for palliative care services should be overlooked merely because the area is rural.
I thank the Minister for taking copious notes on my speech, and I look forward to her response.
10.4 am
Mr. Keith Darvill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing this important debate. I shall be brief, and shall echo the comments made by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley).
I want to place on the record my admiration for all who work in the hospice movement. Like other hon. Members, my experience comes from my connections with my local hospice since the 1997 general election. St. Francis hospice, on the border of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon), is held in the highest esteem by the community, and covers the Barking and Havering health authority area.
I want to concentrate on funding issues, which lie at the heart of this morning's debate. I visited the hospice recently to discuss funding, and wish to bring a few points to the Minister's attention. St. Francis hospice, with an annual budget of £3 million, is large in comparison with others. Out of that budget of £3 million, 38 per cent. of last year's income came from legacies, 6 per cent. from "in memory" donations, 10 per cent. from non-trading income from shops—there are 12 local St. Francis shops—18 per cent. from the local health authority, 3 per cent. from interest on other income, 8 per cent. from the Friends of St. Francis hospice, 14 per cent. from the development trust, and 3 per cent. from general donations. That highlights the uncertainty of that funding, which makes planning difficult.
Last year, the trust did well—in a manner of speaking—from legacies, one of which brought in more than £400,000, which was a tremendous boost to that year's funds. The budgets of previous years were exceeded, and there was even a spending deficit at a time when the hospice wants to develop services to meet the needs of the community, particularly in the innovative hospices at home sector, which has been supported by the community. The scheme not only provides important palliative care to the community, but does so where most people would like that care—at home. The service meets a popular demand, and we want to increase it, but to do so will require certainty of funding.

177WH
In addition to the uncertainty to which I have referred, there is uncertainty in other areas, such as charitable donations. The hospice is in competition with other charities in the area. For example, several children's hospices in our area rightly earn support, but at times when public support goes to the children's hospices, support for the adult hospice may decline.
In addition, with the introduction of the national lottery, when more giving went to lottery funds—rightly, given the good causes that the lottery supports—there was a dip in charitable donations. Charities throughout Britain have had to cope with that, and it has led to uncertainty. The hospice movement, which combines public and voluntary service, needs certainty.
I echo what hon. Members have already said in that regard. The NHS cancer plan, which most Members welcome, will provide an additional £50 million for the service up to 2004, but how much of that allocation will go to the voluntary sector? The independent movement throughout the country awaits an answer to that question. There is also the question of whether we want a more national framework in this area, and I am sure that that point will be discussed, which will help to clear up some of the uncertainty.
Will my hon. Friend comment on funding through the new opportunities fund? Clearly the concept of additionality runs through lottery funding. The question arises of how the voluntary sector fits into that concept and whether hospices need to take that into account. Guidelines would be helpful.
I conclude by congratulating all volunteers in the hospice movement, particularly those at St. Francis in my constituency, on their sterling work. The care that they give their fellow citizens is much appreciated and we could not deliver the level of service without them. I am sure that all those hundreds of thousands of volunteers throughout the country would welcome a positive move from the Government that encourages them to give more commitment to a worthwhile concept.
10.10 am
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I draw the Minister's attention to a situation that has arisen in my constituency. In Beckenham we have St. Christopher's hospice, which was the first hospice created by Dame Cicely Saunders, the founder of the modern hospice movement. St. Christopher's is very important within the constituency and funding raised locally is key to its success—a matter to which all hon. Members who have spoken have referred. It is significant that there is such a measure of agreement across all political parties about the future of hospices. All 659 Members of Parliament probably give generously to hospices and will continue to do so.
On Saturday morning I went out campaigning for the Conservatives in West Wickham high street and spotted three yellow Liberal Democrat rosettes. I thought, "Oh good, I will meet my opposition challenger"—whom I have not met, having heard only the announcement of his selection. However, I discovered that those Liberal Democrats were seeking names for a petition to help the hospices. Hospices are completely non-party political and it concerns me that they could be hijacked by one
178WH
political party. It would certainly not help their funding if they were seen to be the creatures of a particular political party. It is also not very clever for any political party to get tied up with such a non-party political organisation. I therefore wanted to warn colleagues and the hospice movement that difficulties could be created for them if they were seen to become the flavour of the month of any political party—no matter which one.
Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair): Order. I understand the hon. Lady's point, but I am seized by her comment that we should not make this a party political issue. I am sure that she would not want to do that.
Mrs. Lait: You are right, Mr. Stevenson. I have no intention of making it a party political issue. I hope that the future of the hospices will be guaranteed by firing that warning shot across the bows of any political party that might be trying to hijack the hospices. I want to ensure that the future of hospices is guaranteed, not just by increasing Government funding from the 30 per cent. to the 35 per cent. that it was three years ago, but by encouraging the British population to continue to fund the hospices in the same generous way that it always has.
10.13 am
Mr. Tony Baldry: I am glad that the debate is taking place. Around 1985 Jack Ashley and I set up the all-party hospice group, which is still going. With the Duchess of Norfolk, we had numerous meetings with the then Secretary of State my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). Our concern at that stage was to get some regularity and evenness into funding for hospices. At the time, some hospices were in the independent sector—historically they had been almost totally funded by public money—and received no funding whatever from the NHS. There was no rhyme or reason as to who was funded or why they were funded in a particular way. The Government introduced a measure of underpinning, with the aim of ensuring that all hospices received some state funding. It will always be accepted that hospices are part of the voluntary movement. Rightly, a large proportion of their money comes from the voluntary sector. We have heard of considerable fund raising efforts. It is no different in north Oxfordshire, where many people support the excellent Katherine House hospice.
Hospices want just two things from the Government. First, they want to be able to predict what the funding arrangements will be, not just for one year, but for a number of years. They do not expect to be 100 per cent. funded. Indeed, they would not want to be, but they do want predictability. Secondly, hospices want certainty in their relationships with local NHS hospital trusts, primary care trusts and the Department. If the Minister can provide the hospice movement with predictability on the level of funding over a range of years and with certainty in its relationships with the rest of health care provision, it will get on and provide an excellent palliative care service.
Cancer is now a larger killer than heart disease. Ironically, advances in medical care mean that, inevitably, more of our constituents will require the help, support and care that the hospice movement provides. The movement is a great tribute to a huge

179WH
number of people. It will not require much for the Government to provide both predictability and certainty. I hope that the Minister can do that today.
10.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on raising this issue. It is clear from the contributions that it is important to many of us. I take the point of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) that it is not a party political issue. I hope, therefore, that she will forgive me if I sometimes refer to the extra funding from the Labour Government. We know that we all support the hospices. I agree with the hon. Lady—it is questionable to campaign on the issue. People should be careful when they do their campaigning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) rightly paid tribute not only to the work of volunteers, but to their fund raising. The issues in relation to hospices include our relationship with the voluntary sector. That is an important issue. Several hon. Members made the point about the concordat and the type of relationship that we have with the sector. I hope that most of the specific questions raised will be covered in the speech itself.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) paid tribute to his own hospice. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), most of us learned about hospices through the good work that is being done on our patch. It is therefore understandable that, when we return to our constituencies and see that good work, we will make the case for that particular institution. Although we welcome extra money to deal with the inadequacies in some areas, we do not want our own areas to be punished. We hope that a balance can be struck between dealing with areas where there is no provision and supporting existing provision. It is a balancing act; it is not a question of either/or. Both those things must be done at the same time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on having had the foresight all those years ago, with Lord Ashley, to set up the all-party hospice group.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I put on record my appreciation of the work by Cotswold Care. He has invited me to visit the hospice, and I am happy to accept that invitation, provided diary requirements can be met. I should like to come very soon.
The hospice movement in the United Kingdom is widely recognised as the world leader. It is committed to working with the voluntary sector. It delivers something extremely valuable in a very challenging area.
A Government's relationship with the voluntary sector should be complementary. We should work in partnership; one should not take over the other. It is widely recognised that the voluntary sector is often capable of doing things that the NHS could not do on its own. The sector has been the driving force for many innovations. It was determined to move into areas which the NHS had not covered. I would not want to lose that innovative drive.
We need partnership, but it is a two-way process. We need to ensure that health authorities have an agreed strategy in place and the voluntary sector needs to
180WH
ensure that the service developments that they are planning are developed and agreed with the local health authority and meet the agreed priorities for the area. The concordat that we signed with the independent sector was of that nature—it established a strategic long-term relationship. I hope that some of the other arrangements that we have in place in the hospice sector will convince hon. Members that we wish to have a longterm sustainable strategic relationship with hospices.
Hospices have shown many of us how care for patients who are approaching the end of their life and how support for them and their families should be provided. That involves both adult and children's services.l
I focus initially on what we are doing for adult services. For too long, the NHS has regarded palliative care as an optional extra. Hospices have suffered from a lack of long-term stability for too long. I know that some health authorities are aware of hospices facing particular financial pressures and have invested some short-term funding to ease current pressures. We also know that many hospices have only one-year, not three-year, agreements with health authorities. Two thirds of health authorities do not have an agreed palliative care strategy, despite guidance from the Department that states clearly their responsibilities in that area.
It is small wonder that the hospice movement feels that it has been taken for granted and has helped, as it puts it, to bail out the NHS by providing high-quality care at low cost. We do not think that that is good enough. We need and are determined to make rapid progress. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health is working to ensure that health authorities take action and meet the guidance set.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, funding is a real issue for hospices and some are facing financial difficulties. That is why we will invest an additional £50 million in adult hospices and specialist palliative care services to end the inequalities in access and to make a more realistic contribution to hospice costs.
The issue was raised as to whether some of the £50 million will go in preference to NHS hospices. It is a question of looking at the cancer networks, the strategic plans, who the providers are and how the provision fits in. Within that, I expect that significant amounts will go to the voluntary sector. It is a question not of the status of the organisation, but the care provided and the needs of the area. We have ensured that that is a priority within the NHS plan implementation project for 2001–02. We have asked the cancer networks to have costed, strategic plans for palliative care in partnership with the voluntary sector.
The £50 million invested in palliative care will ensure that the NHS makes a realistic contribution to the costs that hospices incur in providing agreed levels of service. Realistic funding must be based on a firm footing. That is why we need costed plans, benchmarking, performance indicators and standards. We will therefore monitor plans for palliative care strategic investment very closely. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that, although we want partnerships, which we underpin by funding, it is not a question of taking control. We must ensure that minimum standards are met and that services fit in with the overall strategic provision.

181WH
A particular concern has been raised by the hospice movement relating to keeping pace with NHS inflation uplifts. The £50 million that is going into the system will help to deal with that. That will be performance managed through service and financial framework processes monitored quarterly.
As I have said, the NHS has relied on the good will of the voluntary sector for too long. With the launch of the NHS cancer plan came the announcement of additional funding for hospices and specialist palliative care services. That move has been warmly welcomed in some quarters, but I acknowledge that there have been cries of too little too late in others. The additional money, however, is only part of the solution. As I see it, the future for hospices and cancer networks is in working together to identify current specialist palliative care provision and in planning for future investment.
There are several ways of achieving that. Hospices should not only play a full role in cancer networks, but establish a firmer strategic footing with health authorities. Funding will also be provided through the new opportunities fund. A total of £23 million will fund a new programme of partnership schemes for community palliative care projects for adults and children, including respite care breaks. I take the point about access to new opportunities funding in some areas, but all the other things that are being done must be considered, too.
I urge hon. Members to be careful when they talk about ethnic minority needs. In my Birmingham constituency, by 2005, in educational terms, white working class estates will be classified as minority groups. Therefore, we should not make assumptions about minority group in a particular setting. Groups need to be supported wherever they are. It is not an urban versus rural areas issue. We must consider the networks and the level of provision.
Hospices contribute immense support, training and advice to colleagues in primary care. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud raised the issue of how the service fitted in with primary care. We are making £2 million available to support training district nurses in the general practice and principles of palliative care. We believe that that will enable more people to stay at home for longer.
It is worth mentioning the beacons programme for 2000–02, which supports eight palliative care beacons throughout the country. Those projects are examples of a partnership between the voluntary sector and the NHS and demonstrate good practice and innovation within particular aspects of palliative care services. The beacons are about sharing good practice. Although a lot
182WH
of good work is being done throughout the country, we must ensure that the sectors learn from each other and share their experience.
Similarly, my hon. Friend will be aware that the forthcoming national service framework for older people will build on the supportive and palliative care strategy that was set out in the cancer plan. That will provide a framework for delivering further improvements in the care of older people
Children's services are often mentioned in such debates. Much of the driving force for improving those services—we have had little understanding of the needs of the children and their families—has been provided by the forceful work of the hospice movement. In future, the NHS will work with those families and provide quality support.
The movement to support children has grown considerably in recent years. Much of the driving force has come from painful personal experience, and I pay tribute to those concerned. New nurse-led teams have been established to care for children with life-threatening and limiting illnesses in the community. They are known as Diana community children's nursing teams. They commenced in March 1999 to fill gaps in the provision of care for children with life-threatening illnesses who were living in the community and to support their families.
That was a much-needed new provision. Those teams work in partnership with other statutory and voluntary agencies to provide holistic—physical, social and emotional—support to children and their families in their homes and in surroundings that are familiar to them, as an alternative to hospital-based care. It has long been recognised that children with such conditions often prefer to have care and support in the family home. The Diana teams offer a lot of help and are much valued by all parts of the NHS.
Provision has been made for funds for children's hospices to come from the NHS. I briefly mention the work done on health improvement programmes and the general funding that is available. Again, palliative care services and voluntary health care providers play an important part in the development of Himps. Further to that general provision, we are making available additional sources of funding from the new opportunities fund.
We all sign up to the principle of providing compassionate care and service for patients in the last few days or months of their lives. That is why all agencies must work together. We deeply appreciate the contribution of the hospice movement. We want a longterm strategic relationship that supports them and the NHS in the interests of the patients and their families wherever they may live.

NHS Cost of Living Supplement
10.30 am
Mr. Robert Syms: I want to discuss an important and complex subject. It used often to be said that the national health service, with 1 million employees, was the largest organisation except for the Red army. I do not think that anyone knows these days how large the Red army is, but dealing with pay and the various other areas of the NHS is difficult and complex, and all Governments struggle with that.
Health authorities that have been given the cost of living supplement and additional money£65 million from April—to supplement the pay of their staff, doubtless consider that good. However, those of us who fall below the line and do not get that benefit for our hard-working NHS staff feel a degree of difficulty and unfairness. At the moment, petitions are going around Poole and Bournemouth hospitals, because people feel that they should be entitled to the benefit and that the Government have got the formula wrong. The benefit, although worth perhaps 2.5 per cent.—somewhere between £400 and £600—is not to be sniffed at for many people in the NHS who are on not particularly high wages.
My hon. Friends in Dorset and I have written to the Secretary of State to make it clear that we are concerned about the implementation of the proposal. If one health authority or county is given the benefit, and the authority next door is not, there will be a knock-on effect. If London receives it, but Kent, Essex or Suffolk do not, there will be a knock-on effect. If Avon receives the benefit, but Somerset or Gloucestershire do not, there will be an effect on the neighbouring area. Indeed, we in Dorset see that Wiltshire and Hampshire will get the cost of living supplement, while we will not. That is a matter of great concern, particularly for the Royal College of Nursing, which has been responsible for some of the petitions.
There have been previous attempts to try to put cost of living supplements, or some market forces element, into NHS pay. I have reviewed the staff side evidence to the review body on cost of living supplements. In 1989, the Department of Health in England introduced pay supplements to address recruitment and retention problems for hard-to-fill posts. The scheme, according to the staff side, had little impact and did not impress the review body with its cost effectiveness. There were some industrial relations problems when it was introduced, and the review body ended it in 1992.
In 1995, the review body attempted to increase the pace of local pay through the X plus Y mechanism. That mechanism was pursued again in 1996, but once again, according to the staff side, it proved counter-productive to recruitment and retention. It had an impact on morale, increasing dissatisfaction with the NHS among nurses, midwives and health visitors. There is a positive side for those who receive the benefits, but a negative side for those who do not.
According to the staff side, the effect of the cost of living supplement on labour market behaviour cannot be predicted with any degree of accuracy. It remains to be seen what impact the supplement will have when it is implemented in April. However, the key issue is that, if shortages are a supply side problem, the cost of living
184WH
supplement will simply move the shortages around the country. As the Government's NHS plan recognises, the health service has a real problem concerning human resources and the training of sufficiently qualified staff.
Nurses in areas with some of the highest vacancy rates will not qualify for the cost of living supplement. East Kent, for example, has one of the highest vacancy rates in the country, according to Department of Health statistics, and a number of hot spots in the west midlands do not qualify. There is a real problem. The Royal College of Nursing estimates that 22,000 nursing posts in the UK are vacant. If one starts with a fairly centralised pay structure and adds cost of living supplements that go to one county but not the next, it will have an impact on recruitment and retention in the neighbouring authority.
Equal pay for work of equal value has always been a principle in the NHS. There seems to be a move away from that. What is the Government's policy? Are they moving towards more regionalised pay as some in the nursing profession fear? Could the Minister explain the method on which the formula is based? The cut-off point seems to be 117 on the table. Those on or above that figure seem to get this benefit. How is the cost of living index calculated? What impact does housing have on that? What impact do vacancies have or the fact that staff in rural areas must travel and spend money on petrol? We need to know a lot more about how the Government arrived at those figures. Although it is obvious that Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster are the most expensive, other counties fall well below the line, including some near London where the cost of living is bound to be high.
In Dorset we have lived under one great disadvantage—the area cost adjustment, which means that we do not receive the same level of local government and police funds. It is perennial problem. This announcement from the NHS perhaps puts us at a further disadvantage in terms of how we will fund nurses' pay.One of my constituents, Mr. R. Bayldon MBE, TD, wrote to me. His wife works at Poole hospital. With the help of the internet, he compared the house prices in Poole and Southampton. Southampton is in Hampshire and so will receive the cost of living supplement, and Poole, being in Dorset, will not. It takes about half an hour to travel between the two by car, so they are within a relatively similar travel-towork area.
According to the Land Registry figures for the period between April and June 2000, the average price for a detached house in Poole was £191,772. The average price in Southampton was £154,206. The average price for a semi-detached house was £100,781 in Poole and £91,307 in Southampton. The average price for a terraced house was £86,589 in Poole and £80,790 in Southampton. The average price for a flat or maisonette was £102,475 in Poole and £68,731 in Southampton.
When one aggregates those figures, and I rather suspect that there are rather more detached houses in my constituency than in Southampton, the average house sale price between April and June 2000 in Poole was £132,396 and only £89,588 in Southampton. House prices are about 40 per cent. higher in Poole than in Southampton. The problem is that nurses who are deciding where to work can look at Southampton and see that they will get cheaper housing and more pay

185WH
through the cost of living supplement. Staff are likely to be sucked out of the Poole and Bournemouth area and the quality of service that my constituents receive is in danger of deteriorating.
I therefore ask the Minister to reconsider the cost of living supplement and perhaps to review how the body has come to those figures because I fear that we will have an increased vacancy rate in Poole and a more difficult job retaining staff. The real value of the NHS lies in its staff and the quality of service it provides to my constituents, so a higher vacancy level will cause problems. There are currently 39 vacancies for fully trained, full-time nurses in Poole, and a further 24 vacancies for which job offers have been sent out, but currently await acceptance.
This small measure could be a step in the right direction. We need to recruit good, qualified staff who want to work in Poole, but housing and the cost of living there is expensive, so people—who obviously have to put themselves and their families first—often go elsewhere. The Salisbury area in Wiltshire and the Hampshire area receive the benefit, but Poole and south-east Dorset—also an expensive area—do not. The differential impact will be significant.
Will the Minister set out clearly how the formula has been applied? Will she give an assurance that further scrutiny will take place before we go down this particular road? It will cause difficulties for my constituents, many of whom believe that it is unfair and unjust. In the near future I expect to present a petition signed by nurses that expresses their concerns.
This is a difficult and complex subject. The Government's decision to start to implement cost of living supplements would no doubt be viewed as courageous by Sir Humphrey Appleby because it pleases some and displeases others. I am a Member of Parliament representing people in Dorset, making a case for good hard-working NHS staff in Dorset.
10.41 am
Mr. John Whittingdale: I begin by putting on record the fact that my wife is a practice nurse who works in the national health service in North Essex. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing the debate and setting out a powerful case. He has demonstrated that Dorset's failure to receive the cost of living supplement has caused serious problems for health care in the area.
My constituency in Essex is a long way from my hon. Friend's, but what he said applies equally to my area. Curiously, Essex has also been excluded from the list of health authorities eligible to receive the cost of living supplement. My first communication about the matter included a list of all authorities that the Government had decided were eligible for the supplement.
The 15 eligible health authorities outside London include Avon, Wiltshire, Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire. Those areas doubtless face additional cost of living pressures, but fewer than counties such as Essex, which borders London. Travelling to Cambridgeshire where the supplement applies requires going through Essex, which does not qualify.
I am here today to represent my constituents in mid-Essex, but areas such as Kent and East Sussex feel equally strongly that they have been excluded unfairly
186WH
from the supplement and will face real problems on account of it. The issue has been taken up by the Royal College of Nursing, which first brought it to my attention and is now mounting a campaign on behalf of all the excluded authorities.
The supplement applies in one part of Essex. Just a few miles down the road from the Broomfield hospital, which serves the majority of my constituents, is Brentwood. Staff living in that area qualify for London weighting, which has created a huge disparity between the earnings of staff working in Brentwood and those working a short distance away in Chelmsford and Malden. There is no doubt that that is having an impact on the recruitment and retention of nursing staff.
My hon. Friend talked about house prices in Dorset, and the same problem applies in Essex. Not long ago, I saw figures showing that house prices in Chelmsford were rising faster than anywhere else in the country. If the supplement is genuinely intended to recognise the additional cost of living in areas of the south-east, Essex has a very strong case for inclusion. I find it bizarre that the county has not been included in the published list.
People do not enter the nursing profession because they expect great riches or rewards, but because it is a vocation. They are utterly dedicated to their jobs and provide a fantastic service to the people whose health they look after. Those staff also have to live, however, and there is no doubt that being a nurse is a pretty tough task. If people are not going to receive recognition of the additional costs that face them, their lives will be made considerably more difficult.
We can make comparisons with all public services, because there are problems of recruitment across the public services. We have had great difficulty in recruiting the number of nurses that we need, but there are equally great problems in recruiting police officers. Indeed, in a directly parallel case, an additional supplement is paid to police officers in the Metropolitan police area, but that supplement is not available in Essex. The effect is that people who would normally look to join the Essex police, are travelling quite a distance in order to join the Metropolitan police, because of the quite considerable financial benefit. I fear that the same may apply to nurses when they see what salaries are available not too far away as a result of the cost of living supplement.
My hon. Friend powerfully set out the disparities that will be created in the labour market if an apparently arbitrary method of allocating the supplement is proceeded with. Let me quote to the Minister a letter that I received from Mr. Clive Mortimer, branch secretary of the mid-Essex branch of the Royal College of Nursing, who is based at Broomfield hospital. He wrote to me about the problems that will be created as a result of this policy, saying:
"In not receiving this supplement our already bad recruitment and retention problem will get even worse, a situation that the RCN locally does not wish to see, because of the many knock-on effects, staff shortages, high use of expensive agency nurses to cover the loss and the worst scenario, a potential for a decrease in patient care."
One must take seriously a warning of that kind from the Royal College of Nursing. I urge the Minister to reflect on the representations that she has received. I have sent a copy of the letter to the Secretary of State to ask him to reconsider his policy. There is no doubt that the reference to a potential decrease in patient care is serious.

187WH
Not long ago, my constituents were alarmed by the publication of a survey that showed mortality rates in various hospitals across the country. It stated that Broomfield hospital had the second worst rate in the country. I do not believe that the shortage of nursing is contributing to that, and I want to know a lot more about the figures because there are questions about how they were compiled. However, there is no doubt that they raised serious concerns for local people. Alongside those figures, the survey showed that Broomfield had a lower ratio of nursing staff than other hospitals. I do not suggest that that has contributed to the mortality rate. I believe that that is not the case, and much more investigation is needed, but people are anxious about the figures and know that there is difficulty recruiting sufficient doctors and nurses.
The Government have tried to tackle the problem by introducing a supplement in certain areas. However, I ask the Minister to look again at the map and to consider whether the case for a cost of living supplement is equally strong in areas such as Dorset, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and my constituency in Essex.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on his success in the ballot for the debate. Before I respond to the hon. Gentleman, I shall clarify for the record a point made in the previous debate on hospices. The £23 million of the new opportunities fund is for adult services, including respite care.
An equally important matter is the NHS cost of living supplement. Every Member of Parliament whose constituency was not on the list responded with great passion, which provoked a heated debate. The supplement is not the only solution to labour shortages in some parts of the country and I shall therefore outline the thinking behind the proposal and the problem that it addresses. If Members would like me to do so, I shall later explain the precise way in which factors including market forces are calculated.
The NHS plan set out a strategy to give staff a better deal in their working lives. It is not a question of money but of capacity; we do not have enough doctors and nurses. Staff who commit themselves to a career in the NHS do not expect an easy life, but they are, nevertheless, entitled to expect their contribution to be valued and fairly rewarded. We must get that right; as the hon. Members for Poole and for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) recognised, it is crucial to the task of providing high-quality services that meet the needs of patients. That is the fundamental rationale behind our plans to increase staff numbers. By 2004, there will be 7,500 more consultants, 2,000 more general practitioners, 20,000 more nurses and 6,500 more therapists and other health professionals, and that will be achieved by a variety of means. Some short-term problems have long-term solutions, but in the meantime we have to consider the short-term solutions that work in tandem with them.
For a start, we will provide more training places; by 2004, more than 45,000 nurses and 13,000 therapists and other health professionals will have finished training.
188WH
Hon. Members said that they are afraid that shortages will be moved from one part of the country to another, and that will be prevented only if there is more training. In addition, there will be year-on-year increases in the number of training places available, so that by 2004 an extra 5,500 nurses, midwives and health visitors will be trained each year.
We will expand the number of training places: there will be an extra 4,450 therapists and other key professionals, plus an extra 1,000 specialist registrars—the feeder grade for future consultants—and 450 more doctors in training for general practice. We will expand the number of new medical school places allowing for a 40 per cent. increase in the numbers of medical students since the Government took office in 1997. When we decided where the extra training places would go, regional factors were taken into account because people tend to stay in the areas where they trained, particularly in the medical profession. The presence of a medical school attracts high-quality staff. Hon. Members who represent constituencies in the south-west will be aware of the new Peninsula medical school, which will not only provide training for extra doctors, but encourage high-quality staff to want to work there.
We will improve pay through our plans to modernise the outdated pay system, which has failed to keep pace with the demands of the NHS. We have acted to ensure that midwives have better access to progression. The decision to introduce cost of living supplements is another example of our intention to design and put in place targeted solutions to specific problems that need a new approach. In this instance, we intend to use cost of living supplements to top up the pay of key staff groups where there are labour market shortages.
Such targeted actions are in addition to above-inflation pay rises for all NHS staff from 1 April 2001. The latest awards will be worth at least 3.7 per cent.—0.8 per cent. ahead of the most recently announced inflation figures—with more for senior nurses, staff in the professions allied to medicine, health visitors, midwives and staff working in pathology. We have recognised the essential contribution of senior nurses and PAMs to delivery of the NHS plan. We have also recognised the particular problems experienced in recruiting and retaining suitably qualified pathology staff and have therefore singled them out for special treatment, as we did last year for cytology screening staff. Again, it is a question of long-term solutions, but in the short term we will pick off specific problems and see whether we can offer solutions to them.
We will improve working lives by making the way in which employers treat their staff a part of core performance measures, linked to the financial resources that they receive. We hope that staff retention will be much improved. To receive financial resources, employers will need to show how they are investing in training and development, tackling discrimination and harassment, and improving diversity.
Employers will also need to show how they are applying a policy of zero tolerance of violence against staff. Given the increase in attacks on NHS staff, that is important because we need to ensure that people want to continue working in the NHS. Employers will have to demonstrate how they are reducing accidents in the workplace and sick absences by providing better

189WH
occupational health and counselling services, and conduct annual staff attitude surveys to obtain feedback on whether they are good employers.
By 2003, all employers will be assessed against the human resources performance framework and the new improving working lives standard, which will mean that they need to demonstrate their commitment to flexible working arrangements, providing for flexi-time, annual hours, child care support, flexible retirement, career breaks and a reduced hours option. Hon. Members have referred to the expense of hospitals having to use agency staff. One reason why staff in some areas have decided to work for agencies is that they allow people to work the flexible hours that they want. We need to ensure that hospitals take those real concerns on board.
We have invested some £9 million—£25,000 per trust—to improve the working environment for staff. In 2001–02 and beyond, money will be invested in the extension of occupational health services. By 2004, more than £30 million will be invested in better child care facilities for NHS staff, providing for subsidised nurseries in about 100 hospitals.
We are tackling entrenched and often long-standing problems, which are not amenable to quick-fix solutions. Many of the initiatives that I have outlined will need time to bear fruit. That is why we also feel the need for a more immediate approach where it can deliver results. For that reason, we are working to recruit additional suitably qualified staff from abroad where feasible and have recently appointed a director of international recruitment to drive that work forward. All that activity shows our determination to adopt and put in place a wide-ranging menu of initiatives and policies to tackle entrenched problems with recruitment and retention and to maximise the length of time that qualified staff work in the NHS. Staff at one of the London hospitals told me that turnover would be reduced if they could guarantee that every employee stayed an extra six months, so retention of staff is important.
Low levels of participation among qualified staff in some areas are part of the problem. The NHS needs more staff to do the job that we need it to do and it needs to hold on to its existing staff so that skills and expertise are not wasted. As I have said, we are taking action on a number of fronts to deal with that problem, combining short-term strategies with creating the right building blocks for the future. Part of the problem is that we experience much greater difficulty in recruiting and retaining nurses and other specialist staff in London and some parts of the south of England. That situation is worsened by relatively low levels of participation in the NHS where there are, nevertheless, a wide range of job opportunities available to qualified staff.
We know that pay is not necessarily the panacea. A range of factors affect our ability to recruit and retain staff and we are responding with a wide-ranging package of measures. The hon. Member for Poole referred to the size of the NHS as an employer. People who work within the NHS are extremely reluctant to leave that organisation. The Royal College of Nursing recently did a survey that showed that nurses find leaving the NHS a difficult decision to make; it is not something that they do lightly. Equally, I do not expect
190WH
that staff who work in one hospital will look at a hospital 50 miles down the road and say, "I may get £400 extra, so I'll move there."
Mr. Syms: My concern is not the figures but whether that is the direction in which we are going. From day one, we are out and somewhere else is in. Will that be a trend?
Ms Stuart: As I said, this is a short, specific measure. It was an immediate response to an emerging immediate problem in some areas. We will see what happens as it develops.
An important unavoidable factor is that the cost of living in London and the south can be considerably higher than in other parts of the country. That has long been recognised for staff working in London and the fringe zone, who receive different scales of London weighting and fringe allowance to supplement their basic pay. That sometimes creates problems for employers trying to recruit staff in neighbouring areas where the cost of living is also relatively high but no London weighting or fringe allowance is available. I recognise the problem, outlined by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, that that affects not only the NHS but other public sector employers. The issue was raised when I recently visited Watford general hospital. Wherever we draw the boundaries there will be tensions but we need to keep a careful eye on how they play out.
As one of the ways of helping key staff in high-cost areas we have introduced a new cost of living supplement for London and parts of the south. As a brand new approach, it is bound to provoke interest and debate. We believe that it could make an important contribution to the raft of initiatives and make a real difference to our drive to increase the numbers of qualified staff in the key groups that I have identified. It will provide additional pay of between £600 and £1,000 per annum for qualified nurses, midwives, health visitors and PAMs in London health authorities and between £400 and £600 for equivalent staff in eligible health authorities outside London and the south of England.
We estimate that around 100,000 staff will benefit and have made £64 million available through allocations to health authorities. We accept that cliff edges are unhelpful and have done our best to minimise them in drawing up plans for the new supplements. However, it is difficult to get it right, given the vagaries of geography, travel-to-work zones and the choices that people make about where they live and work, and some staff and employers will find themselves on the wrong side of the line, wherever it is drawn, of the new allowance. We need to balance that against the need for a clear, transparent system.
The new allowance, by its nature, is perhaps the most precisely targeted of the range of new initiatives. We readily acknowledge that recruitment and retention problems exist beyond the areas eligible for cost of living supplements. That is why we will closely monitor the impact of the supplements on recruitment and retention rates and participation rates. We want to take an early view so as to be able to develop policy for the future. We shall announce details of additional funding that will be

191WH
made available for other recruitment and retention initiatives; it will be made available on the basis of bids to parts of the service that do not receive cost of living supplements and where there is scope for action.
Clearly, the hon. Member for Poole feels that the supplement should have applied to Dorset as well as to Hampshire and Wiltshire. The straightforward reason why it does not is that Dorset health authority does not meet the criteria set out in relation to the staff market forces factor. We set the qualifying level at a factor of 117. Hon. Members may like to know how the factor works. MFF, as it is called, consists of evaluating the elements that are given the highest weight in the overall index: it takes into account staff medical and dental costs, London weighting, non-pay issues and capital. The aim of the staff MFF is to reflect the geographical variations in staff costs that NHS employers incur. It is necessary, despite national pay arrangements, because the geographical variation in labour markets results in some NHS trusts facing higher hidden staff costs due to recruitment and retention difficulties, grade drift and the use of agency staff.
The staff MFF is based on the three latest years of the new earnings survey panel data set. The 2001–02 allocations are based on 1997, 1998 and 1999. The analysis uses individual earnings of full-time employees aged 16 to 70 in the private sector whose pay was not affected by absence: all others are stripped out. The annual sample is about 75,000. The hon. Member for Poole may wish that he had never asked, but I shall continue. The data is then aggregated into 78 zones based on London boroughs and the former metropolitan and shire counties. Each year's data is used in a regression analysis, which isolates the effect of geography and staff costs in each zone by accounting for the effect of other factors such as age, sex, industry and occupation. I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman if he would like further precise details.
Mr. Whittingdale: I am sure that the formula is excellent, but if it demonstrates that authorities in Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire face higher staff costs than the North Essex health authority, it may be flawed. I simply do not believe that that is the case.
Ms Stuart: It seems difficult to comprehend how the formula works, but I have been told by statisticians that the mechanism is well known and fully accepted. I would be pleased, as I said, to write to the hon. Gentleman with a more detailed analysis of the three authorities, explaining how the weightings were arrived at and establishing whether there were any flaws. I cannot deal with such statistical intricacies in this place. The qualifying level was set at a factor of 117, because it was the lowest score among London health authorities and represented the most natural break point. Dorset, in common with several other health authorities such as Bradford, Wakefield, Calderdale, Kirklees and Leicestershire, scored only 110. We recognise that Dorset has hot spots where the cost of living is high, but nearly 30 health authorities that do not meet the eligibility criteria overall score higher than Dorset.
192WH
Some may question whether the staff market forces factor was the right tool for setting the criteria. We reviewed the options and decided that it was the best available. It is not perfect, but the methodology is widely known and accepted in the NHS as a means of identifying high-cost areas and is continuously subject to rigorous academic review. As I said earlier, the cost of living supplement is not a panacea that will solve our problems. It is a small part of a much bigger jigsaw.
The survey is calculated from earnings survey data and average hourly earnings. We used those data as a proxy to provide the best basis to make decisions on eligibility. We certainly would not have thought it appropriate to use a formula based solely on vacancy rates, which are often as much a measure of good or indifferent human resources management as of genuine recruitment and retention difficulties. Striking a balance between addressing inadequate provision and services and rewarding success is important in all debates relating to the NHS, including the debate on hospices. If a hospital has a high staff turnover and bad retention rates, and finds it difficult to recruit, that is not necessarily a sign of specific problems of high costs, which more money would solve. The same would be true if a hospital used many agency staff. Such a hospital's human resources strategy would need close examination. That is why we did not use vacancy rates.
Poole hospital NHS trust is considering ethical international recruitment as an interim measure to address its problems. The hospital is also addressing longer-term solutions, such as administrative support for ward posts to take away some of the administrative tasks undertaken by nurses and free their time for nursing care. Poole hospital NHS trust is considering a range of policies to retain existing staff and attract new staff.
To achieve the qualified work force that we need for the future, we need to be able to attract and keep staff of the right calibre. We also need to make sure that the NHS is hanging on to the highest possible proportion of the people whom it trains. To do that, we need a multifaceted approach that tackles all aspects of the problems through a mix of immediate action, where we believe that it can make a difference, and more long-term change. Cost of living supplements for some key groups of qualified staff are part of an innovative package of measures. Our willingness to apply a previously untried solution is testament to our determination to solve entrenched problems of recruitment and retention once and for all.
I know that the hon. Member for Poole is concerned about the situation in Dorset, not least as it compares with Hampshire and Wiltshire, which are eligible for the supplement. I hope that he is satisfied that a range of other ways exists to deal with recruitment and retention difficulties, as his own hospitals are showing. The challenge is to find innovative local ways to keep key professionals in the NHS. Help with that is available through the regional offices and through various initiatives from which Dorset can benefit.
We do not foresee a sudden haemorrhaging of staff out of Dorset as a result of the introduction of cost of living supplements, and the hon. Gentleman recognised that staff would not suddenly leave his hospital over the next couple of months. However, he was concerned about the possible long-term knock-on effects. We

193WH
recognise that we need to keep an eye on that. There is no point robbing Peter to pay Paul, and we take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously.
I am sure that we all share the desire to resolve recruitment and retention problems in the NHS. However, we will not put all our eggs in one basket, and neither should the hon. Member for Poole. Pay is not the only answer, and using pay and the cost of living supplement is only one part of our response to a problem that we all need to approach with the widest possible perspective.
11.14 am
Sitting suspended.

Chile
11.30 am
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the opportunity to debate our relations with Chile and the situation in that country. First, I should declare an interest, which is in the Register of Members' Interests and is therefore openly on the record: I visited Chile last December and my fare was paid by human rights campaigners for Chile in this country; I was very grateful to them for that assistance.
Like other hon. Members, I have raised the issue of Chile in many debates since I was first elected in 1983. I visited Chile for the first time in 1970 and was inspired by much of what I saw there. I shared the hopes that were aroused by the election of the Popular Unity Government and, like millions around the world, I was appalled by the events of 1973, when British planes were used to bomb the presidential palace, which resulted in the death of President Allende, the rounding up of large numbers of people into the national stadium, and a reign of terror, including the caravan of death.
Many Members of Parliament worked tirelessly to help Chilean asylum seekers in the early 1970s. It would be wrong not to pause for a moment to remember the wonderful work by Dame Judith Hart and many other Members of Parliament in supporting Chilean people who came to this country. We should also recognise the enormous contribution by members of the Chilean exiled community, who have lived in this country ever since, as well as the work by the Chile Committee for Human Rights and the Chile Solidarity Campaign in raising support for victims of torture and showing the world the brutality committed during the Pinochet regime and during the coup.
That brutality was almost unparalleled in Latin America. After the planes bombed the palace, the police and the army went around systematically rounding up anyone who was believed to be a supporter of the Allende Government. The caravan of death went from town to town with groups of officers picking up anyone who was thought to be part of the Allende Government, who was then either summarily executed, or taken away for torture and later executed.
The bodies of many of those people have still not been recovered. That reign of terror did not stop after a few weeks; it went on for years. It had a strong foreign policy element: the Pinochet regime helped to establish Operation Condor, a process by which the military regimes of Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay co-operated to round up their supposed opponents and to mete out unspeakable acts of torture against them.
The record of the west and other countries in relation to Chile is patchy. There was a United Nations programme to assist people to leave Chile to live in a place of safety. A number came to Britain and more went to Sweden, Mexico, Cuba and several other countries, where they contributed to the societies there. At the same time, the United States, which, through its multinational connections, was heavily involved in the 1973 coup—I look forward to reading the accurate memoirs of Henry Kissinger, when he finally gets around to publishing them—imposed on Chile an economic strategy known as the Chicago school. That highest form of monetarism led to massive

195WH
unemployment, vast privatisation and the development of a yawning gap between rich and poor, which persists in Chile to this day.
The British contribution in the mid-1970s was to support human rights campaigners in Chile, but with the election of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister in 1979, British arms sales to Chile resumed. The Thatcher Government enjoyed close links with the Pinochet regime, as was amply demonstrated by visits to Pinochet while he was under house arrest in this country by Margaret Thatcher and Norman Lamont—and, indeed, by an hon. Member who is present today—and the Pinochet Foundation's presentation to Norman Lamont of a medal, which I am sure he is proud to wear.
Pinochet corrupted much of what went on throughout Latin America. For example, there was an interesting article in The Observer in December about the sale of drugs by the Pinochet regime. It stated:
"Twelve tons of the drug, with a street value of several billion pounds left Chile in 1986 and 1987 alone. The drugs, destined for Europe, have often been flown to Spanish territory by aircraft carrying Chilean-made arms for Iraq and Iran. Distribution to Britain and other European countries has been controlled by secret missions stationed in Chilean embassies in Stockholm and Madrid."
Such issues require examination because of the suggestion that the Pinochet regime, while in receipt of British military aid or arms, was involved in the international drugs trade.
It should be remembered that, throughout the time of the caravan of death and all its horrors, many people in Chile bravely stood up and campaigned for human rights to defend others from being imprisoned and tortured. I shall quote from a poem sent to me recently by a Chilean man, Tito Tricot—I shall not read it all as Mr. Tricot is quite loquacious and the poem is very long. It gives some idea of the feelings of people in Chile towards Pinochet and the caravan of death. It states:
"General Pinochet will be tried in relation to the massacre of 75 Chileans when a special army task force, known as 'Caravan of Death', toured the country executing prisoners. They all died a painful and slow death; their bodies were mutilated, their eyes carved up with knives, their limbs torn apart. How can a human being be capable of such horror? How could they inflict such pain on defenceless people? How could Pinochet and his henchmen transform the entire country into a Caravan of Death?"
The change of Government in 1990 came about not by accident, but because of international pressure following the campaign of the people in Chile and because of the sheer horror at what went on there. That led to the plebiscite in 1988 and, finally, to the election in 1990 of President Aylwin, whose inauguration I attended. It was a moving event, held in the national stadium. There was talk of reconciliation, of those things never again happening in Chile and of opening the history books, but the constitution that Pinochet bequeathed to the people of Chile protected him and his henchmen, gave them priority positions in the Senate and in the supreme court and granted them a high degree of immunity.
Although the Rettig commission did a lot of work and named a lot of people who had gone missing, there were few, if any, successful prosecutions as a result. Indeed, very little happened abroad other than the prosecution
196WH
for the death in Washington of Orlando Letelier in 1976. The problem for the people of Chile after 1990 was not that they had got rid of Pinochet, but that there was a collective attempt to forget what had happened.
Some people, however, were not prepared to forget and recognised that justice could come about only by revealing the truth. In that sense, credit must be given to Baltazar Garzon and others in Spain for their efforts to have Pinochet extradited when he arrived in this country.
I remember 16 October 1998 as a day of enormous significance, when news came that Pinochet had been arrested by the Metropolitan police under extradition law on the basis of a warrant issued by a Spanish court. Pinochet was subsequently held in this country for 503 days. In December, I visited the Agrupacion de los Desaparecidos, the family centre for those who disappeared, which displays a large poster saying "503 days". Those 503 days were crucial to the history of Chile because they enabled people to campaign for legal and constitutional change and to bring about the real justice that had been denied for so long.
The arrest of Pinochet had obvious reverberations around the world. The right of a state, in this case Britain, to arrest a former head of state was confirmed. Pinochet claimed first that he had diplomatic immunity and then that he had immunity as a former head of state. Both those claims were overturned by the House of Lords. Even after the House of Lords reheard the case once Judge Hoffmann had been removed from the initial panel of judges, Pinochet still was not granted immunity. Although he was indicted on charges of torture after 1988, he was nevertheless indicted both as a former head of state and head of the armed forces. The role played by the judiciary in this country in the process of international law against dictators, torturers and murderers was extremely significant.
Those who campaigned ceaselessly in Britain to ensure that the world knew about that deserve a huge amount of praise. They helped the world to know that Pinochet, the man who claimed that nothing moved in Chile without his permission, was finally brought down. It was a humbling sight to see him being taken away from Belmarsh magistrates court under a blanket. He was allowed to return to Chile on the basis of medical evidence that had been prepared at the request of the Chilean embassy here. Many of us strongly questioned both the purpose of the medical examinations and the conclusions that were drawn from them. The pictures of Pinochet getting off the plane in Chile and suddenly, Lazarus-like, being able to walk, talk, smile and wave, were a great surprise to many people.
I ask the Home Office and the Foreign Office to look again at the medical evidence on which Pinochet was allowed to go. A military hospital in Chile has now adjudged that he is fit to face trial and competent to understand the case against him. We should think carefully about the medical evidence that we were offered. It was not released initially. It was made public only after the Belgian Government continued with the case in the British courts.
I should also like the Minister to comment on the pressure under which the British Government were placed and the discussions that took place between the representatives of the British, United States, Spanish

197WH
and Chilean Governments during 1999. I understand that requests were made to find some form of words to allow Pinochet to return to Chile. Many of us were campaigning for a judicial process to take place against Pinochet in Europe, under extradition law to Spain, because we thought it unlikely at that stage that he would be tried in Chile. When the books are opened, it will be nice to know who put pressure on whom to ensure that Pinochet was allowed to leave these shores without going through the due judicial process.
When Pinochet returned to Chile, Judge Guzman and others who had worked hard during the intervening 10 years and more to uncover the bodies from the caravan of death began to assemble a massive case against him and the other military personnel. There is something deeply moving about talking to people who have been exhuming bodies from unmarked graves. Many of those bodies are now stored in the morgue in Santiago while the painful process of DNA testing to match bodies with relatives continues. Imagine the pain of people whose relatives disappeared after the coup in 1973 who still do not know their fate. Occasionally, someone goes along to the national memorial in the cemetery in Santiago and engraves another name, as another body is found and finally identified as yet another person who disappeared during the dictatorship.
During my visit, I went to the national stadium, the centre of torture to which many people were taken. I also went to the velodrome, where the worst torture took place. We walked around the velodrome, with victims of torture and others, and were struck by the stupidity, the horror and the arbitrariness of it. We stood on a concrete cycling track with beautiful mountains in the background, listening to a man talking about how he was tortured there. That man was just an attendant, a messenger, at the Chilean department of education, but someone—some fevered brain in the police or military—decided that he was central to some communist plot to subvert the whole of South America. He was unspeakably tortured, and he spoke about it with tears in his eyes, explaining what had been done to him and so many others.
I also attended international human rights day at Villa Grimaldi, in Santiago, the centre of interrogation and torture. It was a very moving event: more than 1,000 people took part to bear witness. I went to the national cemetery, and saw the names of the victims carved on the memorial—the brilliant, the famous and the almost unknown died equally. The name of Victor Jara was alongside those of less well known people.
At that time, there were high hopes in Chile that Pinochet would be put on trial. Unfortunately, the following day in the High Court, a writ for habeas corpus was successful, and Pinochet was de-arrested. Subsequently Judge Guzman and others managed to have a large number of other cases registered in the court in Chile. The medical examination has taken place, and Pinochet has been re-arrested and indicted. We have almost reached the point at which a legal process can begin against him.
Other issues are at stake. It must be obvious that a trial of Pinochet is not a trial of one individual. He did not act alone. He seized power in a conspiracy with other officers, supported by the military and by a number of multinational companies who had been waging economic warfare against Chile for years to
198WH
destabilise the country and create chaos in which they could seize power with all the brutality that they displayed. We need to know what those pressures were, who said what and who did what.
The United States of America was clearly involved. The Central Intelligence Agency had a large station in Chile. Henry Kissinger was personally involved. That much we know. Various companies were involved, not just in Chile but in the economic warfare against Chile. Thanks to brilliant work in the United States, many thousands of documents have been released by the State Department, and they are now held in the national archives at the national library in Santiago. Some documents have been doctored by the CIA—I was there on the day when they were presented, and some pages have literally been blanked out. They were obviously CIA documents, and it will now be hard to understand what was in them, but many others were very revealing, The USA's freedom of information law allows us that kind of information.
I ask again the question, which I have asked in the House and have raised in early-day motions—why cannot the same information be released in this country? The documents for 1970, which have been released under the 30-year rule, raise interesting points. They reveal a proposal from the United States and some other sources, that Britain should take part in some form of pre-emptive strike—a coup—to prevent the election as President of Chile of Salvador Allende, the Popular Unity candidate. That plot would have destabilised Allende's Government before they had even taken office. Records of meetings show that Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who became Foreign Secretary after the June 1970 general election, was put under pressure in this respect. Those papers give us a soupcon, a taster of what may be in other documents.
The United Kingdom is an important trading partner with Chile. We were an important arms seller to Chile, and we received a great deal of military co-operation secretly from Chile during the Falklands war. I ask the Minister to explain clearly why documents can be released in the United States, such as those relating to Operation Condor in Buenos Aires, in Montevideo and in Asuncion, which are now held at the high court in Asuncion, but not here. What is so special about Britain that we cannot reveal the secrets that we hold?
When the trial of Pinochet and his military officers takes place, we will need to know the truth, and those documents will help to uncover the truth of how torture and murder took place. I ask the Minister, with the greatest respect, to look again at this issue. Although there is no international legal process against Pinochet and his generals in the same way that there is in the case of Rwanda or former Yugoslavia, or that there was in the case of former Nazi Germany, it is likely that a big case will be held in Chile, and those documents could provide an important part of it and could encourage other countries to release documents.
The cases of two British nationals and one American national could be included in the process. I will deal first with the American national. Charles Horman, a young American living in Chile in the 1970s, was taken away, tortured and killed. His story became the subject of the absolutely brilliant film "Missing", which demonstrated the arbitrary nature of military power and its vileness and brutality. Charlie Horman's widow came to this

199WH
country to bear witness when the House of Lords case was going on, and I met her then. She also went to Chile and took part in a symbolic cleansing process of part of the national stadium. She has since issued an appeal, from which I will briefly quote:
"Charles' mother Elizabeth, now 96, and I thank you for your support of our efforts to get at the truth concerning the death of Charles Horman in Chile in 1973— in which we firmly believe, the United States played a shameful part. Your help will enable us to shed light on one of the darkest chapters in the history of Latin America and our own country and will contribute to ending the practice of impunity for crimes against humanity, which characterised so much of the last century."
Joyce Horman is asking for international help to ensure that her husband's case is taken through the Chilean courts, and she has already ensured that case is registered.
Two British nationals also died in Chile. William Beausire died in 1975 and Father Michael Woodward two years later. Both were tortured and killed for no good reason. Their families still grieve for them and are still in a very distressed state because of them.
I have constantly raised questions about these cases and there are two particular aspects that I would like to emphasise. First, when we had the opportunity to allow a private criminal case to take place against General Pinochet while he was being held in Britain, the then Attorney-General refused permission for that case to be deposited in the British courts. That was despite the fact that the Metropolitan police were undertaking an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of William Beausire, and despite the fact that a vast amount of evidence had been deposited with the Metropolitan police at that time by me and others. I asked the Solicitor-General about this at Question Time last week and the last part of his answer was:
"Under the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, it is possible for authorities in this country to assist prosecution in Chile, and that might well happen."—[Official Report, 1 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 442.]
I have also received a letter from the Minister concerning that matter and the case of Father Michael Woodward. The Minister is aware of Father Woodward's case, having met his sister and spoken with his family. Indeed, he raised the case when he went to the inauguration of President Lagos in Chile last year. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to offer us some hope that, as with the case of Charles Horman, whose case has now been deposited in the courts in Chile, the British authorities will give all assistance they possibly can to uncover the truth of who was guilty of the murders of Beausire and Woodward, and that all Foreign Office documents relating to their disappearance and death, including cables and reports that came from the embassy at the time, will be revealed. Statements made at the time by the Foreign Secretary, David Owen, suggest that a great deal of knowledge should to be brought to light.
The process that has taken place in Chile can bring about justice. It cannot bring back the dead, turn the clock back or take the torches away, but it can indict the people who seized power and who destroyed so much of that country, murdered so many people and set such a terrible example around the world. It can and, I hope,
200WH
will hasten the inauguration of the International Criminal Court that will mean the Pinochets of tomorrow will face justice more quickly and simply.
We have had more than 10 years of pursuit of Pinochet since he ceased to be president and he still has not faced justice. He offered no justice to his people but he has been offered every possible avenue of justice. We have a role to play. As a country, we played a role. I ask the Minister to ensure that we play our part in giving all the support we can to the people who are prosecuting in Chile. I ask him to open the books, to release the information to support the families of Beausire and Woodward, to tell us the truth about what happened and what the British arms sold to Chile were used for in the 1980s. Do we too, through our arms trade, have blood on our hands because of what happened in Chile?
I hope that that process can be a lesson for all of us about the dangers of the economic madness that went on in Chile after Pinochet seized power and the unbridled power of multinational capital, which was used to promote that coup and all the horrors that went with it, so that the world never again sees the likes of General Pinochet, Operation Condor and so many other things.
11.56 am
Mr. John Wilkinson: We owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for introducing this important debate on Britain's relations with Chile. We all recognise his long and deep interest in the country. My own interest does not go back quite as far as his, but I have been going to Chile every year since the mid 1980s for family reasons. My last visit was during the Christmas recess, when I spent a significant amount of time in the south of Chile and in the capital, Santiago.
I have tried to keep up to date and have the privilege of serving under the hon. Gentleman as vice-chairman of the British-Chile all-party group, which I founded when Chile regained a democracy. We try in the House to foster good relations with Chile. That is easy in the sense that Chile is an exemplary democracy: it scored a commendable success in effecting a difficult transition from a period of enforced military rule. The last presidential elections, closely fought, brought the socialist president Ricardo Lagos to power by an extremely narrow margin over Mr. Lavin. The campaign was peaceful and the institution of the new Administration was successful in every way.
The interesting thing is that although the hon. Gentleman criticises the Chicago school of economic reforms that were instituted at the time of the military government, those reforms have been largely maintained. Other Latin American economies have benefited from using these reforms as a model. Chile is a reasonably prosperous country: according to "Whitaker's Almanac" it has an unemployment rate of some 7 per cent. and an inflation rate of some 5 per cent, figures that compare favourably with many countries in the European Union. It has a diverse economy which is modernising rapidly.
As far as the United Kingdom is concerned Chile is, and always has been, an important trading partner. The United Kingdom was active at the time of Chile's liberation from the Spanish empire. The commander in

201WH
chief of the Chilean navy at that time, Admiral Cochrane, was instrumental in the liberation of Chile. Moreover, through his assistance by seaborne interventions in the campaign of San Martin in Peru, he helped to liberate that country as well.
The first President of Chile, Bernardo O'Higgins, who was the bastard son of the viceroy of Peru, spent formative years at Richmond upon Thames. Those personal connections, reinforced by the Canning doctrine, whereby it was held that the new world was called into existence to redress the balance of the old, meant that the United Kingdom had an important relationship with the Chilean state from its beginning and throughout the 19th century, particularly in shipping, the development of Chile's railways, mining and the exploitation of the important nitrate deposits in the north.
As a consequence, there has been a significant Anglo-Chilean community in Chile. President Aylwin, the Christian Democrat who followed General Pinochet as head of state, can trace his roots back to the UK and has family connections, I believe, in Sussex. Such connections are not unusual among a large number of Chileans, which was brought home to me when I visited The Grange, a famous secondary school, where a plaque on the wall commemorated the casualties of the second world war. A large number of pupils had gone back to England to fight in the British armed forces, particularly as airmen; there were many names of those who perished on our behalf while fighting in the Royal Air Force.
In the post-war period, the trading relationship declined somewhat, but it has reasserted itself to the extent that the UK is the third biggest investor in Chile after the United States and Spain. Therefore, we have an important stake in Chile. Visible trade is also significant to us, although our trade is not in balance: the Chileans sell much more to us than we sell to them. Customs and Excise statistics show that UK exports to Chile in the first 11 months of last year were worth £106 million, whereas Chilean exports to the UK were worth £436 million. That is a remarkable achievement by the Chileans and shows how important it is for UK exporters to be even more active in the Chilean market. Only recently, there was a seminar in Santiago, which was attended by the Minister for Housing and Planning and European Union Commissioner Chris Patten. We are doing our best through the Latin American trade advisory group—which comes under the new trading arrangements instituted by Her Majesty's Government—and are hopeful that trade will grow and expand.
As I have said, Chilean democratic credentials are excellent, as is its tradition of the rule of law. The hon. Member for Islington, North referred to the case of Senator Pinochet, which is being dealt with in the Chilean courts. It is entirely appropriate that Chileans decide for themselves how they deal with citizens such as Senator Pinochet against whom serious allegations are levelled. It is often alleged that Chile has an imperfect democracy because of the appointed senators, of whom Pinochet is one. However, 38 of the senators are elected and only nine are appointed, whereas we have no directly elected members of the Upper House and a much larger number of appointed peers than those who remain in the Upper House by virtue of the indirect election. Chile has 120 deputies, who are elected for a
202WH
four-year term. The presidential term is a single term of only six years, which is the maximum allowed under the Chilean constitution, whereas in this country one can be re-elected as Prime Minister for several terms. I do not think that the Chileans' democratic credentials are in question, nor is their adherence to the rule of law.
It is true and tragic that there was a period, dating from the assumption of power by the junta in 1973, when Chile was under military rule, but one must remember that the people of Chile largely urged the military to intervene: the Congress of Chile did so, as did the supreme court and the auditor general of Chile. Many more people were killed in Peru in that period, during the Sendero Luminoso terrorist campaign. Many more people were killed in the insurgencies in Colombia—we hope that the guerrilla problem there will be solved by President Pastrana's peace process. The same is true of the bitter civil wars in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, which were largely fostered and stoked up by the intervention of the Cubans. At least the intervention of the armed forces in Chile in 1973 ensured that Marxist influence was checked in Latin America. It was a turning point in the cold war, like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the assumption of power in Egypt by Anwar Sadat.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): I believe passionately that a crucial distinction ought to be made in respect of some of the examples that the hon. Gentleman has given. If I recall rightly, President Allende was democratically elected—that is a vital difference.
Mr. Wilkinson: I have mentioned the fact that democratic institutions were being subverted in Chile at the time of Popular Unity Government of Salvador Allende. That was the tragedy of the situation.
No one understood the tragedy better than the Chilean people themselves. The economic position of the country was utterly disastrous, with an inflation rate of 500 per cent and acute shortages in the shops. Eventually, there were even attempts to generate mutinies in the armed forces, especially the Chilean navy. It was the attempt to engender mutiny in the Chilean navy that brought about the call by the commander in chief of the Chilean navy for the Chilean armed forces to intervene. It was not not something that people did lightly.
Now, the people of Chile, rightly, want to put all that behind them. They have had, as I have explained, a successful transition period and they wonder why, when people talk about Chile, they focus on such a relatively small period in that country's history. In 1988, there was referendum in which 44 per cent. voted for Senator Pinochet to stay in power—not a majority vote, but the same proportion of the electorate as the present Prime Minister in this country got at the last election. It was not a majority vote and General Pinochet relinquished power.
As I have explained, the transition was—thank God—exemplary and the Chileans rejoice in that fact. They want to move forward, to develop their economy and their institutions, improve social provision, eliminate poverty, improve the health services and do all

203WH
the other things that a normal democratic Government would do. They deserve support and encouragement in this process, which is, by and large, going well.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman estimate how many people died or disappeared and how many were tortured in what he describes as a relatively minor period in Chilean history? Is he seriously suggesting that somehow the military was forced by a wave of public opinion to lock up people in the national stadium, institute the caravan of death and everything else? He is offering us a ludicrous perversion of history.
Mr. Wilkinson: I wish that it were a perversion of history. The hon. Gentleman referred to the documents that have been published by American sources. If those are read and studied, they reveal a catalogue of foreign involvement in Chile. The outgoing president, Salvador Allende, who was murdered, was toting a machine gun that he was given by Fidel Castro, his closest ally, who had provided a great many Cuban experts. There were floods of illegal arms into Chile; many members of the security forces were killed and the country was descending into anarchy. In those circumstances, the armed forces felt that they had to intervene. I stress again that those are aspects of the cold war: there was an intense ideological division, not only in Chile, but elsewhere in the world. Thank goodness that we have put that period of history behind us.
I have stressed that the Chilean economy is, broadly speaking, well run and diverse. Chile has good trading relations with the UK and with other countries—for example, it has trading agreements with the European Union and Mexico and is a member of Mercosur. Chile's is a liberal, open economy from which its people have benefited. Now, they want to use the increased prosperity that the reforms have produced to improve the standard of living of the people as a whole. Such an objective merits merits every encouragement from the United Kingdom and other countries that have always had a friendly relationship with Chile.
The hon. Member for Islington, North mentioned arms sales. In that respect, the pattern of purchases from Chile is broadly based: the latest submarines are Franco-Spanish Scorpenes submarines, which replace British Oberon submarines. The army is buying Leopard 1 tanks from Germany; and in the wake of the United States Government's more liberal policy towards arms sales to Latin America, the air force is closely examining the F16, although there could be a problem over the armaments. No one could suggest that we are interested in Chile only because of arms sales. Britain's investments in Chile are much more broadly based, in industries such as mining, agriculture, salmon farming, transportation and much else besides. This is all to the good. As I explained, we are the third biggest investor in that country.
I hope that the House recognises that Chile is a liberal democracy with rule of law and democratic institutions that have the full support of the Chilean people. The people hope that the good relations with the UK that have always been beneficial to both countries will be maintained. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government want that and that most hon. Members want it, too.
12.13
Mrs. Ray Michie rose—
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): Order. So that the Minister has time to reply to this important debate, I ask the hon. Lady to keep her comments brief.
Mrs. Michie: Thank you, Mr. Olner. I will be as swift as I can.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on having secured the debate. I welcome the opportunity to raise briefly a matter which, given the tenor of the debate, may surprise the Minister and hon. Members. I hope that, although the issue that I raise is entirely different, the hon. Member for Islington, North will understand that that does not mean that I do not acknowledge and appreciate the remarks he made with knowledge and sincerity about human rights in Chile. However, I believe that it is necessary to draw attention to our trading relations with that country, and I am trying to do that under the heading of UK relations with Chile.
One matter in particular could cause a deterioration in our relations and the loss of significant exports, worth many hundreds of thousands of pounds. When talking about our history of trade and investment in Chile, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) mentioned salmon farming and, in so doing, foreshadowed the matters that I wish to discuss.
I have in my constituency a company, Land Catch Salmon Hatchery, which has been exporting high-quality, disease-free salmon eggs to Chile since 1988. The company has established an enviable reputation and track record in many years of trading with Chile. I had the pleasure of opening the salmon breeding and research unit in 1988. The problem is the regulations introduced in December by the Chilean department of fisheries, apparently because of infectious salmon anaemia, commonly known as ISA. No ISA has been diagnosed in Scotland for two years. By banning the imports of salmon eggs originating from Scotland because of concerns about ISA, Chile is unilaterally treating the whole of Scotland as a controlled zone for ISA. It is not. Ormsary in my constituency has never had any ISA. It is in an ISA-free zone. The Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department has established ISA-free zones to standards exceeding those recommended by international organisations and has made that clear, as has the company on numerous occasions to the Chilean authorities.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood also talked about our investment in Chile. There are customers in Chile who want to invest and who have built the required facilities. They need to know immediately that they can import land-catch eggs as normal but the new quarantine regulations make that difficult.
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): Order. Will the hon. Lady draw her comments to a conclusion so that the Minister may reply?
Mrs. Michie: The company is a highly regarded breeding stock catchery with stringent health and environmental regulations. The impasse has existed since the end of August. We are likely to lose another

205WH
£500,000. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer me in detail today but I should like advice about what I should do because the situation is critical.
12.16 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on winning the debate in the ballot and I thank him for raising the topic. He has conducted a sustained campaign for human rights internationally, and has stood up for human rights in Chile for many years—certainly for as long as I have known him.
My hon. Friend declared an interest and said that he had visited Chile. I hope that he did not declare that with any chagrin because I welcome the fact that he visits Chile. I would encourage other hon. Members and Ministers to do so as often as they can. We are building good relations with President Lagos's Government. Maybe I too should declare an interest retrospectively. I vividly remember the accounts of what happened in the Santiago football stadium in the early 1970s and I was involved in supporting the Chile Solidarity Campaign. Chileans came to my home city of Leeds where we made them warmly welcome and campaigned with them. Some of them remain good friends to this day, including some who, thankfully, have been able to return to Chile—some to high office in the Chilean Government, which is encouraging.
Those who commit atrocities should be brought to justice internationally and locally and we should campaign for that. I visited Chile just a few days after Pinochet's return—I went with some fear and trepidation, although I did not quite go out on the same plane as he did—to attend the inauguration of President Lagos. When I got there, I expected and received two reactions. One was from Chileans who felt that they wanted to "sort him out" themselves and bring him to justice, and the other was from those who felt that we should not even have challenged him because he had done such a great job.
Our relations with the new Government are now on an excellent footing and will be developed on that basis. We can work together on those matters and on trade relations. The episode of General Pinochet staying in Britain is not a barrier between us and is not holding back our relations politically, socially, culturally or commercially.
I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) about trade. We have good trade relations. The Minister for Housing and Planning visited Chile in November, the Minister for Trade did so in December, and there have been meetings with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also had a positive meeting with President Lagos in New York in September last year. Our trade relations are going well. We are encouraging and strengthening our ties commercially, politically and economically.
The arguments of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood were surprising. Would he have justified a coup in Britain against Mrs. Thatcher at the time of the poll tax? That would make an interesting debate, but I shall not go down that road.
I can tell the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) that we are concerned that Chile is imposing controls on the import of salmon eggs from
206WH
Scotland. All countries have the right to regulate imports on health grounds, but the production of salmon eggs in Scotland is subject to one of the strictest health regimes in the world. We are urging, and will continue to urge, the Chilean authorities to remove their import controls. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the issue on behalf of her constituents. The Government intend to help.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North raised human rights issues. Dealing with the legacy of the Pinochet Government remains an immense challenge for the present Chilean Government and for the Chilean people. The National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation, set up under President Aylwin, examined the human rights record of the military and its report identified more than 3,000 deaths and disappearances between 1973 and 1990.
Since 1990, more than 300 prosecutions for human rights abuses committed under the Pinochet regime have taken place in Chile—including the prosecution of the former head of the Chilean intelligence service under Pinochet. Some progress has been made since 1990—and since the restoration of democracy under Presidents Aylwin, Frei and Lagos. The fates of most of the 1,009 disappeared remain unknown, but information and the truth will come out eventually.
On January 5 this year, the armed forces handed over to President Lagos a report containing information gathered over the previous six months about the fate of some 200 of the disappeared. That information is now in the hands of investigating judges, who must try to establish what happened. The difference between the Executive and the judiciary is important: it is the judiciary who must process the allegations and bring those responsible to book.
As a direct result of the information provided by the armed forces in their round table report, established in August 1999, human remains have now been discovered in a disused copper mine on the Santiago hillside of Cuesta Barriga. The outcome of the round table leaves many cases yet unresolved, but it is a breakthrough. I gain the clear impression, on the basis of our relations with President Lagos and his Administration, that the Chilean Government intend to call people to account and ensure that justice is done.
Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend the Minister able to discuss with the Chilean Government, the Department of Health and human rights groups in Chile whether we could provide any forensic DNA-type support to help to identify the remains?
Mr. Battle: That is a practical and positive suggestion. I am prepared to make that offer: there is no reason why Chile cannot use the best of our scientific techniques.
The commander of the army's division in the northern region of Antofagasta where the caravan of death took place gave a surprise TV interview on 25 January, firmly blaming Pinochet for the military regime's human rights violations. General Lagos's comments were prompted by Pinochet's statement to Judge Guzman that the regional commanders, not he, were to blame for failing to investigate human rights abuses in those zones. General Lagos's graphic descriptions of the victims who had been tortured before being murdered unsurprisingly

207WH
shocked the nation and the international community. A Government spokesperson described the interview as shattering and General Lagos's accusations prompted the usual reactions. They will be followed through.
On 31 January, Judge Guzman formally charged Pinochet as the co-author of 57 deaths and 18 kidnappings on that caravan of death case. His written decision details how the medical tests concluded that Pinochet had some mental impairment and was physically frail but was not incapable of facing trial. He rejected the defence's arguments that he should not face house arrest or trial for health reasons, but left open the possibility of Pinochet's poor health being a mitigating factor if and when sentence was passed. I simply draw my hon. Friend's attention to that because the UK medical decision is in the Library. It is important to emphasise that we let due process take place in all these matters. There was no collusion or collaboration and we were not leaned on by the Chilean authorities when Pinochet was here. I underline that.
Official reactions in Chile have been cautious. President Lagos was on holiday when the formal charges were placed, but Vice-President Insulza reiterated the Government's line of not commenting on judicial decisions. He recognised the significance of the ruling and welcomed the demonstration of the free and fair working of Chile's institutions, but he also noted that this was not the end of the line. The legal process has some way to run and there are several other processes to go through before there is a prospect of a trial. If appeals go badly for Pinochet, there could be movements towards that trial. The due processes of law are taking place in Chile.
I turn now to the other cases to which my hon. Friend referred. We have raised the case of William Beausire with the Chilean Government on a number of occasions and it was raised by previous Administrations in 1976 and 1979. The case was formally submitted to an ad hoc working group of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and our embassy in Santiago has also made numerous representations. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, I met Michael Woodward's sister, Pat Bennetts, on 10 February last year. Following that meeting I asked our embassy in Santiago to raise Father Woodward's case with the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The embassy called on the ministry in March
208WH
last year and it accepted that, although the case was detailed in the Rettig report, it did not establish who had been responsible for the torture and death of Father Woodward. It maintained that the Government had investigated the case as far as they could, but Mrs. Bennetts could take the matter forward only through the Chilean courts.
When I visited Santiago for the inauguration I raised the case again with our ambassador and asked the embassy to proceed through the diplomatic channels to make sure that the case was kept in the forefront of the Chilean authorities' minds. Mr. and Mrs. Bennetts had a meeting at our embassy in Santiago on 12 January. Mrs. Bennetts informed the embassy of her intention to present a law suit on her brother's case. Mr. Bennetts also expressed concern about the comments made by the commander in chief of the Chilean navy and the Chilean ambassador to Canada to the effect that torture had never taken place on the Esmeralda. The embassy had raised that with the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 19 January and it has acknowledged that those remarks caused concern in the Chilean Government and that that ambassador has been admonished. I give my hon. Friend my personal assurance that I will continue to press this case. We will draw to the attention of the Chilean authorities any information and evidence that comes our way.
My hon. Friend referred at length to the release of documents. The release of documents is governed by the Public Records Acts of 1958 and 1967. There are provisions for the release of documents earlier than 30 years after their creation, although the Foreign Office does not usually release records unless there is a compelling case for so doing. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, there are implications for bilateral relations with Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay if records relating to most of the 1970s and 1980s are released. Nevertheless, it would be a massive task to review all those files before they could be released, and it is a statutory obligation on all Departments to screen them for sensitivity.
My hon. Friend makes a serious and fair point about evidence that might help the Chilean authorities to bring people to account for their crimes. In this debate, however, I can only give him a commitment to look again at those records and see if there is anyway we can assist in bringing people to account. The International Criminal Court may be of help in that matter.

Policing (East Anglia)
12.30 pm.
Mr. Richard Spring: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate. I am also grateful to the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), for being here to respond.
Two weeks ago in Risby, near where I live in Suffolk, there was a raid on the small post office, which is part of an antiques centre. The raiders wore balaclavas and carried coshes. They screamed and shouted at the sub-postmistress, saying that they were going to kill her. They smashed the glass to ensure that the robbery was speeded up. It was a deeply shocking and traumatising experience for all involved. Just last week, across the border in Cambridgeshire in the village of Bassingbourne, a similar robbery took place. Masked robbers with baseball bats went into the post office and held it up. I have here an article from the Cambridge Evening News that proves the extent of the anxiety in the local community. The article points out that the robbery rapidly followed similar raids in Grantchester and Great Abington. Late last year, again in my constituency, the post office at Kedington was held up, on that occasion at gun point. That occurred shortly after a raid on the small post office at Stoke-by-Clare.
Let me make clear to the Minister something of which he will already be aware as a Member who represents an East Anglian constituency: such events are deeply traumatising to small communities. They have a ripple effect that sends out fear and anxiety in the locality. When a small shop or village post office is held up, the community's sense of well-being is greatly disturbed. The truth is that in the past two years in my constituency, in addition to the places I have already mentioned, hold-ups have taken place in Lakenheath, Dalham, Worlington, Horringer, Barton Mills, West Row and Newmarket. Even that is not a complete list. I have had hundreds of letters from people who are sick to death of the huge rise in violent crime in our region.
I focused on the problem in a newsletter that I put out just before Christmas. I pointed out that it was a source of considerable anxiety to people in my constituency and asked whether the concern was justified. The truth is that, since the general election, there have been 40 fewer police officers in the Suffolk constabulary and crime has risen by 20 per cent. Since April 1998, when the measurement of violent crime changed, crimes of violence in Suffolk have risen by 59 per cent.—twice the rate of other English counties. Given that, in the 12 months preceding April 1998, crimes of violence increased by 21.2 per cent, the figure of 59 per cent. over the four-year period of which I am speaking is certainly an underestimate. That is a shocking statistic. Such violence profoundly undermines the fabric of rural life.
To be frank, the problem arises from chronically inadequate police numbers. The pressures on Suffolk constabulary and surrounding constabularies are greater than ever and the effect on police officers' morale is devastating. A letter to me from Mrs. Butcher of Brandon reveals the problem. She states:
"In my young days, there were always two policemen on foot every night patrolling the town, even though we had a population of 2,000. Those were the days."
210WH
I refer to the results published in my "West Suffolk Westminster Report" after I invited people to put their views on crime and policing in my constituency. I asked 10 questions, of which the following are three with the responses. When asked, "Do you think that there are enough policemen and women on the streets?" only 1 per cent. replied yes and 98 per cent. no. The question "Do you feel that crime is on the increase in our local area?" elicited a yes from 84.1 per cent. and a no from 5.6 per cent. At the risk of straying into party politics, I also asked "Do you feel that the Government have met their pledge to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime?" to which 2 per cent. replied yes and 97 per cent. no.
The impact on local communities is reflected in the way in which the local media deal with the issue. They respond to the anxieties of people who live in the local community and who are extremely worried about the lack of police coverage. No one could describe the local newspapers in East Anglia as being remotely sensational. For example, on 17 January, the front-page headline of the Thetford & Watton Times, the local paper in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), stated: "Stand up to yobs on estate call". The article stated:
"A Thetford housing estate is being held to ransom by a group of marauding youths because residents are too scared to report incidents to the police."
The article refers not to a sink estate in an inner-city area in which alienation and despair might be rife, but to Norfolk, in East Anglia. Only a few days ago, a headline in the Cambridge Evening News read "Time to halt violent tide". The Newmarket Weekly News headline on 1 February was "Stern warning for criminals", and the following article stated that although the detection rate in Newmarket had gone up, which is welcome, crimes of violence in the preceding nine months had increased from 110 to 150. Thus the pattern continues.
I shall read the Minister an extract from a letter that truly disturbed me, from four 12-year-old girls who live in Newmarket—Catherine Snell, Elizabeth Lennie, Charlotte Telford and Corrine Marston. They said:
"We are concerned because there is a lot of vandalism, young smokers, alcoholism and drug abuse. We are also concerned because sometimes it is worrying to walk through the town where there are a lot of gangs of teenagers hanging around because they don't have anything to do."
That was reported in the Newmarket Journal and in the Soham and Newmarket Standard, which also carried two stories on—guess what—a baseball-bat thug in Mildenhall and an armed raider who was twice thwarted in the high street in Newmarket. Such things are deeply disturbing to the balance of communities, and the media are fully entitled to report them.
In Brandon—a police catchment area of about 20,000 people including those living in surrounding villages—there is sometimes only one police officer on duty. In Haverhill, with a catchment area of 33,000, there are sometimes only two police officers on duty, although I pay tribute to the success of Haverhill's police in reducing crime in the town. In Newmarket, too, the number of police officers has fallen in the past few years, in spite of Newmarket having become the nightclub capital of East Anglia. The pressures on the police are enormous. We have had staggeringly huge increases in

211WH
crime, yet the number of police officers has fallen. The chief constable of Suffolk spelled out the problem when he talked of his his constabulary being stretched to the limit and of the absolute need for 100 additional police officers. His views are summed up in a comment made to me by Mr. C A Bailey of Mildenhall, another constituent of mine, who said:
"My wife and I recently retired and we no longer feel able to walk safely in our local area in the evenings. Where are the police these days?"
I hear that cry every weekend when I am down in my constituency. I was given another letter from a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), a gentleman called David Barker, who is a distinguished former chairman of the National Farmers Union in Suffolk and who is very plugged in to his community. Mr. Barker writes:
"Although we have 1,100 in the Suffolk Police force many do not actually patrol. The Elmswell area has 35 villages and normally three police officers by day. At night there is virtually no cover because Elmswell and Eye, an area of 90 villages, has just one car on patrol. To travel from say Hoxne to West Suffolk to say Chadacre takes almost an hour. This is totally inadequate. We also have the problem of Life Science at Occold drawing away precious resources. This combined area, I am told, has 40 officers for one sixth of Suffolk."
Mr. Barker makes a further point:
"Rural people are being ignored and under protected in favour of the urban areas. Standard New Labour policy. I think the police force needs a good objective assessment to target police in the areas of real need."
There is widespread anxiety throughout my constituency, Suffolk and the rest of East Anglia. I would like to make two specific suggestions to the Minister, the first of which rests on the fact that much crime, particularly violent crime, has to do with youth crime. I have some pride in my involvement in setting up a drugs taskforce in Newmarket which has been replicated elsewhere, but I shall refer to a project that I saw while on a parliamentary visit to north America, one that dealt specifically with drugs and young people. I applaud many constabularies in different parts of the UK who have tried to connect to young people through specific projects—perhaps during the summer or school holidays—but the project I have in mind was a permanent one. It was in Ottawa in a truly run-down housing estate with every possible social problem—high crime, drug-taking, alienation, a very large immigrant community and many people who traditionally disliked each other. It was an almost impossible area for the police to deal with. What the police did was to identify something very simple about young people, which is that they have natural aggression. The police took over a building and turned into a sports centre run by police officers who had a good sporting track record and liked dealing with young people. Those officers started to build up a relationship with the young people and, crucially, acted as role models.
I allude to that idea having seen its success and because we need the Home Office to encourage and sponsor such projects, not only as the one-off schemes that exist now—although I repeat that I applaud them—but as projects to reach young people through sport and physical education.The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who must hold the world
212WH
parliamentary record for taskforces and reviews, announced the other day—though I think it curious that
it took nearly four years of Labour Government—that there would be a review of sport and physical education in schools. Physical education in this country is in rapid decline, and the level of fitness and sports participation among young people is not good. I hope that the Home Office will link up with the Department for Culture Media and Sport and have some input into the review. It is very important that we reach out to young people and that we make the police role models in their local communities. We have an opportunity to resolve a problem that exists in our schools; through the co-operation of the two Departments, the situation could be improved significantly. I applaud what is happening in Newmarket, where PC Greenwood is setting up a drop-in centre, which will be opening up to young people to encourage them to meet the police in a positive atmosphere. Not only are young people who participate in sport, less prone to criminal activity, they also perform better at school.
I would also like to make a very specific suggestion. The management of the Post Office have been down to my constituency, visiting the post offices that have been held-up and raided with the terrible consequences I already described. Running a small rural post office is expensive: it is difficult to build up the business, it is hard work, and the business is not very profitable. As a result, record numbers of rural post offices have been closing— there are 450 post offices for sale at this moment. I urge the Minister to talk to the Post Office about security in a proactive and positive way. I have repeatedly had meetings with the managers and they must be made to understand, that if there is inadequate security provision in rural post offices and if the police are not there to help when a problem arises, the ripple effect started by closure is exacerbated, encompassing all the problems that that brings for local communities. I urge the Minister to engage in high-level discussions with the Post Office on specific measures to address the issue.
It is a characteristic of the present Government that they like to target things—they have challenge funds and other sums that can be accessed for different purposes. I fully accept and acknowledge that there has been an increase in funding to the Suffolk constabulary, but the Minister should bear in mind—because it is a culture prevalent throughout Government Departments—that to secure those funds requires a very high level of bureaucratic activity on the part of the constabulary, and we know that the bureaucratic pressures on the police are already high. I hope that the ability of chief constables to organise policing in their areas is not being further impaired by the amount of bureaucratic activity that such funding requires.
At the heart of the issue is the absolute necessity to redress the reduction in police numbers that has happened in areas such as Suffolk. Indeed, we must add to those numbers. We must be tough on crime and on the causes of crime: in an area like East Anglia—where the causes of crime do not bear comparison with those in many other urban parts of England—there is no excuse. To be tough on crime requires transparency in sentencing and it requires that local criminal justice systems be supported so that magistrates understand about problem families in their local communities.

213WH
There is a crisis of violent criminality in East Anglia, in Suffolk in particular, and in my constituency. Enough is enough.
12.47 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on securing this debate, although I found some of his language a little extravagant. The debate provides a useful opportunity to air some of the concerns that have been raised about policing in East Anglia and it allows me accurately to set out the overall situation and put it into context.
East Anglia is relatively a very safe place to live. In all major categories of crime, offences per 1,000 of the population are well below the national average. In fact, the Audit Commission report on police performance for 1999–2000 published in January—the sort of good objective assessment to which the hon. Gentleman referred—shows that his local area of Suffolk, has the fourth lowest crime rate in England and one of the highest detection rates. I understand from the chief constable of Suffolk that house burglary in the force area is the lowest in the country in terms of number of offences and of repeat victims. The below-average trends for crime per 1,000 of the population are repeated in the other East Anglian counties of Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, to which I shall refer during the course of this debate. I shall leave north Essex out for the time being and stick to the three county areas that make up what might be called "real" East Anglia.
Overall crime in East Anglia increased by 6 per cent. between April 1996 and September 2000, and in the 12 months to September 2000, offences in Suffolk increased by 10.8 per cent., according to recently published figures. In Cambridgeshire, however, crime fell by 2.9 per cent. and in Norfolk by nearly 1 per cent. There was an overall decrease in crime over the population as a whole, but crime is still too high and all our policies and strategies are directed to bringing crime levels down.
In respect of funding, in recent years East Anglian forces have consistently set budgets that are above the national average: in the past two years, budgets have been increased by between 4.5 per cent. and 5.8 per cent., whereas the national average increase was 3.1 per cent. in 1999–2000 and 3.6 per cent in 2000–01. For 2001–02, forces in East Anglia will receive Government-supported funding increases of 5.6 per cent. across the range; Suffolk will receive 5.8 per cent., Norfolk 5.8 per cent. and Cambridgeshire 5.4 per cent. Those figures compare with the national average of 4.9 per cent., so each force and East Anglia as a whole will receive significantly more than the average overall increase. In addition, East Anglian forces will receive £4.626 million from the rural policing fund, which was specifically established by the Government to deal with some of the problems of crime in rural areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The settlement has been a good one for forces in East Anglia and I am sure that chief constables and their police authorities will use it to best effect.
It is common ground across the House that police numbers are important, but only as part of a comprehensive package of measures to ensure a modern
214WH
and efficient police service. The public, rightly, feel reassured by the visible presence of police officers on the streets; that helps to reduce the fear of crime and increases the possibility of gathering intelligence in order to address crime issues as they arise. That is why we established the crimefighting fund. At the end of September 2000, East Anglia had 3,768 police officers; I am glad to say that that reflected an increase on 31 March 2000. For the first time since 1993, police numbers are beginning to increase. It is also important to note that the number of civilian staff increased in the same period by 54 to 1,786 as of 30 September 2000. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that many of the extra civilian support staff will have been used to free police officers from paperwork and other jobs that can be as effectively undertaken by civilians. Thus, police officers will have been freed to spend more time on operational work. In Suffolk constabulary, that meant that the operational presence of police officers increased from 66 per cent. in 1988–89 to 70 per cent.—well above the national average of 53 per cent. In my own force area, the figure was 43 per cent, which is below average, but in Suffolk there was above average operational capacity.
There is further good news in the hon. Gentleman's local force area. Although his force had 31 fewer police officers on 30 September 2000 than on 31 March 2000, the force has projected that there will be 1,152 officers by 31 March this year, which is six more than there were 12 months before. Police forces in East Anglia have genuinely reversed the trend under which wastage exceeded recruitment. Our published police manpower statistics for 1999–2000 show that 83 officers were recruited and 167 left forces in East Anglia in that year. However, in the first six months of 2000–01 alone, 121 new officers were recruited and 89 left, meaning that 32 more officers joined the three forces than left them. Overall, the numbers are improving and we are determined that they will continue to improve by means of the crimefighting fund that the Government have established. I pay tribute to the three chief constables of Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk for their committed efforts to improve the situation. They lead strong and committed forces in areas of relatively low crime nationally and they seek to make a major difference to the communities that they serve. The position on police numbers is a strong one. There were 78,000 responses to our national recruitment campaign and a large number of expressions of interest, many of which have been passed on to forces in East Anglia.
I mentioned rural policing issues, which I will not go through in detail, except to say that £4.6 million—15 per cent. of the total available—has gone to East Anglia: Suffolk got £1.4 million, Norfolk £2.08 million and Cambridgeshire £1.1 million. The forces are spending money to support a wide variety of imaginative initiatives, including the development of intelligence-led patrols, the use of mobile police stations, additional police officers and overtime in rural areas, improving rural police stations, accelerating civilianisation of some police work to increase police officers' operational presence as I have described, the installation of new communications technology and the development of community safety partnerships in rural areas. The situation has improved significantly and will continue to do so in future.

215WH
On performance, I pay tribute to the East Anglian forces, which are doing well at maintaining a high standard of service, as shown in the Audit Commission report to which I referred. Their primary detection rates exceed the national average of 12.22 per officer. The figure was 13.3 in Suffolk, 13.1 in Norfolk and 13.8 in Cambridgeshire, which is a tribute to the way in which those forces are managed. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would associate himself with that comment. Responses to calls requiring an immediate response exceeded local targets. The figure was more than 88 per cent. in Suffolk and more than 79 per cent in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk. Overall, more than 89 per cent. of 999 calls were answered within the target; the figure was 89.9 per cent. in Cambridgeshire, 93 per cent. in Norfolk and an impressive 95 per cent. in Suffolk. Our partnership schemes have received large resources—£4.2 million in total—from the crime reduction programme, focused on targeted policing, reducing burglary and a range of other initiatives. Bids for neighbourhood wardens and closed circuit television are under consideration by the Government. There is a substantial range of achievements.
The hon. Gentleman made two particular points. On the first, I commend the work that he described on youth crime in Ottowa. I am sure that many police forces in this country, including Suffolk and my own, have had specific schemes and approaches based on involvement in sport. In Norfolk, we have a motorbike club for young people precisely to address those issues, especially as they involve aggressive young men. It is simply not true to say that we are not making sport a priority. He will be glad to know that my Department is in touch with the Youth Sport Trust, which is a highly effective organisation, to develop and roll out the sports initiative that he described under our crime reduction programme and to put resources into those areas. From my time as an Education Minister dealing with youth sport, I know that there is simply no correlation between the picture that the hon. Gentleman painted and reality. Sports education is increasing and will continue to do so. On his second point, I confirm that through our retail crime reduction group we are discussing with the Post Office what steps we can take to address such issues more effectively.
I am delighted to have had a chance to respond to the debate, although I rather regret the pre-election atmosphere. In a more relaxed and open environment, and in his heart of hearts, the hon. Member for West Suffolk might concede that real progress is being made in policing in Suffolk and elsewhere in East Anglia. The Government certainly intend to continue making the kinds of changes necessary for us to be able to do that.

Economic Regeneration (Plymouth)
1 pm
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Plymouth is the largest city on the south coast, and the second largest in the south-west. The city's population is 250,000, but its influence spreads further. Some 330,000 people live in Plymouth's travel-to-work area. Plymouth's shopping catchment area includes more than 400,000 people. Its economic health and well-being are therefore important to a substantial number of people.
Economic regeneration is being led by the 2020 partnership. Founded in 1993 as the Plymouth 2000 partnership, the Plymouth 2020 partnership promotes regeneration, social inclusion and economic development across the city. It is made up of representatives from the public, private, voluntary and community sectors, and is jointly chaired by a senior elected council member and a nominee from Plymouth chamber of commerce and industry. It provides the overall lead and direction for the pathfinder initiative, and co-ordinates other partnership work in the city, including employment, education and health action zones, the single regeneration budget programme, and links to environmental and community safety partnerships.
Historically, Plymouth has been greatly dependent on employment in defence-related industries, particularly the dockyard. Some 15,000 people worked in the dockyard in 1981, but that figure had dropped to 3,500 by 1997. Despite growth in some sectors over the 10 years to 1996, a net 4,000 jobs were lost to the city. As a consequence, Plymouth saw a sharp rise in unemployment and poverty, and a fall in incomes. The response of the city was to diversify while seeking successfully to consolidate naval and other Ministry of Defence activities.
Plymouth has been fairly successful with inward investment. Some 25 major foreign-owned manufacturing companies in Plymouth employ more than 12,000 people. Tourism employs a similar number, and call centres are a recent, fast-developing sector, which now employs over 4,000. The city has important health and higher education sectors, with some key centres of excellence. High-tech firms, such as JDS—manufacturers of fibre optic cable who moved to the city last year—and existing employment, such as BAE Systems, need access to skilled and well-trained people, which our university, with its traditions of science and engineering, is well placed to develop.
The recent go-ahead given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for the development of the Langage energy park on the outskirts of Plymouth by Wainstones is hugely important. The investment of more £600 million—twice the value of objective 1 to Cornwall—has the potential to increase the Devon population's GDP by nearly £180 per person each year. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be surprised to learn that some leading local Conservatives have been lukewarm in their encouragement of that investment, and in some cases downright hostile. The extension of the high-pressure gas pipeline, which is part of the project, will bring opportunities for combined heat and power generation in other parts of the far south-west peninsula. All four

217WH
Labour Members of Parliament in Devon and Cornwall, including my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), were enthusiastic and active in their support for that important investment.
A significant dimension to Plymouth's regeneration is the release of MOD property. Work on the site of the Seaton barracks in the constituency of my neighbour, and hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) is well under way. We hope that other major developments will follow the announcement last summer that the Phoenix trust, headed by the Prince of Wales, is to develop an important part of the Royal William yard site. I am currently making representations to the MOD that large parts of the dockyard wall, which run along the south yard of Devonport dockyard, should be knocked down.
Access to some land and buildings, especially some of the historic parts such as the old market and the ropery, are needed for community economic regeneration.That is important for the new deal for communities project, "Devonport people's dreams". There was a time when someone from every house in every street of a 4,000-strong community was employed in the dockyard. Few are now so employed, so it is important that they should have the best chance of using the £30 million investment from the new deal for communities to build new opportunities on their doorstep, where the unemployment rate is one of the highest in the city.
Unemployment in Plymouth has fallen, which is one of the key success stories for partnership working. Led by the Employment Service, Plymouth has made the most of various new deal programmes. Long-term adult unemployment has plummeted by more than 60 per cent. since May 1997, and youth employment by a staggering 90 per cent. Unemployment is below the national average for the first time in 20 years. The quality of our partnership approach to regeneration has ensured that Plymouth has seen some of the most significant improvements in employment in the country.
We are fortunate that our local Evening Herald supports the new deal programmes. Under the leadership of editor Rachel Campey, the paper has featured success stories of what young people, lone parents, and, more recently, older people have achieved through the new deal. The paper has played a key part in helping Plymouth people to see their city as a can-do place, in which the success stories of individuals add up to something better for everyone. Such positive reporting has not done the paper's circulation any harm—perhaps because a more prosperous city buys more newspapers.
Plymouth, however, still tells a tale of two cities. In May 1997, unemployment in the poorest inner-city wards was six times greater than in the affluent suburbs of Plympton. In seven wards, 25 per cent. of the community lives in poverty. There is a 700 per cent. variation in coronary heart disease across the city. The legacy left by my Tory predecessor included the poorest ward in England.
Many of Plymouth's housing issues are linked with wider problems of deprivation: the sale of council housing has left the authority with a stock of which half are flats, although most people would prefer a house. In the more deprived areas, the choice of housing type is
218WH
severely restricted and the turnover high. More than 20 per cent. of the privately rented stock is unfit, as are 10 per cent. of owner-occupied homes—twice the national average. Tackling fuel poverty is important to how we improve housing stock.
The range of issues that need tackling in the city has attracted six rounds of single regeneration budget support, largely focused on 90,000 residents living in the most deprived waterfront communities. At long last, in SRB round six, Prince Rock and Cattedown are getting attention. Alongside employment, leisure and healthy living projects, improvements to housing stock will be an important part of the east end renewal project that residents are working hard to develop.
The new commitment to regeneration is a Local Government Association initiative, developed with other public, private and voluntary sector partners, which has the full backing of the Government. In July 1998, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions announced that Plymouth unitary authority was to be one of 20 pathfinder local authorities that would lead the initiative.
Some £1 billion of public money is spent in Plymouth. Of course, we would like more money, but we welcome what comes our way. Health service expenditure at Plymouth Derriford hospital trust is set to increase by 30 per cent. in real terms during the next three years. Expenditure at the trust has already increased by one third since Labour took office. The new Peninsula medical school will train more than 100 new doctors as part of the Government's nationwide investment in 1,000 extra doctors, and we are campaigning vigorously for a new £50 million planned health care centre.
Those developments will have wider significance in Plymouth's regeneration, as will investment in 41 extra police officers in Plymouth, made possible by additions to the Devon and Cornwall police authority budget. Health, education and employment action zones have brought several million pounds in extra income to the city's coffers each year. An above-inflation standard spending assessment has been boosted by £2 million more than the Tory-invented formula would have given the city. Little thanks has been forthcoming from the Tories, but I hope that the Minister will convey my thanks and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport to the Secretary of State for responding to our representations and those from other parts of the country. The floor that he introduced protects Plymouth from the full impact of growing prosperity, as reflected in the new earnings survey which affects how the local government finance cake is divided. The city has had an inflation-busting 14 per cent. increase in funds for education and social services, a doubling of the proposed neighbourhood renewal allocation for the coming year, and the biggest local transport settlement in recent memory with the go-ahead for an £8 million investment in the northern corridor, which will allow for the all-important protection and development of the city airport.
My hon. Friend the Minister may be surprised to learn that the Conservative leader of Plymouth city council repeatedly says that Plymouth is always at the bottom of the pile. This year, the council claims that there is a £20 million shortfall in its budget. That, of course, is a fantasy figure that can quickly be reduced to a more manageable proportion of the city's £250 million

219WH
budget; my hon. Friend will be familiar with such claims. In Plymouth's case the Minister may find those claims surprising, considering the special attention given to the city.
Granting zones status to Plymouth and giving it special pots of money was intended to ensure that public money was spent to achieve value and effectiveness across the normal public service boundaries. Those involved in the partnership working, including the city council, can claim considerable success in respect of the employment outcomes to which I referred, and in matters such as the recent reported success of the health action zones in stopping people smoking. If sustained, that will help to tackle the terrible coronary heart disease figures that I mentioned earlier. The added value is evident from the first year's activity of the education action zone on standards in schools, and in the joint tackling by health and social services of pressures on bed blocking in hospitals by ensuring that adequate support is available for people coming out of hospital.
With her experience in local government finance, the Minister will recognise the challenges and choices that councils throughout the land have to make. She may also share my view that it is a bit rich of a Tory council to say that it cannot manage on Labour's above-inflation settlement after year-on-year cuts in expenditure by Tory Governments. She may consider, as I do, that axing car parking charges at a full-year cost to the council's budget of £800,000 might not be the right priority for a council so challenged. She may consider, as I do, that cutting £1 million from the housing budget in the SRB east end renewal project to finance swimming pools, which may be expensive to build and to run in future years, is not the right priority. She may consider, as I do, that precipitate proposals to cut money from the highly successful welfare rights unit are inappropriate, when that unit has brought more than £500,000 to some of the most vulnerable people in the city.
The Minister may share my anger and fear that such priorities place question marks over the council's understanding of and support for our successful partnership work. Alarm bells ring; I hope that such foolish proposals are born of inexperience. Perhaps the council will realise that wrongful penny-pinching can mean thousands of pounds down the drain and misery for people at Granby and Torybrook when the homes in which they thought they would end their days are threatened with closure without proper examination of whether and how that could be avoided. When one resident is approaching 100, one might think that someone, somewhere, should have asked those questions first, but no one did, so callow inexperience becomes callous indifference to people who deserve better.
It is not the Minister's place to determine the detail and priorities of local council budgets—if it were, there would be no point in having local councils. There are, however, challenges in sustaining Plymouth's partnership work that fall within the remit of the Minister's Department and which I want to flag up for her attention. The 2020 partnership is preparing plans to be among the first communities to have approval as a local strategic partnership. Sustaining partnership is an instant challenge for the public, private and voluntary
220WH
sectors. To support and participate in initiatives such as "Devonport people's dreams" and the east end renewal project, means that, city-wide, the community-based partnership work needs constant motivation, refreshment and resourcing. I hope that the Minister will share her observations on how to maintain the momentum. What scope is there for bringing some focus to the plethora of area-based and city-wide initiatives, particularly on funding?
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that some good projects continually lose out in the competitive bidding process. I recognise the merits of bidding—the most project-ready groups secure what will always be scarce resources—but some groups miss the boat time and again, sometimes right in the heart of the most deprived areas. Will local strategic partnerships have the tools to take important decisions about resourcing and identifying gaps? Can some separate funding streams be joined up to complement the joined-up thinking and action exemplified by the partnership projects?
Finally, what links will there be between local strategic projects and regional development agencies regarding such important matters as transport? I refer not just to air but rail links, which have been in the news so often in recent weeks. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that outrage has been expressed the length and breadth of the peninsula in response to the proposal to use 40-year-old rolling stock on intercity links to benefit services in Wales. Keeping the air link to Gatwick is vital, and it would be good to restore some links to Heathrow, if only one or two per week. That would be important to businesses such as Gleason's, Kawasaki and Toshiba, which have far-eastern links.
I pay tribute to the Minister and her colleagues for the Department's work on regeneration. In our short debate, I have left out many initiatives—the urban and rural White Papers, the 10-year transport plan, the regional development agency, the housing Green Paper and much else. My hon. Friend will forgive me and know that I did that because I wanted to highlight local hopes and fears and celebrate some important successes. I thank her for recognising our needs, our challenges and our ability to respond positively to the opportunities that come our way.
1.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on securing the debate and on her comprehensive and informed speech about the importance of partnership in her area. I hope that my short reply can do justice to it. My hon. Friend's speech demonstrated her commitment to her area, and I acknowledge her important role as a local Member of Parliament. She has been an assiduous campaigner, working with Ministers to secure the best for Plymouth. The catalogue of benefits gained since 1997 is as much a testimony to my hon. Friend's highlighting of Plymouth's needs as it is to the Government's commitment to such areas.
My hon. Friend outlined Plymouth's strengths and weaknesses. She spoke about the city's ability to respond to economic change and to diversify. She spoke, too, of the skills and experience of Plymouth's people,

221WH
and the city's resource strengths, including its industrial and economic base, excellent training facilities and transport. Those factors help to position Plymouth now and in the future. My hon. Friend also rightly identified key problems and highlighted areas of Plymouth that suffered more than most from long years of neglect under the previous Government. She drew attention to pockets of significant disadvantage, which must be tackled.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend referred to the Government's various commitments to Plymouth—partly through the RDA, but also more directly as the city has benefited from a number of Government initiatives. Certainly the RDA is working closely with local partners and the community in Plymouth, and RDA investment commitments are approximately £18 million currently. These include expansion of the hugely successful Tamar science park, which the Prime Minister opened last year, and several other important initiatives for economic development.
My hon. Friend touched on Government support in several areas. Time does not allow us to go through them individually, but some important direct assistance from Government is provided through the single regeneration budget. Plymouth won nearly £24 million in SRB funding in recent rounds, helping some of the most deprived communities in the area. It was also successful in securing continued objective 2 status within the south-west programme, which is worth a total of £108 million in European grant over the period.
However, my hon. Friend also identified area-based initiatives that have been a hallmark of what the Government have tried to do on regeneration. Plymouth is one of a small number of areas across the country that has secured a "full house" in terms of employment, education and health action zones. There are sure start and new start programmes too, and I am delighted to be able to tell my hon. Friend—she probably already knows—that Plymouth is one of the 66 areas recently invited by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to bid in round 4 of sure start 2, something for which she has campaigned for some time.
We look forward to receiving, next month, a full delivery plan for the local new deal for communities, which the partnership has been putting together. That could bring up to £50 million of funding to the area for regeneration, again tackling some of the areas that most need help. My hon. Friend mentioned the new deal, and I think that it has had tremendous success in Plymouth. It has helped more than 2,150 people aged between 18 and 24 into work, and has, very importantly, a retention rate of approximately 70 per cent. That has made an important contribution to the fall in unemployment, particularly among young people.
Last October, we announced the neighbourhood renewal fund. Among areas with a multiplicity of difficult issues to tackle, Plymouth became one of four areas in the south-west that will benefit from neighbourhood renewal funding. That will help to improve housing, raise school standards, reduce crime and improve health in some of the most deprived communities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in January an increase in Plymouth's funding under the neighbourhood renewal fund to £4.8 million over three years. Clearly the NRF will play a key
222WH
role in the Government's wider strategy to improve prosperity, tackle poverty and create opportunities for all.
As my hon. Friend has said, a great deal has already gone into Plymouth, and rightly so. Further regeneration opportunities will continue to come from the Government, but it is gratifying to see that we are already able to demonstrate—and my hon. Friend is able to talk about—the effects of what we have done so far. The Employment Service in Plymouth has placed more than 6,800 people in work since April, of whom 2,500 were long-term unemployed.
That incredible achievement will make a lasting difference to the vitality of the economy of Plymouth, not just helping individual families, though that is important, but maintaining stimulation of the local economy, which will benefit everyone. I am delighted that unemployment in Plymouth has fallen to 3.2 per cent., a reduction of nearly 30 per cent. over the past 12 months. The rate is now below the national average for the first time in many years in Plymouth. Real measurable improvements in performance are having an impact on people's lives and on the local economy.
My hon. Friend touched on the importance of partnership in stimulating and sustaining that kind of progress, and I agree with her on the importance of partnership between central and local government and the strengths of local partnerships. I welcome my hon. Friend's eagerness for Plymouth to be at the forefront of developments in partnership. On the neighbourhood renewal fund, the requirement to have a local strategic partnership to administer the fund is an important step. Local strategic partnerships should build on existing good practice to rationalise existing partnerships, to improve on working practices and to cut down on bureaucracy.
We expect local strategic partnerships to rationalise some current processes and to create savings in the work involved in sustaining a number of partnerships. They will have scope to join up funding in creative ways and to decide priorities, so long as they meet targets on four big issues: crime, housing, health and jobs. It will be up to the local strategic partnership to decide the priorities for how that money is spent. It is implicit in what my hon. Friend says, and I agree that we need mature local authorities to fulfil the strategic roles that we have given them in leading and nurturing effective partnerships, both locally and between the local area and central government.
I want to refer to funding, which my hon. Friend raised. Plymouth has received funding through the local government settlement, and I am disappointed by erroneous accounts that have appeared in the local press. Plymouth will receive more than £5.5 million more in general grant this year than it did last year. That position has been protected by the introduction of the floor. In addition, there will be a 12 per cent. increase for education and nearly 21 per cent. more for social services, giving a total increase in ring-fenced grants of 4.5 per cent., which is twice the rate of inflation. That should give substantial assistance to the council.

223WH
I cannot comment on the council's priorities; I do not have the total picture. I think that my hon. Friend was right to question some of those priorities. There may be a case for doing so, in certain circumstances.
Mrs. Gilroy: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the substantial above-inflation increase that she has mentioned, the other pots of money for the health action zone, the education action zone, the employment action zone and winter pressures in the NHS are also relevant?
Ms Hughes: Of course, all those things provide additional funding, which Plymouth would not have received if the present Government were not in control. Those funds are additional to what was already a generous local government settlement. My hon. Friend is quite right to point that out.
In terms of priorities, my hon. Friend was right to question whether it is a good idea to forego £800,000 of income to cut parking charges. There may be an economic case for that; I do not know. In another of the examples she pointed out, however, it is rarely economic to cut welfare benefits advice services. We know that, across the UK, money invested in that advice increases the amount that people receive in benefits. Many people are unaware of what they can claim, and welfare benefits advice can help them to receive what they are entitled to. Again, there is an economic case for welfare benefits advice, and I suspect that it is short-sighted to cut the service.
I repeat that we need mature local authorities that are willing to put aside political issues, about which they may feel strongly, to work with the Government and local partners to benefit the community. I hope that the ruling group on Plymouth council will not use these issues as a political football but will, as my hon. Friend suggests, work with others to benefit her constituency.
In conclusion, the Government are committed to working in partnership with the council and communities in Plymouth. The debate demonstrates the enormous progress that the partnership and the additional resources have already achieved in my hon. Friend's constituency. I look forward to that continuing with the support of my hon. Friend and the local partners.

Miners' Compensation Scheme
1.30 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I welcome the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe to the debate and to his new post. I believe that he will do his utmost to put right the shambles and the great injustice done to the miners of the United Kingdom, especially those for whom I speak today—the miners of Wales. I remember arguing with a Minister during an Adjournment debate about a set of temporary traffic lights. Those temporary traffic lights had been in place for 23 years; it took 10 months to have them replaced. I hope that the same success will follow today's important debate.
The Minister is on record as saying that the Government's handling of the claims is a chaotic shambles. I do not disagree. Today's Western Mail carries a long article by the Minister, which I welcome, although it includes one or two misconceptions that need to be corrected. First, non-smokers have always been discriminated against; they received less money than others because that fact was built into the settlement. Secondly, he said that widows are to be given top priority. With respect—I do not aim this at him personally—that is hypocrisy. The Department of Trade and Industry has just issued a new legal challenge to reduce widows' compensation. I feel sure that the Minister was not aware of that. We need to stop such legal challenges, not to mount fresh ones and thus deny people what is rightfully theirs.
In 1988, the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers—NACODS—began to investigate the links between dust and bronchitis, emphysema and so on. Shortly afterwards, it appointed solicitors and an epic legal battle followed between one of the smallest trade unions in the country and the Government. The case commenced in the High Court registry in Cardiff in October 1996 and culminated in September 1997 in the High Court in London. It was the longest injury trial in British legal history.
The complaints that the miners suffered were, as the Minister will know from knowledge of his own constituency, absolutely awful. I was in the Rhondda three weeks ago speaking with a gentleman who is unable to leave the house or speak to anyone. He uses four bottles of oxygen a day and can hardly move. He is relatively young, getting on for 60, but is absolutely crippled. The Minister will be familiar with the comment he made: with half a smile, that man said that he believed that the Government were waiting for him to die so that they would not have to pay out.
The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mr. Peter Hain)indicated dissent.
Mr. Llwyd: I quote the man's remark. It is not what I said, but what he said to me. I do not know what that man's politics are, nor was it of any interest to me in my investigation.
Mr. Richard Livsey: In my constituency, a Mr. Stripp is suffering from vibration

225WH
white finger. His claim started four years ago and still is not resolved. It is time that such bureaucratic nonsense was tackled head on.
Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In the union case, judgment was not handed down until 23 January 1998.
Several serious problems need to be addressed today. The first is about medical staff. At the beginning of 1999, the Department of Trade and Industry stated that it would be completing full medical assessments at the rate of 2,500 a month by March 1999, and 4,000 per month by the summer of 2000. However, by the end of 2000, not even 2,000 per month were being carried out. Almost 133,000 claims are waiting to be completed, more than 27,000 of which are in Wales. In the week commencing January 2001, only 455 full medical assessments were completed; in the same week, nearly 2,000 new claims were made. The Government must ensure that more medical staff are employed so that the targets that they set so long ago can be reached. It is no use opening more testing centres if there are no more staff to do the work. The doctors will simply be playing musical chairs between one centre and another.
I pay tribute to all those who stood up for what was clearly right, and pursued their claims with tenacity and spirit. Those men were sick with a disease that was crippling and killing many of them. It was distasteful in the extreme that such an obviously worthy and excellent cause had to be fully litigated in the High Court. I pay tribute to the solicitors concerned, Hugh James Jenkins of Merthyr Tydfil, who took on the mammoth task with enthusiasm. Many tens of thousands of people will want to express their deep gratitude to the person who above everyone else made everything possible: Bleddyn Hancock, the general secretary of NACODS. He played a vital part in making legal history. He has been tireless in his pursuit of justice for miners and he will carry on until the fight has been won. Despite several knocks, he has never fallen down, but has carried on, driven by the aim of ensuring fair play for the mining community.
Mr. Michael Clapham: May I point out that the unions in the mining industry have been pursuing the matter for a long time? They want the disease prescribed and to be able to proceed with a scheme at the same time. The issue is of long standing.
Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is right. More than one union was involved, but only one took the matter to court. Let us remember that the Government had to be dragged into court kicking and screaming before any compensation could be paid.
Mr. Hain indicated dissent.
Mr. Llwyd: No compensation was considered until the High Court judgment was delivered. I shall come to the question of agreeing liability in a moment, as it is a separate issue.
The Minister has been busy in the press saying that Plaid Cymru Members do not have constituency interests in this subject. I do not represent a mining area, but that does not prevent me from raising my voice on
226WH
behalf of people in mining communities. If we are to play that silly game, I remind the Minister that my party has constituency interests through National Assembly Members in the Rhondda, Carmarthen, Llanelli, Islwyn and in the north-east and south-east of Wales. Our two Members of the European Parliament represent the whole of Wales. I hope that that issue will not come up today. The main point is to ensure that we fight for and achieve justice for the miners.
I respectfully remind the Minister that even the previous Government saw fit to exempt people suffering from pneumoconiosis from the clawback now being enforced so unfairly against the miners. I sincerely believe that we must bring the matter to a head. It is insulting, adds insult to injury and only strengthens our resolve to put matters right. Perhaps the Minister will reply on that point in due course. To deflect blame, the Government claimed that the High Court settlement was cumbersome.
Mr. Hain indicated assent.
Mr. Llwyd: I see that the Minister agrees. The Government also alleged that the judgment was difficult to put into practice. In these days of the culture of BSE—blame someone else—it was inevitable that the Government would attempt to put some blame on the solicitors negotiating individual settlements for claimants; it has been suggested to me several times that a large proportion of the blame for the delay rests with solicitors. However, in an unprecedented move, Mr. Justice Turner, the High Court judge who decided the case recently, sent out a public memorandum in which he specified:
"That there is no evidence to suggest…that solicitors are in general dragging their feet in processing claims".
He also said:
"The fund out of which compensation is to be paid is not diminished by the costs of the legal advisers".
That is from the horse's mouth, as it were. Another attempt at BSE was to say that there were insufficient doctors of a senior grade to do the work. That is also wrong. If the Government have the will to sort the problem out—I believe that the Minister is sincere and has the will to do so—registrars will be brought in and paid properly for their work, and taken off elective surgery if necessary. The problem is huge and urgent. Waiting for it to sort itself out will clearly not do, as that will not happen. As the Minister mentions in his article, the Government are speaking about a priority system. I hope that more of the sick and elderly will be brought in far quicker than they have been hitherto. The Minister has given that assurance, and I have no reason to doubt that he will do his utmost to ensure that it happens.
I referred to people kicking and screaming through the courts. I accept that there was an acceptance of liability at the very last moment, but that brings me to a thorny issue. In 1989, the previous Government brought in a recovery of benefits provision that allowed the state to recover moneys paid in benefit to those who were eventually compensated for their injuries. However, it did not apply to those for whom the onset of disease started before 1989. In practice, therefore, nearly all miners with chest disease were exempted. Against that

227WH
Backcloth—that Government were hardly the workers' friends—in September 1997 and within weeks of an
indication by the High Court that it would find for the claimants, the Government tabled the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Regulations 1997. They did so while the House was in recess, thereby bringing in the regulations surreptitiously, before the full judgment was given at the end of January 1998. Never before has there been such underhandedness and sleight of hand. The Conservatives had exempted pneumoconiosis sufferers from the clawback, but new Labour effectively acted against the miners.
I shall highlight some cases that prove how ridiculous the clawback is. The Government demanded £21,707 from a man in Treorci in the Rhondda. That was reduced to £8,540 on appeal; the appeal was then reviewed by solicitors, and in the end only £6.38 was payable. In another case, a man from Pontypridd received a demand for £19,924. That man died before receiving compensation; on appeal, the sum was reduced to £4,170, and a further appeal by the widow reduced it to £22.02. Those are stunning errors. They are disgraceful and immoral, and they represent a waste of the Government's time and money. Even bearing in mind the stance of the previous Government, whatever the situation and regardless of whether a substantial sum might be recovered it is immoral to expend so much money and time to recover only £6.38.
The miners are a special case. Theirs was a huge class action and a legal landmark. When I met the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), a few weeks ago, he said that the miners were not a special case, adding that some of his constituents suffer from asbestosis contracted when they were working for British Rail. I said to the hon. Gentleman that I was not there to plead for his constituents, but for the miners; I told him that pleading for his constituents was his job and that if he did it properly, they, too, might be a special case. That sort of attitude is becoming more common. At a meeting in Betws near Ammanford, a Labour, councillor said how pleased he was that I had kept the matter non-political. He went on to ask why the miners should be treated as a special case and then gave examples of why that should not be so. I could not believe that a Labour councillor in a Labour ward could decry the miners' cause and make them out not to be a special case. To add insult to injury, the Government line is that the miners are not a special case and that the benefits will have to be clawed back, despite the decades of suffering, hard work, loss of health—and, in many cases, life—that were endured on
our behalf.
The miners are now being told that they are not a special case and they should get to the back of the queue because they are just like everyone else. That is abhorrent and disgraceful. I do not care what the Minister says, such a claim cannot be substantiated. Does the Minister agree with the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security who said that the miners' injuries are no different from a nurse putting her back out in a hospital? There is a great difference, because the nurse, thank God, will not die and will not be incapable of working again. To add insult to injury, the Treasury is clawing back money from the pension fund.
228WH
We are in a terrible situation—a chaotic one, as the Minister acknowledges. It is now up to him and others to sort it out. Over the past few months I have met many miners and miners' widows. We owe them our respect and gratitude for what they have gone through, but most of all, we owe them justice. We in Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales, will continue to fight for justice, as will Labour Back Benchers. The Government are blind to all this. There will be consequences for them politically, but there will be more consequences for them socially, if they ignore those people.
1.45 pm
The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mr. Peter Hain): This is the first debate that I have answered as Minister for Energy. I enjoy the job enormously and am relishing the opportunity to get stuck in and sort out the problems that have bedevilled this scheme over recent years. I do not question the integrity with which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has pursued the matter, but I feel that it is important to bear in mind that the Labour Government is delivering for miners while Plaid Cymru is screaming from the sidelines. The hon. Gentleman should be working with us to deliver a better system and ensure that the improvements are put in place.
Mr. Llwyd: Will the Minister give way on that point?
Mr. Hain: No.
Like many hon. Members, I represent a mining constituency and, in taking up my new responsibilities, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me a chance to set out the Government's position on the vital issue of compensation for retired miners and their widows. In doing so I worked very closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and others across Britain.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that miners are a special case. That is why we have introduced the biggest compensation scheme of its kind in the history of Britain and probably the world. I want to immediately correct one of the many falsities that he presented by way of argument. The scheme is not designed to penny-pinch and save money; it is the biggest scheme of its kind. Some £2 billion and more is already available and there is no capping of that figure. As the claims are settled, they will be paid according to the rules agreed on both sides and in keeping with the court's judgment. There is no attempt to deny miners or their widows the justice that we as a Government are delivering. The matter is a top priority for my Department and me and I welcome the opportunity to tackle it. Bringing justice to both miners and their widows is my mission. I shall do everything I can and I shall work with all those who share the same objective.
As hon. Members will know, there are two major schemes on coal health claims resulting from successful 1996 litigation against the British Coal Corporation and the last Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman made it seem as though the Labour Government caused the case to come to court. It began under the Conservatives: they were dragged kicking and screaming into court and we have had to cope with the

229WH
consequences of that. We were elected on a pledge to bring justice to miners and their widows and we have never at any point questioned the court's decision. The hon. Gentleman should be more even-handed and objective.
In addition to 131,000 claims for respiratory diseases, 28,000 of which are in Wales, the Department has received over 116,000 claims for vibration white finger—VWF—nearly 16,000 of which are in Wales. Progress has been good on VWF: to date the Department has settled nearly 20,000 claims, 3,700 of which are in Wales, and has made a further 22,650 interim payments, 2,480 of which are in Wales. In total, we have paid nearly £215 million in compensation, of which £28.4 million has been paid in Wales to 6,204 people. In the village of Seven Sisters in my constituency, £410,644 has already been paid to 64 people. Many such examples could be cited from right across south and north-east Wales. In Neath the total paid is £781,729 to 167 people, and in Gwent £9.1 million to 1,330 people.
Mr. Livsey: I acknowledge that that constitutes progress, but does the Minister acknowledge that even after two years solicitors are still dealing with questions from the Department to which the answers are already known? For example, an ex-miner obtained a correct diagnosis from a doctor; two years later he had received no compensation and was asked how many operations he had had. Such nonsense must stop.
Mr. Hain: I agree. Progress on lung disease has been much slower. It has been much more difficult to deal with the claims as speedily as we would want, as the legal and medical issues that flow not from Government policy but from the High Court judgment to which NACODS among others was a party are far more complex than those relating to vibration-related diseases.
Mr. Clapham: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. I am sure that with his background in a mining constituency he will bring great energy to sorting out the issue that we are considering.
The Minister's predecessor, our right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), set up a monitoring group of which I am a member. One of our tasks was to begin turning the legal formula, of which my hon. Friend is aware, into a practicable formula that could be applied to bring compensation into miners' pockets. As of this month, £1 million a day is being paid to miners for chronic bronchitis and emphysema and for vibration white finger.
Mr. Hain: I welcome my hon. Friend's point of information, which contributes to the balanced outlook that I am trying to develop. It is far from the sneering view that Plaid Cymru continually adopts. Incidentally, a Welsh monitoring group is meeting on Monday and I shall attend.
The number of claimants continues to rise at the rate of 1,000 a week, making this the biggest compensation claim in Britain's history. Payments are now beginning to flow. In total, £108 million has been paid in respiratory compensation, with £27.1 million being paid
230WH
in Wales. Including compensation for vibration-related diseases, in recent weeks we have been paying about £1 million a day. For chest diseases, for example, more than £1 million has been paid in my constituency of Neath. In the former pit village of Seven Sisters, £400,000 has been paid to 80 people and in my own village, the former pit village of Resolven—I am wearing the local rugby club tie today—£98,258 has been paid to 24 people. It is not true that no money is being distributed; in Wales alone last week a total £1 million was paid out.
However, that is not good enough. More needs to be done. The mechanism must be better and speedier and the Government are working urgently on that. In the past 10 days I have been considering ways to accelerate the process. As part of that undertaking I want to satisfy myself that we have done all that we can. I want to hear the first-hand experience of hon. Members who represent mining constituencies. I know that many changes have been made in the past six months, but I have identified several categories in which I believe that fast-track offers can be made to bring quick relief to thousands more ex-miners and miners' widows—perhaps as many as 18,000. I am taking legal and medical advice to ensure that the new initiatives can be carried out quickly.
In addition, I want solicitors, Healthcall and the claims handlers IRISC to ensure that three groups are given priority: the oldest, those who are most ill and widows. That will probably mean that younger and fitter men's appointments will be rescheduled, but I am sure that they will agree that men in their 70s and 80s who can hardly breathe or move should go ahead to take the earliest opportunities. At the end of September, my predecessor announced new fast-track proposals to generate thousands of new and revised expedited offers by Christmas to those whose initial screening tests suggested likely disability. I am pleased that we have now made more than 15,200 offers, totalling £74 million, of which 2,200, totalling £10.5 million, were in Wales. Of those, 1,200 have been accepted, leading to payments totalling £4.3 million.
I remain troubled by delays in medical assessment procedures. We are presently completing around 500 medical assessments a week, and last week the figure was 570. We need to increase that figure significantly. The lack of sufficient numbers of respiratory consultants to perform the medical assessment process, as mentioned by the hon.Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, is the key bottleneck. We are working hard to try to solve that problem. First, we are urgently trying to recruit more respiratory consultants and we are considering how doctors are used and paid to ensure that we attract as many of them as possible. We must also ensure that we use the doctors we have flexibly and efficiently and use our resources more efficiently; therefore, secondly, we seek to streamline the medical assessment process: for example, we are thinking about using nurses to flag entries relevant to lung diseases in the extensive medical records currently examined by the consultant, which will help to free up additional time for the consultants to examine claimants. In addition, Healthcall, the contractor carrying out the medical assessments, is opening two new test centres in south Wales, in Ystrad Mynach and Ammanford.

231WH
In every way that we can, we continue to try to reduce delays for widows. That requires the co-operation of all involved, to ensure that claimants are kept in touch and provided with the necessary information.
Mr. Llwyd: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hain: I am afraid that I do not have time.
We are also prioritising widows claiming on behalf of their late husbands. The Department has made more than 4,650 bereavement awards, totalling nearly £39 million, of which 1,030 have been in Wales, totalling nearly £8.5 million. Those are big figures. The largest such payment in south Wales was £140,000. The next largest was £94,000.
Mr. Llwyd: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hain: No. I have taken several interventions.
Mr. Llwyd: None from me.
Mr. Hain: I have been as generous as I can. The hon. Gentleman had a lot of time to make his point.
On compensation, my motto is maximum compensation, minimum benefits reduction. The hon. Gentleman's points were simply inaccurate. The pneumoconiosis scheme was a no-fault scheme negotiated between the solicitors and British Coal. The levels of compensation took into account benefit received, so the exemption applied.
On the matter of smoking and damages, plenty of personal injury case law in other industries shows that courts consider smoking when fixing damages for lung injury. For example, awards have been reduced in cases of byssinosis in cotton workers and lung injury caused by exposure to toxic chemicals in marine workers. I am passionate about resolving the problems that have bedevilled the compensation scheme, whether caused by legal wrangling, Healthcall or the claim handlers, IRISC. Labour came into office in 1997 determined to
232WH
bring justice to former miners and their widows, who had been so shabbily treated by the Tories for many years. Instead of being able to get moving, we faced a year-long delay in the court process triggered under the Tories. Then, there were 18 months of wrangling over a handling agreement, with the result that, according to a court judgment, every major improvement that we wanted to introduce required agreement between solicitors. In addition, records are often hard to trace: the archives at Cannock contain 30 miles of files of old records, many not indexed.
Those are not excuses, merely a plea for understanding. Members of the House who have worked hard on the matter include the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. Everyone has been at fault, including the Government, for not driving through a better system quicker. I give a warning, however, and it may be directed at the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy: I shall be tough in exposing any individual, whether claiming to be a miners' leader or not, and any Opposition party that plays politics with people's suffering. There has been far too much of that already. Equally, I welcome constructive criticism—the hon. Gentleman offered some—and practical suggestions for improvements from all quarters. It is important that we all work together, as has been said by the main north Wales paper, the Daily Post, and in the south of Wales by the South Wales Argus. The complaints and wrangling must stop, and everyone must pull together. We have a debt to pay to the men who have worked in this country's coal mining industry, as the Government have freely acknowledged. After years of obstruction by British Coal and the previous Tory Government, I will ensure that that debt is paid as speedily and fairly as possible. With the full co-operation of all parties involved, we will succeed.
I emphasise that payments are going out week by week. I can list all the payments made in south Wales, the north-east and Yorkshire during the past few weeks. Huge sums are paid to many, but I fully acknowledge that more needs to be done. I urge everyone to work with us.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Apes
  Dr.Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what development projects her Department supports which involve the protection of apes. [148834]

  Clare Short
  Our primary aim is poverty reduction. We are not directly involved in ape protection projects. The sustainable management of ecosystems is important in improving poor peoples' livelihood and in some cases contributes to the conservation of apes and their habitats, principally through support for sustainable forest management. For example, we have recently agreed a £25 million programme to tackle illegal exploitation of forest resources in Indonesia.

  Romania
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for what reasons her Department's support for the Romania Information Centre has ceased. [147212]

  Clare Short
  We have supported the Romanian Information Centre since 1993. This funding was not intended to be indefinite in duration and the centre has been encouraged for some years to plan for self-sustainability. An independent report, a copy of which is being placed in the Library of the House, did not make a convincing case that the centre could achieve self-sustainability. We decided therefore that we should focus our resources on the poverty challenges to be tackled in Romania.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  CPS (Victim Consultation)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Solicitor-General what(a) statutory and (b) non-statutory duties there are on

  Total funding for marriage and relationship support since 1996

  £

  Financial year

  Organisation

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Core

  Relate

  1,683,020.00

  1,898,620.00

  1,953,680.00

  2,067,477.00

  2,396,585.00

  One Plus One

  63,401.65

  167,000.00

  171,843.00

  217,139.08

  270,000.00

  Marriage Care

  163,770.00

  263,770.00

  271,419.00

  292,876.41

  333,516.00

  Tavistock Marital Studies Institute

  375,435.00

  385,759.46

  396,946.00

  422,757.65

  486,161.00

  Jewish Marriage Council

  16,912.00

  16,912.60

  41,912.00

  49,009.80

  48,313.00

  Family Welfare Association

  23,458.25

  23,458.25

  24,138.00

  30,741.45

  99,925.00

  Inter-Agency Co-operation

  —

  21,200.00

  —

  —

  —

  London Marriage Guidance Council

  —

  —

  —

  50,000.00

  100,000.00

  Parentline Plus

  —

  —

  —

  20,000.00

  60,000.00

  444W
  (i) the CPS and (ii) the police to consult victims before dropping or downgrading charges. [148978]

  The Solicitor-General
  In relation to the duties of the Crown Prosecution Service I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 30 January 2001,Official Report, column 112W, and that given to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 5 February 2001, Official Report, column 357W.

  The police no longer have any power to drop or downgrade charges as the prosecution is in the hands of the Crown Prosecution Service. The 1996 Victim's Charter commits the police to keep victim's informed of significant developments in a case—ie when a person has been charged, any decision to drop or substantially alter those charges, the date of trial and the final outcome of the case.

  The CPS seeks the views of the police prior to making a decision to discontinue or substantially to alter charges. This procedure provides the opportunity for the police to consult the victim, in appropriate cases, before the final decision is made.

  On 7 December 2000, the Attorney-General published new guidelines outlining the approach that should be adopted by a prosecution advocate when considering the acceptability of a defendant's plea. The guidelines emphasise that the prosecution should keep victims or victims' families attending court informed of developments in a case and, wherever practicable, speak with them so that their views and interests can be taken into account as part of the decision-making process.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Marriage Support
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what bids have been received in each year since 1996 for funding for marriage support; how much each bid has been worth; which of the bids have been successful; and what is the total value of grants towards marriage and relationship support. [148482]

  Jane Kennedy
  The table sets out the Department's funding for marriage and relationship support since 1996. In general, funds have been allocated after negotiation, rather than as a result of a formal bidding process. The total funding will increase to £4.5 million in 2001–02, and to £5 million in 2002–03.
  445W

  Total funding for marriage and relationship support since 1996

  £

  Financial year

  Organisation

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Projects

  Relate

  —

  58,250.00

  18,300.00

  —

  —

  One Plus One

  —

  134,720.00

  10,000.00

  14,700.00

  87,000.00

  Marriage Care

  —

  67,214.00

  15,000.00

  —

  —

  Tavistock Marital Studies Institute

  —

  10,550.00

  10,550.00

  —

  —

  Family Welfare Association

  —

  72,550.00

  40,600.00

  —

  —

  Marriage Resource

  —

  138,128.00

  —

  —

  —

  African Family Mediation Service and London Marriage Guidance

  —

  89,190.00

  21,680.00

  —

  —

  The Light House (Christian Care Ministry)

  —

  29,580.00

  29,580.00

  —

  —

  All Souls College

  —

  42,751.00

  35,864.00

  —

  —

  Oasis Media—National Marriage Week

  —

  —

  —

  16,291.38

  30,000.00

  Community Family Projects

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30,000.00

  2asl.net

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40,000.00

  Asian Family Counselling Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18,500.00

  Total

  2,325,996.90

  3,419,653,31

  3,041,512.00

  3,180,992.77

  4,000,000.00

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Lottery Grants (Scotland)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what proportion of successful applications to each Lottery distribution body came from each Scottish local authority area in each year since the National Lottery began; [148282]

  (2) what proportion of applications made to each lottery distributor from each Scottish local authority area have been successful in each year since the National Lottery began; [148280]

  (3) what proportion of the money awarded by each Lottery distribution body went to each Scottish local authority area in each year since the National Lottery began; [148283]

  (4) what proportion of applications to each Lottery distribution body came from each Scottish local authority in each year since the National Lottery began. [148281]

  Kate Hoey
  We have contacted the National Lottery distributing bodies to request the information required, and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action he will take to reduce the geographical differences in the distribution of Lottery grants in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [148284]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government are keen to see all parts of the United Kingdom receive a fair share of Lottery funding. Reforms introduced through the National Lottery Act 1998 are designed to encourage this. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also issued new policy directions which direct distributors to ensure that all parts of the country have access to funding, and to take into account the need to reduce economic and social deprivation.
  446W
  Ministers in the Scottish Executive can make directions and take other decisions about the Scottish operations of Lottery distributors where they relate to devolved policy areas. My Department and Lottery distributors commissioned research into the impact of the Lottery on the coalfields and other areas of low take-up and my right hon. Friend has established an action group to take forward the report's recommendations. Lottery distributors in Scotland participate in the work of the group, which also has the support of the Scottish Executive.

  Mr. Robert Bourne
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 2001,Official Report, column 135W, on what date he was first informed that Mr. Robert Bourne had made donations to the Islington, South and Finsbury Labour Party. [148565]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 2 February 2001]: I was first informed of such donations when they were made, prior to becoming a Minister. In relation to subsequent events I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 16 January 2001, Official Report, column 135W.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) on what date, and by whom, instructions were first given to the Millennium Commission with regard to the holding of, and management of, reserves; [148658]

  (2) what reserves were held by the Millennium Commission on 31 December (a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000; and what plans there are for the (i) management and (ii) disposal of these reserves. [148657]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the right hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.
  447W

  New Opportunities Fund
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list for each of the past 12 months(a) income and (b) expenditure of the New Opportunities Fund; and what the latest figure is for his (i) unused and (ii) uncommitted reserves of that fund. [148860]

  Kate Hoey
  Monthly income and expenditure figures from January to December 2000 are shown in the table. At 31 December 2000 the New Opportunities Fund's cumulative income since its establishment in July 1998 was £724 million, including interest; £636 million has been awarded as grants. The balance available in the National Lottery Distribution Fund is £553 million, of which £511 million is committed to grant recipients.

  New Opportunities Fund Income and Expenditure for the 12 month period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000

  £000

  Income

  Expenditure (incl. hard commitments)

  January

  16,522.5

  15,977.1

  February

  22,652.5

  40,423.3

  March

  37,364.2

  16,138.1

  April

  16,312.4

  12,221.3

  May

  21,239.1

  20,797.0

  New opportunities fund out of school hours childcare grants in the Harrow, West constituency since 1997

  Date of Award

  School

  Organisation Running Project

  Amount (£)

  Provision

  1999

  Earlsmead F and M School

  Earlsmead F and M School

  3,559

  16 before and 16 after school places for children aged 5 to 14 years old

  1999

  Harrow High School and St. Gregory's High School

  Kufi Educational Service

  10,000

  Summer School

  2000

  St. George's School

  St. George's School and Parents and 23,200 Staff Association

  23,200

  35 additional after school, 20 before school and 20 holiday places for children aged 3 to 11 years old

  2000

  Schools local to Rayners Lane Estate

  Rayners Lane Estate Tenants and Residents Association

  6,915

  25 place holiday club for children ages 5 to 11 years old

  2000

  Kenmore park First School, Roxeth Manor Middle School and Horsenden School

  Chosen Generation Services

  48,000

  84 after school and 40 before school places for children aged 3 to 11 years old

  The Fund has also allocated £718,884 to Harrow local education authority under the Information and Communications Technology Training for Teachers programme.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he plans to publish a report on the findings of the Playing Fields Monitoring Group. [148696]

  Kate Hoey
  The Playing Fields Monitoring Group has met three times since being established in April last year. The Group is currently working to produce a comprehensive and unified set of statistics from the DfEE, DETR and Sport England on playing fields, which will 448W

  New Opportunities period Fund Income and Expenditure for the 12 month January 2000 to 31 December 2000

  £000

  Income

  Expenditure (incl. hard commitments)

  June

  18,528.0

  1,727.0

  July

  21,691.7

  54,118.7

  August

  43,749.5

  1-7,016.0

  September

  21,936.9

  30,629.7

  October

  21,213.8

  21,831.5

  November

  18,754.7

  20,943.6

  December

  18,575.5

  48,407.7

  Total

  278,540.8

  276,199.0

  1 An adjustment to hard commitments in August created the credit balance

  Note:

  Hard commitments outstanding at 31 December 2000 were £277,621,583.01

  Mr.Greth R.Thomas
  To ask the secretary of state for Culture for Media and Sport if he will list the New Opportunities Fund grants to school in Harrow, West constituency in each year since May 1997. [148324]

  Kate Hoey
  The new opportunities Fund has made five awards to project in the Harrow West constituency through the Out of School Hours Child care programme, totalling £91,674. Details of awards are shown in the table.
  give a clear indication of the position of playing field disposals for publication later this year. I should like to pay tribute to the assistance which the Central Council of Physical Recreation and the National Playing Fields Association are providing to the work of the Group.

  Mr.Greenway
  To ask the secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the oral answer of 22 January 2001,Official Report, column 637,to the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones),what criteria are used by his Department to define school playing fields. [148698]

  Kate Hoey
  In the context of my answer of 22 January 2001,Official Report, column 637, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), my Department uses the definition of school playing fields as

  449W
  set out in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999. These Regulations define school team game playing fields as
  "any playing fields within the meaning (in relation to both England and Wales) of section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 which, having regard to their configuration, are suitable for the playing of team games and which are laid out for that purpose."

PRIME MINISTER

  Mobile Phone Industry
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the meetings he has had with representatives of the mobile phone industry since 1 January 2000. [148532]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations it is not my practice to provide details of all such meetings.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress made by the inquiry conducted by Sir Anthony Hammond; and what representations he has received relating to the scope of the inquiry. [148952]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her right hon. and hon. Friends by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 30 January 2001,Official Report, column 167W.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will notify Sir Anthony Hammond of the information he has received from the Intelligence services on the Hinduja brothers. [148388]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 2 February 2001,Official Report, column 335W.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Road Surfaces
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which sections of concrete roads are planned to be surfaced with quieter materials in the financial year beginning in April 2001; and what criteria were used to select them for priority treatment. [145445]

  Mr. Hill
  The Highways Agency is consulting on proposed criteria for prioritising the resurfacing of concrete roads with quieter materials to meet the Government's commitment that all concrete trunk roads will be resurfaced within 10 years. As indicated in the Agency's consultation letter, copies of which are in the 450W
  Libraries of the House, the sections of concrete roads that are planned to be resurfaced in the financial year beginning April 2001 are:

  M5: part of Junction 26 to Junction 27

  M25: Junction 26 to Junction 27

  M27: Junction 2 to Junction 4 (both directions)

  M42: Junction 9 to Junction 10 (northbound)

  Al: Winthorpe to north Muskham

  A12: part of a section from M25 to Witham (Essex)

  For this year priority has been given to those roads requiring maintenance to keep them in a safe and serviceable condition. For subsequent years priorities will be set according to the criteria that will be finalised following consideration of the responses to the Agency's current consultations.

  Waste Incinerators
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the relationship between the temperature at which municipal solid waste incinerators burn and the impact on the health of local residents associated with emissions from such incinerators; and if he will make a statement. [147509]

  Mr. Meacher
  There have been no specific studies focusing directly on the relationship between the burn temperature of an incinerator and the health of local residents.

  Temperature is not the only factor affecting emissions. It is an important component but the content of emissions is also reliant on residence time within the secondary chamber, the associated oxygen content and the turbulence of gases within this chamber.

  The UK is ultimately concerned with emissions, rather than temperature in its own right. The new Waste Incineration Directive sets a minimum temperature for operation but acknowledges that this need not be met where the required emissions limit values can be achieved notwithstanding. The UK will transpose this Directive into domestic legislation by 28 December 2002.

  MOX Fuel Shipments
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information he has received from(a) the Japanese Government and (b) the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan concerning negotiations with Russia to assess the possibility of transporting nuclear waste from Sellafield to Japan via the Arctic. [147742]

  Mr. Meacher
  None, from either source.

  Start Bay, Slapton
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the environmental damage to Start Bay, Slapton following(a) the recent storm and (b) storms in 1978–79. [147290]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: My Department has not undertaken any such assessments.
  451W
  Construction of flood defences for Torcross followed the 1978–79 storms.

  I understand that South Hams district council and Devon county council are concerned about managing this sensitive area properly and on 18 January held a joint meeting with relevant agencies including the Environment Agency and English Nature to discuss a draft shoreline management plan for the area between Strete and Start Point, which encompasses Start Bay.

  Strategic Planning
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the levels of spending on strategic planning per head of population were in(a) Staffordshire and (b) each other county of England (i) in the current year and (ii) in each of the last three years, distinguishing in each case the element represented by standard spending assessment. [148290]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Local authority expenditure on strategic planning is not separately identified in any of the returns made by local government to central Government. The SSA system does not make a separate provision for strategic planning; rather it is one of the many services funded through the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services SSA block. Consequently we are unable to provide the information requested.

  Secondments
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the secondments from commercial companies to his Department since 1997. [148405]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Secondments are part of the Interchange Initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between outside organisations and the Civil Service. All sectors of the economy are involved: Voluntary, Education, Health, Public and Private. Interchange is a key component of the reform agenda. The Modernising Government White Paper committed us to increasing interchange, in particular by bringing in more people on secondment and sending more of our people out.

  The commercial companies that have seconded staff to the Department since 1997 are as follows:

  ABROS

  AMEC Construction Ltd.

  Anchor Trust

  Balfour Beatty

  Bank of Scotland

  Bellway Urban Renewal

  Boots Chemists

  Bovis Europe

  British Gas

  British Telecom

  Building Research Establishment Ltd.

  Buro-Happold Consulting Engineers

  452W

  Christiani amp; Nielsen

  Civil Aviation Authority

  Crime Concern

  Crown House Engineering

  The Church of England

  D. A. Dawson amp; Associates

  Development Trust Association

  Digital Futures

  Drake and Scull Engineering Ltd.

  EHF NHS Trust

  English Nature

  Geoffrey Reid Associates

  Halcrow Group

  Hider

  Institute Of Fiscal Studies

  IPPR

  Japanese Construction Industry

  KPMG

  Kvaerner Cementation Foundations

  Kvaerner Construction

  London Transport

  Look Ahead Housing and Care

  Marks and Spencer

  National Grid

  National Housing Corporation

  OPM

  OVE Arup

  Robert Gordon University

  Rothschilds

  Safe in the City

  Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd.

  Unilever

  Waste Watch

  Waters Ltd.

  Wates Construction Ltd.

  Pensions
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the payment of pensions to members of NBPF and BEST and the National Bus Company transferees. [148303]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the Adjournment debate held on 25 January 2001,Official Report, columns 1183–85, on this subject, in which I urged all the parties involved to reach early agreement on the outstanding matters which are impeding completion of the distribution to beneficiaries of the National Bus Company pensions settlement.

  Pollution Regulations
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the implementation of the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 as they apply to small firms preparing environmental impact assessments. [148286]
  453W
  Mr. Hill
  There are no plans to review this aspect of the PPC regulations, which largely transpose the provisions in the IPPC Directive. We are, however, looking at ways in which information provided through the Environmental Impact Assessment and Pollution Prevention and Control procedures can complement each other, within the constraints set by EC legislation, to minimise the impact on small businesses.

  Diabetes (Drivers)
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many drivers suffering from diabetes have informed the DVLA of their condition. [148617]

  Mr. Hill
  The treatment of diabetes can be by insulin, tablet or diet or a combination of these.

  Diabetics treated by diet do not need to notify the Agency of this condition.

  Diabetics treated by tablets do need to notify the Agency, but no further medical investigation is needed. A reply is sent to the driver explaining that the licence can be retained and the Agency only need to be further notified if certain conditions apply in relation to diabetic control (tablet/diet). Some 15,000 such notifications are received on an annual basis.

  Diabetics treated by insulin must notify the Agency of this. Drivers are sent a detailed questionnaire to complete. Provided the diabetes is well controlled, a three year licence is issued. Some 100,000 diabetics on insulin have notified this condition to the Agency.

  Registered Social Landlords
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources have been allocated over the next three years to enable the transfer of council housing stock to registered social landlords. [148637]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Housing Policy statement on 13 December 2000 confirmed that the Government's spending plans for 2001–02 to 2003–04 include provision to support the transfer of up to 200,000 local authority homes to registered social landlords each year from 2001–02, where tenants support the proposals.

  Crop Protection Chemicals
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the joint industry submission, Minimising the Environmental Impacts of Crop Protection Chemicals, Revised proposals February 2001. [148868]

  Mr. Meacher
  The November 2000 pre-Budget report announced that, in the run up to Budget 2001, the Government wished to see the Crop Protection Association make further improvements to the package of voluntary measures that the industry has been developing over the last year. This latest submission from the CPA, and a number of other stakeholders involved in the supply and use of crop protection products, was received by the Government on 29 January. It is currently being evaluated and a further statement will be made in the Budget report.
  454W

  Housing (Leeds)
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many housing capital approvals were given to Leeds in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [148870]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Housing capital allocations made to Leeds city council through the Housing Investment Programme and Capital Receipts Initiative for the years specified were as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  16.459

  1998–99

  22.123

  1999–2000

  23.903

  In addition, the council received the following grant for the continuing Estate Action schemes at Belle Isle, Ebor Gardens and Halton Moor:

  £ million

  1997–98

  3.856

  1998–99

  4.069

  1999–2000

  3.412

  The council is also progressing its PFI pilot project—one of only eight nationally—at Swarcliffe, which received endorsement by the PFI inter-departmental Project Review Group in November 1999.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2001,Official Report, column 9W, on driving licences, what discretion (a) he and (b) the DVLA has to waive the two year rule regarding the period during which a test pass certificate is valid as the basis for the issuing of a full driving licence. [148652]

  Mr. Hill
  Neither the Secretary of State, nor the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, has any discretion to waive the two year validity period for a driving test pass certificate. This period is fixed by section 89(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information System) Act 1989).

  The practical test pass certificate carries a clear warning to candidates that they should change the certificate for a full licence within two years of the date of the test; otherwise they will lose the entitlement.

  Social Housing
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what measures he is taking to improve the availability of social housing in rural areas; [148966]

  (2) what steps he is taking to improve rural housing for people on low incomes. [148960]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  This Government are taking a number of steps to improve housing conditions in both rural and urban areas.
  455W
  We have set a target to bring all social housing up to a decent standard by 2010. This target will be delivered through a range of investment options available to local authorities and through a significant increase in resources for housing. An extra £1.8 billion is being made available over the next three years to improve existing stock and provide new affordable housing.

  In our recent housing policy statement "The way forward for housing" we have set out a range of proposals to tackle poor conditions in the private sector. These will give local authorities more flexibility to help poorer home owners with repairs to their homes and make it easier for them to target interventions on concentrations of poor condition stock in the private sector.

  Our Rural White Paper "Our Countryside: the future. A fair deal for rural England", published last year, set out our strategy for delivering more affordable housing in rural areas.

  This strategy includes ensuring the housing needs of rural areas are properly assessed and planned for in local housing strategies. We have significantly increased resources for delivering new affordable housing, by nearly doubling the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme with an extra £872 million over the next three years. We will double the number of affordable homes provided through the Housing Corporation's rural programme in settlements of less than 3,000 people over the next three years.

  We are also encouraging local authorities to fund new social housing in rural areas where there is high demand, using additional resources allocated to them. We want local authorities to make greater use of their planning powers to negotiate the provision of affordable housing as part of new private housing developments.

  Planning
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure the compatibility of planning legislation in Wales and England with European legislation and with the Human Rights Act 1998. [148318]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer to the response by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to a question from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 19 December 2000,Official Report, column 119W. The judgment of the divisional court has been appealed. The appeal will be heard in the House of Lords on 26 February.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when planning policy guidance 13 will be revised. [149062]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have consulted on a revision to Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport. Work on the final version of the guidance is at an advanced stage and we intend to publish it as soon as possible.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans 456W
  to issue a planning policy statement to clarify the approach that the Government expect local authorities to take towards farm diversification proposals. [149060]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We are actively considering this issue and hope to make a statement shortly, by Easter if possible.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department will publish the revised farmer's guide to the planning system. [149061]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I expect a revised and updated version of "A Farmer's Guide to the Planning System" to be published by the summer.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when planning policy guidance 25 will be revised. [149047]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department published today a consultation document on the revised draft of Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 25 "Development and flood risk". The Government have revised the original consultation draft published in April 2000 to take account of consultation responses, lessons from the floods and the Second Report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee "Development on, or affecting, the flood plain", which was published on 20 December 2000.

  The revision toughens and sharpens the precautionary risk-based focus of the original draft and we feel it necessary, therefore, to seek views from the interested parties before finalising the PPG. This consultation is being conducted in accordance with the Government's January 2001 "Code of practice for written consultation" over a shorter period of four weeks, rather than the standard 12 weeks. The reasons for the shorter consultation period are that this is an urgent matter, on which new guidance is required without delay, and that a full initial round of consultation has already been carried out. The revised draft substantially reflects the Select Committee report. The Government have concluded that, in the light of continuing experience with major flooding, and in line with the views of the Select Committee, the final text should be issued as soon as is consistent with consulting on the important changes to the previous draft.

  The main changes to the previous draft are:

  1. the introduction of an explicit risk-based sequential test that directs authorities and developers towards sites at lower risk from those at higher risk;

  2. within that test, a flexible approach should be used in those extensive areas of flood risk and other areas where alternative low-risk sites are not available to avoid a virtual moratorium leading to social and economic blight, while minimising any additional risk;

  3. a clear statement that building in the functional flood plains, where water flows or is held at times of flood, should be wholly exceptional and limited to essential infrastructure that has to be there;

  4. a stronger emphasis on planning in relation to river catchments at all stages in the plan-making process;

  5. a request that planning authorities should review land allocations in their development plans in the light of the latest information on flood risk, where possible in combination with the reviews of land suitable for housing already recommended

  457W
  in PPG 3. Within this requirement, planning authorities and developers should continue to give preference to previously developed land when it is possible to do so in terms of flood risk;

  6. a requirement that applicants should assess the flood risk to their proposed developments and the impact of their proposals more widely;

  7. guidance to local authorities that, where other funding is not already available, builders and developers should fully fund the provision and future maintenance of the flood mitigation and defence works required by their proposals;

  8. guidance that all new developments should, as far as possible incorporate sustainable drainage measures to avoid adding to flood risks elsewhere and to encourage developers to promote building designs that are better able to resist and cope with flooding, and which, when flooded, can recover faster;

  9. encouragement to local planning authorities to make flood-risk information available to prospective developers and property owners making planning searches.

  The Government are committed to monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of the new guidance when it is issued through the MAFF high-level targets and the relevant Government statistics. They are also committed to reviewing the impact of the guidance on development three years after its publication and with particular reference to the latest information about climate change.

  I am also considering the possibility of a Flooding Direction, which would ensure that the views of the Environment Agency on flood risk are properly considered. However, I propose to wait before consulting on such a Direction until the compatibility of the Secretary of State's call-in power with the Human Rights Act 1995 has been considered by the House of Lords within the next few months, on appeal from a number of decisions by the High Court in December 2000.

  The experience of the last few months has demonstrated the costs to all parties of development being located in vulnerable areas. Flood risk has to be taken more seriously, particularly since climate change is likely to increase the scale and frequency of flooding in the future. A proper consideration of flood risk requires the stronger and tougher guidance on which we are now consulting. As part of the consultation, we will be seeking views on the regulatory impact and the costs and benefits of implementing this guidance.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase transparency and openness in the planning process. [148924]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  It is vital that the planning system be open and transparent if it is to command public confidence. It needs to encourage the positive involvement of local people and others in the process and ensure that high standards of probity are maintained.

  Through our "Modernising Planning" programme we are taking a range of initiatives to promote these objectives—for example, through improvements to the arrangements for preparation of regional planning guidance and development plans, through the introduction of Best Value, and in our forthcoming proposals on planning obligations.
  458W
  The Government endorse the Local Government Association's "Probity in Planning", which recommends the practices and procedures which local authorities' codes of conduct should cover to ensure propriety in decision-making.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements his Department has for examining the codes of conduct prepared by local authorities. [148932]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  At present councillors are guided by the National Code of Local Government Conduct as set out in DOE Circular 8/90. Part III of the Local Government Act 2000 provides for the replacement of the national code by a new statutory model code of conduct. This will contain mandatory provisions which must be included by councils in codes of conduct that they will be required to adopt. Once adopted, councils' codes of conduct will be subject to the scrutiny of a new independent body—the Standards Board for England—which will be able to investigate breaches of a council's code by its members.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to monitor the observance of planning codes of conduct by individual local authorities. [148931]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have no current plans to do so. However, the Government endorse the Local Government Association's "Probity in Planning" which recommends the practices and procedures which local authorities' planning codes of conduct should cover. This advises that failure to follow its recommendations without good reason could be taken into account in investigations of maladministration, either by the Local Government Ombudsman or a council's internal investigation of a complaint, and have implications for the standing of councillors and professional officers.

  Affordable Rented Housing
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his estimate is of the number of(a) new build and (b) newly converted affordable rented housing which will be available in (i) London and (ii) England in each of the next five financial years. [148387]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Department does not make forecasts of new build or conversions.

  Homes Bill
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many times(a) the Minister for Housing and Planning and (b) his officials met service charities to discuss Part II of the Homes Bill; and what the outcome was of these meetings. [149103]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  There have been no meetings between the Minister for Housing and Planning and service charities to discuss Part II of the Homes Bill. Officials from my Department's Rough Sleepers Unit have met service charities a number of times to discuss the prevention of homelessness among ex-servicemen.
  459W

  Clean Fuel Vehicles
  Mr. Kirk wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will estimate how many new and nearly new cars have high enough noxious emission ratings to qualify for a full conversion grant to LPG; [147898]

  (2) if he will list the schemes funded by his Department to encourage greater use of clean fuel vehicles, indicating the sums of money devoted to each such scheme; [147900]

  (3) how many grants are paid by Government sponsored schemes to encourage the use of clean fuel vehicles; [147901]

  (4) what plans he has to extend the eligibility of grants for conversion to encourage the use of clean fuel vehicles. [147902]

  Mr. Hill
  The Powershift programme, sponsored by my Department and operated by the Energy Saving Trust, provides grants towards the cost of converting new vehicles and those less than one year old to cleaner fuels including LPG. To be eligible for grant, conversion packages must be approved as safe and effective in reducing emissions. Grants range up to 75 per cent. depending on the reduction in emissions delivered.

  Conversion packages eligible for grant are available for most cars. The number of cars whose conversions could attract the full 75 per cent. grant depends on the number of different cars, and different conversion packages, chosen by consumers.

  The following table summarises the number of vehicles broken down by fuel type that have received grants from the Powershift programme:

  Fuel type

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  Liquefied petroleum gas

  187

  686

  1,618

  4,425

  Natural gas

  78

  99

  28

  59

  Electricity

  38

  47

  105

  82

  Total

  303

  832

  1,751

  4,566

  1 Up to 31 December 2000

  My Department is providing Powershift with £9.9 million for the current financial year and £30 million over the next three financial years.My Department also sponsors the Clean Up programme, also operated by the Energy Saving Trust, which aims to reduce emissions from existing vehicles operating in urban areas. The programme includes projects to fit emission reduction technologies and to convert older vehicles to run on cleaner fuels where it proves cost effective and environmentally beneficial to do so. Clean Up is currently receiving £6 million for this financial year and £30 million over the next three financial years.

  My Department will also spend £9 million over the next three financial years to encourage the early introduction of technologies such as hybrid and fuel cell vehicles offering significant environmental benefits.

  The Clean Up programme has only just been launched. However, it has already provided grants towards the cost of converting 25 existing London taxis to run on LPG.

  My Department will be consulting shortly on the future direction of the expanded Powershift programme.
  460W
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will extend the scheme to allow new and nearly new cars to qualify for grant aid to encourage conversion to LPG and other clean fuel systems. [147899]

  Mr. Hill
  The Powershift programme, which is sponsored by my Department, provides grants towards the cost of converting vehicles less than one year old to cleaner fuels including LPG.

  The Government have significantly extended the scale of the scheme. This year's budget is £9.9 million. This was increased in the 2000 spending review, to £30 million over the next three financial years

  My Department will be consulting shortly on how the expanded Powershift programme should best be targeted in future years.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire of 14 November 2000 on behalf of his constituent Mr. Gillett. [149206]

  Mr. Hill
  I regret the delay in this matter. A reply will be sent to the right hon. Member shortly.

  Heathrow Airport
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if preparatory building works for the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow have begun. [148835]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  This is a matter for the relevant local planning authority, which has responsibility for the enforcement of planning control.

  Aircraft Icefalls
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many icefall incidents were reported for each month in 2000; [148838]

  (2) what bacteriological investigations are required when ice falls from aircraft occur; [148840]

  (3) what plans he has to introduce fines for airlines which operate aircraft which show signs of leakage from toilet service valves; [148837]

  (4) what arrangements have been made to compensate persons injured from ice falls where the airline concerned cannot be identified. [148839]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  I refer the hon. Member to my predecessor's reply on 23 November 2000,Official Report, column 287W.

  The Secretary of State has no plans to introduce fines for airlines operating aircraft that show signs of defects in toilet service valves. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has issued guidance on checking aircraft water systems, but this only applies to UK operators and aircraft. Operators are instructed to carry out a regular review of their servicing procedures and scheduled maintenance requirements for such systems. The CAA also reminds

  461W
  operators of the requirement to initiate corrective action as soon as a defect on a sealing system is detected. Aircraft are regularly checked by the CAA in the UK and by other regulating bodies abroad for evidence of leaking systems. Responsibility for the safety of foreign aircraft however, rests with the respective State of Registry.

  The details of all reported icefall incidents in the UK are included on the Civil Aviation Authority's Mandatory Occurrence Reporting System (MORS). The MORS database shows that a total of 39 incidents were recorded in the year 2000. A monthly breakdown is shown:

  Month

  Number

  January

  6

  February

  7

  March

  2

  April

  5

  May

  3

  June

  7

  July

  2

  August

  2

  September

  2

  October

  1

  November

  0

  December

  2

  The CAA will investigate any icefall incident reported to them in sufficient detail to allow a probable identification of the source of the ice. However, this is not an easy process and it is extremely rare to be able to confirm the origin of an icefall. Where the source of an icefall can be identified then the operator, regardless of nationality, can be prosecuted under the Air Navigation Order. In such a situation, a person suffering loss or injury resulting from the icefall could also seek damages through a civil action under the Civil Aviation Act 1982. This course of action is only available where the offending aircraft can be identified.

  Given the nature of icefall incidents, it is also extremely difficult for either the Government or the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to carry out a bacteriological investigation, and there is no current requirement to do so. In many cases the ice melts or disperses within a relatively short period after the time of the incident.

  Apes
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the establishment of a labelling system of ape-friendly products for imports which have not resulted in the destruction of ape habitats. [148833]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  This Department has received 24 letters in support of a campaign launched in September 2000 by the Ape Alliance, calling for direct action to help conserve great apes, including the labelling of timber products from forests harvested in an environmentally responsible manner. Advice provided in my Department's "Green Guide for Buyers" and on our internet website, actively encourages buyers to purchase timber products from sustainably managed sources, and we are also investigating additional ways to help buyers to identify such products.
  462W

DEFENCE

  Bowman Personal Role Radio
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the Bowman Personal Role Radio. [149426]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am pleased to announce that the contract for the Bowman Personal Role Radio was signed on 2 February. British-based Marconi has been selected to supply the short-range tactical radio, which will be used within small military teams. The project has made excellent progress since we took the decision to introduce it ahead of the main Bowman programme and we expect to see the first deliveries before the end of the year. The contract award is good news for British industry—creating or sustaining around 80 jobs at Marconi and its UK sub-contractors—and of course for the front line which will see this capability introduced earlier than had been previously planned.

  The competition for the main Bowman system is also progressing well. Bids for the supply and support contract are due on 7 February from TRW, Thales and Computing Devices Canada.

  Service Discipline Acts (Journalists)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if journalists working alongside British forces in times of conflict are subject to the Service Discipline Acts. [148203]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: The Service Discipline Acts provide for the cases in which people accompanying British forces are subject to those Acts. This will be the case if a person accompanies British forces on active service or if a person is authorised by the Defence Council to accompany British forces outside the United Kingdom for the purposes of his profession or employment. In these circumstances a correspondent would be subject to the Service Discipline Acts.

  During armed conflicts involving British forces, there is an established procedure under which correspondents are accredited as accompanying British forces. Only with such accreditation are correspondents accepted to accompany British units in the front line during the build-up to potential conflict or in war. As part of the procedure a correspondent applying for accreditation is given a copy of the MOD's regulations for correspondents accompanying an operational force. This includes information that an accompanying correspondent will be subject to Service law. For accreditation as an accompanying correspondent the applicant must also give some undertakings, including to comply with the relevant Service Discipline Act, while subject to naval, military or air force law.

  Journalists who are in the theatre of operations of British forces but who are not accompanying them are not subject to the Service Discipline Acts.

  Arctic Campaign Star
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the awarding of a campaign star to veterans of the Arctic campaign in the Second World War; and if he will make a statement. [149197]
  463W
  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) on 5 February 2001,Official Report, column 360W.

  Falcon System
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Falcon studies will be completed; and if the Falcon system has the same capability as the Bowman system. [148555]

  Dr. Moonie
  The concept studies for Falcon are expected to complete in autumn 2001. Falcon and Bowman are separate but complementary communications capabilities which will operate together to support command and control across the whole spectrum of land tactical operations. In broad terms, Bowman will support tactical operations up to brigade level and will provide some elements of divisional communications infrastructure. Falcon meanwhile will support higher formations strategic and operational communications from corps level down to brigade.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name the division within his Department with responsibility for handling export licences and the name of the civil servant who leads it. [148597]

  Dr. Moonie
  Overall responsibility for export licensing of strategically controlled goods rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Within my Department, the Directorate of Export Services Policy (DESP) is responsible for seeking and co-ordinating the views of a range of advisers within the Department to produce agreed MOD advice on all export licence applications circulated for advice by the Department of Trade and Industry. The Directorate is headed by a senior civil servant, Mr. M. K. Jenner.

  Armed Forces Discipline
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the disciplinary offences falling to summary discipline procedures for each of the armed services and the punishments which may be imposed. [148201]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: A list of disciplinary offences falling to summary discipline procedures and the punishments available will be placed in the Library of the House.

  An offence should be tried by court martial if it is likely to merit punishment in excess of a Commanding Officer's powers of punishment, when imprisonment might be awarded, or if there are legal complexities, or where the accused elects trial by court martial.

  Officer Legal Training
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers received legal training in 2000; how long this training took; what it cost; and who the trainers were. [148202]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: All Service lawyers undertook Continuous Professional Development during the year. The Royal Navy, unlike the
  464W
  Army and the Royal Air Force, selects officers from within the Service to receive professional legal training. This is provided by the College of Law and the Inns of Court School of Law, with pupillage in chambers. There are seven officers currently undergoing this training, whose course fees and supporting material are costing a total of approximately £34,000 for the current financial year. In addition, officers received training from a variety of internal and external sources in relation to the new procedures brought in by the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 as well as more general training to enable them to understand the legal aspects of their administrative and command functions. It is not possible to provide details of the associated lengths of training, the costs and the trainers, since this information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Welfare Phone Facilities
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to extend welfare phone facilities to those on exercises. [148923]

  Mr. Spellar
  Consideration is being given to extending free welfare telephone facilities to Service personnel for exercise deployments outside the country in which they are based, where the deployment is expected to last for two months or more. This facility would apply to both land-based and maritime exercises and would give exercising personnel the same access to free welfare telephone facilities as those on operational deployments.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  First Point International
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will carry out an investigation into the operations of the company First Point International, and the reasons for defaulting on its creditors. [148904]

  Dr. Howells
  A winding-up order was made against First Point International Limited on 10 May 2000. The Official Receiver is under a statutory duty to investigate the causes of the company's failure and the promotion, formation, business, dealings and affairs of the company, and to make any appropriate reports to the court. There is therefore no need for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to mount a separate investigation of these matters.

  Coal Mining Subsidence
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the Coal Authority's Sixth report on its administration of the Coal Mining Subsidence Damage Repair and Compensation Scheme. [149587]

  Mr. Hain
  I have now received this report from the Coal Authority, and have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.

  Industrial Gas Prices
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect
  465W
  the new Bacton-Zeebrugge gas pipeline link between Britain and continental Europe has had on industrial gas prices in the UK. [148300]

  Mr. Hain
  A major cause of the price rise has been arbitrage across the UK-Belgium interconnector with high oil related gas prices in continental Europe. This has been made worse by the lack of liberalisation and competition in the Continental market and the consequent absence of real gas to gas competition.

  The high wholesale price has led to sharp increases in the price of gas to industry—particularly companies with contracts tied to the spot price.

  While arbitrage is an accepted market mechanism, the Government have had concerns about aspects of the operation of the interconnector. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry therefore wrote to Commissioner Monti requesting a Commission competition inquiry into the interconnector. I am pleased to say that on 1 February the Commission announced that they would be looking into this.

  In the meantime the Government will be pressing for increased liberalisation and competition in the Continental market. We firmly believe that this is the key to a long term solution.

  Environmental Protection (State Aid)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the European Commission's guidelines for granting state aid to firms that promote environmental protection; and if he will make a statement. [149136]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  When the guidelines are finalised, they will be published in the Official Journal. I will arrange for an English Language version to be placed in the Library of the House, and I will also send one to the hon. Member.

  Electricity
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what he estimates the cost of delay will be to consumers and industry if the New Electricity Trading Arrangements are not implemented by 27 March. [146951]

  Mr. Hain
  While we have already seen some of the benefit of the New Electricity Trading Arrangements (NETA) through lower forward prices over the past year, clearly the full benefit of NETA will not be realised until it is actually introduced. The priority is therefore to ensure that NETA is implemented on 27 March, as the target implementation date confirmed by Ofgem on 31 January.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what measures Ofgem are carrying out to ensure that the new electricity trading arrangements will be implemented by 27 March; [146949]

  (2) when he will announce whether the new electricity arrangements are on course to go live on 27 March. [146948]

  Mr. Hain
  When the revised timetable for the implementation of the New Electricity Trading Arrangements (NETA) was announced last October, it was the result of a comprehensive replanning exercise 466W
  undertaken by Ofgem. Since then, Ofgem have closely monitored the progress of the project against a series of key milestones. The programme is now moving into the final phase of testing, known as Unified Pre-production and, subject to the successful outcome of this, NETA remains on course for implementation on 27 March.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on 31 January 2001, Official Report, column 188W.

  BAE Marine
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what communications he has had relating to the Type 45 proposal submitted by BAE Marine; and if he will make a statement. [149086]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have received communications from ministerial colleagues, hon. Members and other interested parties.

  The Government's response to BAE Systems's unsolicited proposal for the T45 Destroyers was set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 20 December 2000, Official Report, column 238W.

  Crop Protection Chemicals
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the joint industry submission, "Minimising the Environmental Impacts of Crop Protection Chemicals", revised proposals February 2001. [148863]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The November 2000 pre-Budget report announced that, in the run up to Budget 2001, the Government wished to see the Crop Protection Association make further improvements to the package of voluntary measures that the industry has been developing over the last year. This latest submission from the CPA, and a number of other stakeholders involved in the supply and use of crop protection products, was received by the Government on 29 January. It is currently being evaluated and a further statement will be made in the Budget report.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the most recent estimate of the number of Kurdish people who will be displaced from the banks of the River Tigris as a result of the Ilisu Dam project; and if he will make a statement. [148537]

  Mr. Caborn
  We do not yet have a final estimate of those affected by the project. A number of estimates have been made at different times and 78,000 has been suggested as an upper estimate of the number of people possibly affected in any way. We expect this to be clarified by the Environmental Impact Assessment Report and the Resettlement Action Plan when they become available.

  Not all of the affected people would need resettlement, and the effect on some would be quite minor. Nevertheless, the interests of all affected people must be taken into account.
  467W
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the environmental assessment relating to the Ilisu Dam project will be published. [148507]

  Mr. Caborn
  We expect that a presentation on the Environmental Impact Assessment Report will be made to the export credit agencies shortly, and that the Environmental Impact Assessment Report will be made publicly available after this presentation, and before any decision is taken regarding export credit support from the UK. As we are not the owners of the reports we cannot be more specific about timing.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate was included of the number of homeless Kurdish people in the plans to create the Ilisu Dam when it was first brought to the attention of his Department; and if he will make a statement. [148538]

  Mr. Caborn
  When the Export Credits Guarantee Department was first approached, it was advised that in the region of 15,000 people might be affected by the Ilisu Dam.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what compensation will be offered to the Kurdish people displaced to accommodate the Ilisu Dam project; and if he will make a statement. [148539]

  Mr. Caborn
  Compensation for those displaced or otherwise affected by the project is one of the issues we expect to see addressed in the Resettlement Action Plan.

  Human Rights (Turkey)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has held with the Government of Turkey regarding human rights, specifically with regard to the Kurdish people. [148548]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had no recent discussions with the Government of Turkey on this subject. However, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe regularly raise human rights issues in routine bilateral contacts with the Turkish government.

  Petroleum Discoveries
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress PILOT has made in identifying clusters of petroleum discoveries with potential for development. [149588]

  Mr. Hain
  The formal invitation for companies to apply for licenses for blocks 113/28 and 113/29 in the Eastern Irish Sea has now appeared in the Official Journal. These blocks contain gas discoveries that have been identified by PILOT'S Undeveloped Discoveries Workgroup, as having potential for development. I am pleased that the efforts of the Workgroup have led to this invitation being made.

  There is tremendous potential on the UKCS for the development of existing oil and gas discoveries. The Workgroup has made good progress in identifying a number of discovery 'clusters' that will benefit from being developed as a group rather than being assessed as individual projects.
  468W
  The decision to offer these blocks for licence was taken after consultation with a number of organisations including the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and English Nature. In the event that licences are awarded, activities carried out under them will be subject to a separate approvals process that will take account of the requirements of relevant environmental legislation.

  Mivan Ltd./Kier International
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place details of his Department's accounting officer's note of dissent relating to Mivan Ltd. and Kier International to construct housing and provide water services in Romania in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [148287]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have considered this request under the terms of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and concluded that providing this information would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion within Government. The request therefore falls within the terms of exemption 2 of the Code of Practice.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the dates of(a) the meetings and (b) other contacts made by Ministers with the Hinduja brothers, indicating which (i) Ministers and (ii) other hon. Members were present and which hon. Members arranged the meeting. [148620]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 2 February 2001, Official Report, column 336W, to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 80W, concerning winter fuel payments, how many of the people who were incorrectly issued with a winter fuel payment in 1997–98 were allowed to keep the money. [148497]

  Mr. Rooker
  As I said in my written answer of 15 January 2001, no further information is available.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households in Crosby have benefited from the winter fuel allowance. [148336]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested, as Winter Fuel Payment statistics are not collected by household. For such information as is available on the number of payments made in each parliamentary constituency so far this winter I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 31 January 2001,Official Report, column 238W.

  Fraud
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the cost of anti-fraud measures was in(a) 1997–98 (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [145201]
  469W
  Mr. Rooker
  The Department set out its strategy for tackling fraud and error in the paper—"A New Contract for Welfare: Safeguarding Social Security" (Cm 4276)—published on 23 March 1999. The overall aim of the strategy is to have a benefit system which is secure from first claim to final payment.

  The implementation of this strategy means that an anti-fraud focus is integral to the work of the Department, as is dealing with the wider agenda of error and incorrectness in benefit payments. It is therefore not possible to account for the cost of all anti-fraud work separately. It is an important part of the Department's work.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what checks are being undertaken to ensure the veracity of National Insurance numbers; and when the programme to check the accounts held on the Departmental Central Index will end. [148489]

  Mr. Rooker
  All adult applicants for a National Insurance number (NINO) will be interviewed by specially trained staff. Information given by the applicant in support of their application will be corroborated. Expert staff will also scrutinise documentation provided using specialist equipment.

  We have developed an enhanced NINO process for adult registration which will be rolled out nationally by 31 March 2001. This enhanced process will increase the veracity of new National Insurance numbers with less duplicate accounts being created.

  The Departmental Central Index (DCI) Data Cleaning Project will end on 31 March 2001. Since the project began we have removed over 204,000 duplicate records from the DCI database.

  Acquired Brain Injury
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people with acquired brain injury are in receipt of welfare benefits. [147971]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  As at 1 April 1999 there were 8,300 Industrial Injury Disablement Benefit recipients with a primary diagnosis of fractured skull and facial bones, intracranial injury or crushing injury of the head.

  As at 31 August 2000 there were 3,900 Incapacity Benefit recipients and 600 Severe Disablement recipients with a primary diagnosis of fracture of the skull, intracranial injury or other head injury

  Notes:

  1.All cases of incapacity are coded using the International Classification of Disease, 10th Edition. Acquired brain injury is not recorded as a separate category in this code.

  2. Disorders recorded as secondary conditions are not recorded.

  3. Figures for Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance are based on a 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system and will exclude a small number of clerically held cases.

  4. Figures for Industrial Injury Disablement Benefit are based on a 10 per cent. sample of clerical records.
  470W
  5. Figures for Disability Living Allowance and Income Support are not available by this category of diagnosis.

  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of(a) the cost of benefit payments to individuals with acquired brain injury and (b) the number of people with acquired brain injury who have not returned to work; [147963]

  (2) what support his Department offers to people with acquired brain injury. [147960]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  There is a wide range of Social Security benefits available.

  It is not possible to estimate reliably the expenditure on benefit payments to individuals with acquired brain injury because it is not recorded as a separate category of incapacity for receipt of benefit. However, the latest available information on the number of people in receipt of benefit due to head injury is as follows.

  As at 1 April 1999 there were 8,300 Industrial Injury Disablement Benefit recipients with a primary diagnosis of fractured skull and facial bones, intracranial injury or crushing injury of the head.

  As at 31 August 2000 there were 3,900 Incapacity Benefit recipients and 600 Severe Disablement Allowance recipients with a primary diagnosis of fracture of the skull, intracranial injury or other head injury.

  Notes:

  1. All cases of incapacity are coded using the International Classification of Disease, 10th Edition. Acquired brain injury is not recorded as a separate category in this code. Disorders recorded as secondary conditions are not recorded.

  2. Figures for Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance are based on a 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system and will exclude a small number of clerically held cases.

  3. Figures for Industrial Injury Disablement Benefit are based on a 10 per cent. sample of clerical records.

  4. Figures for Disability Living Allowance and Income Support are not available by this category of diagnosis.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 29 January 2001,Official Report, column 9, if he will make a statement on the basis on which the Minister of State said that Tesco is planning to take contributions at its supermarket checkouts. [148406]

  Mr. Rooker
  Tesco have advised that they are considering taking contributions to a stakeholder pension at their checkouts, but to date have not made a final decision on the matter. I relied, for part of my answer to my hon. Friend the Member, on a paraphrase of an item in The Observer of 21 January 2001.

  Maintenance Assessment Procedure
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his current estimate is of the date by which all existing Child Support Agency cases will be moved on to the new maintenance assessment procedure. [148491]
  471W
  Angela Eagle
  The child support reforms in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 will be introduced for new cases by April 2002. Existing cases will be transferred at a later date, once we are sure that the new system is working well.

  Pensions (Overseas Residents)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) of 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 79W, how many pensioners who live abroad and receive an annually up-rated basic state pension are (a) single and (b) married; and how many in each group are under the age of 75 years. [148503]

  Mr. Rooker
  We estimate that as at 31 March 2000 there were 359,800 pensioners residing overseas who had an annually up-rated basic state pension. We further estimate that 238,600 pensioners were under the age of 75. Details are not available based on marital status.

  Notes

  1. The case count figures quoted are in thousands and are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Includes all retirement pensioners resident overseas.

  3. Pensioners resident in the Channel Islands are not included in the case count figures.

  4. We are unable to supply information from the Pension Strategy Computer System based on marital status.

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System at 31 March 2000.

  Northgate Office (Running Costs)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) staff, (b) personal computers, (c) printers, (d) fax machines and (e) vehicles are based at his Department's offices at Northgate in Glasgow; and what the annual running costs are of this facility. [148434]

  Allocations 1997–98 to 2000–01 for the City of Westminster

  £000

  Grant

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  School Capital

  1,072

  2,025

  1,339

  4,089

  Standards Fund

  490

  742

  3,153

  5,464

  School Standards Grant

  —

  —

  —

  687

  School Budget Support Grant

  —

  —

  —

  128

  Transitional Funding for former GM Schools Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nursery Education Grant (4-year-olds)

  1,209

  507

  521

  525

  Nursery Education Grant (3-year-olds)

  —

  —

  218

  1,065

  Teachers Pay Reform Threshold Special Grant

  —

  —

  —

  450

  Partners for Study Support Grant

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Independent/State School Partnership Grant Scheme

  —

  9

  7

  —

  Allocations 1997–98 to 2000–01 for the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  £000

  Grant

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  School Capital

  362

  1,090

  682

  1,929

  Standards Fund

  353

  311

  1,757

  4,147

  School Standards Grant

  —

  —

  —

  430

  School Budget Support Grant

  —

  —

  —

  70

  Transitional Funding for former GM Schools Grant

  —

  —

  —

  99

  Nursery Education Grant (4-year-olds)

  806

  252

  208

  229

  472W
  Angela Eagle
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. John Swinney, dated 5 February 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about how many (a) staff, (b) personal computers, (c) printers, (d) fax machines and (e) vehicles are based at his Department's offices at Northgate in Glasgow; and what the annual running costs are of the facility.
  There are 875 staff employed at Glasgow Benefits Centre, Northgate. 151 of these work on a part-time basis. Salary costs for April 1999 to March 2000 were £12,097,992. Non-staff costs for the same period were £934,705.
  There are 712 personal computers (PCs) attached to the benefit processing computer systems, 272 stand alone PCs, 12 laptop computers, 185 printers and 41 fax machines. There are no vehicles based at Northgate.
  I hope this is helpful.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Government Grants (Central London)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list each category of grant, and the amount of each grant, paid by his Department to(a) Westminster and (b) Kensington and Chelsea in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–01; and what the projected figure is for 2001–02. [146309]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Listed are the Department's school education grants and funding allocations paid to the City of Westminster and the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea for each of the last three years and the current year, and projected grant figures for 2001–02 where known. These do not include funding for former GM schools in 1997–98 and 1998–99 which received grant directly from the Funding Agency for Schools. The figures for 2000–01 are the total grants currently estimated to be paid to these local education authorities.
  473W

  Allocations 1997–98 to 2000–01 for the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  £000

  Grant

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Nursery Education Grant(3-year-olds)

  —

  —

  —

  806

  Teachers Pay Reform Threshold Special Grant

  —

  —

  —

  270

  Partners for Study Support Grant

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Independent/State School Partnership Grant Scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Projected grant figures for 2001–01, where known

  £000

  Grant

  Westminster

  Kensington and Chelsea

  School Capital

  2,683

  1,109

  School Standards Grant

  1,240

  810

  Nursery Education Grant (3-year-olds)

  1,091

  826

  Partners for Study Support Grant

  9

  10

  Final allocations of the Standards Fund, transitional funding for GM schools and Teachers Pay Reform Threshold Special Grant are not yet known for 2001–02.

  In addition, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea will receive in 2000–01 and 2001–02 Special Grant funding to support other elements of the pay reform package:

  performance pay progression;

  appointments to assistant head posts (leadership group grant);

  deputies assimilation.

  It is not possible to predict figures per local education authority.

  The Volunteer Bureau within the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea in partnership with Westminster Volunteer Bureau have been awarded £80,000 funding spread over two years, 2000–02, to co-ordinate both the recruitment of volunteers and the provision of mentoring support across both boroughs. This includes training volunteers' mentors to support a number of primary and secondary schools mentoring programmes.

  Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea are one Excellence in Cities partnership. In 1999–2000 and 2000–01 they jointly received £35,000 for small scale projects and £6,000 for laptops in respect of this partnership. In 2000–01 they received £2,000 for good practice in respect of the partnership.

  There have also been a number of miscellaneous payments made to Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea regarding the Graduate Teacher Programme and Registered Teacher Programme. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Table 1: Children aged three in free early years education places1England and each local education authority in England, 1996–2000

  Position as at January

  19962

  19972

  19982

  19992

  20003,7

  England

  210,075

  214,173

  222,031

  225,669

  266,350

  North East

  23,955

  23,707

  22,944

  22,452

  24,280

  Cleveland5

  7,427

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hartlepool4,6

  —

  1,143

  1,179

  1,193

  1,100

  Middlesbrough4,6

  —

  1,919

  1,898

  1,840

  1,740

  Redcar and Cleveland4,6

  —

  1,988

  1,794

  1,784

  1,800

  Stockton-on—Tees4,6

  —

  2,351

  2,177

  2,001

  1,980

  474W
  Under this Government, funding per pupil has already increased by over £300 in real terms, and it will increase by a further £150 per pupil for 2001–02. Under the last Government, funding per pupil fell by £60 in real terms between 1994–95 and 1997–98. There will be further increases in funding following the year 2000 spending review: a further £370 per pupil over the three year period, taking the total increase to nearly £700 between 1997–98 and 2003–04.

  Early Years Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for the(a) United Kingdom and (b) each local authority, the number of three-year-olds with free early years education places providing five or more sessions of education per week in (i) 1979, (ii) 1990 and (iii) for each year from 1992 to 2000. [147244]

  Ms Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested. Up to September 1999, free places for three-year-olds were available only in maintained nursery and primary schools. Since September 1999 specific funding by the Government for three-year-olds has been extended to private, voluntary and independent providers via the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships. The table accounts for places only in the maintained sector.

  The available information on the numbers of three-year-olds in free early years provision for England and in each local education authority up to January 2000 is shown in the table. During 2000–01, £100 million has been made available to provide a further 40,000 free places for three-year-olds. In 2001–02, £250 million will be made available to provide 80,000 new additional places.

  All four-year-olds have been guaranteed a free place since September 1998. By September 2004 all three-year-olds will have a free early education place. By 2004 expenditure on nursery education will have doubled from £1 to £2 billion.

  For information on three-year-olds with free early years places in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, I refer the hon. Member to the Ministers responsible for Education in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively.

  475W

  Table 1: Children aged three in free early years education places1England and each local education authority in England, 1996–2000

  Position as at January

  19962

  19972

  19982

  19992

  20003,7

  Durham5

  5,161

  5,132

  —

  —

  —

  Darlington6

  —

  —

  1,082

  1,002

  980

  Durham4,6

  —

  —

  3,935

  3,786

  4,150

  Northumberland

  2,194

  2,255

  2,207

  2,109

  2,120

  Gateshead4

  1,334

  1,259

  1,340

  1,314

  1,940

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne4

  1,896

  1,878

  1,755

  1,789

  2,340

  North Tyneside4

  1,905

  1,837

  1,783

  1,816

  1,840

  South Tyneside4

  1,599

  1,525

  1,470

  1,476

  1,450

  Sunderland4

  2,439

  2,420

  2,324

  2,342

  2,860

  North West

  42,042

  42,204

  41,967

  41,667

  49,920

  Cheshire5

  3,839

  4,021

  3,856

  —

  —

  Halton4,6

  —

  —

  —

  663

  1,190

  Warrington6

  —

  —

  —

  880

  960

  Cheshire6

  —

  —

  —

  2,242

  2,250

  Cumbria

  2,256

  2,597

  2,609

  2,490

  2,420

  Bolton4

  2,250

  2,295

  2,177

  2,104

  2,950

  Bury

  1,092

  1,079

  1,071

  1,045

  1,050

  Manchester4

  3,744

  3,722

  4,382

  4,229

  4,490

  Oldham4

  1,626

  1,540

  1,547

  1,594

  2,370

  Rochdale4

  1,421

  1,407

  1,476

  1,374

  2,180

  Salford4

  2,597

  2,231

  2,181

  2,113

  2,190

  Stockport

  1,386

  1,634

  1,494

  1,608

  1,630

  Tameside4

  1,732

  1,705

  1,631

  1,620

  2,090

  Trafford

  1,877

  1,856

  1,684

  1,627

  1,580

  Wigan

  1,436

  1,434

  1,428

  1,443

  1,510

  Lancashire5

  5,601

  5,648

  5,623

  —

  —

  Blackburn with Darwen4,6

  —

  —

  —

  1,024

  1,250

  Blackpool4,6

  —

  —

  —

  316

  1,590

  Lancashire6

  —

  —

  —

  4,427

  4,250

  Knowsley4

  2,104

  2,044

  2,037

  2,032

  2,140

  Liverpool4

  4,433

  4,187

  4,039

  3,920

  5,060

  St. Helens4

  1,108

  1,108

  1,050

  1,113

  1,460

  Sefton4

  2,028

  2,051

  1,975

  2,089

  2,370

  Wirral4

  1,512

  1,645

  1,707

  1,714

  2,940

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  31,407

  31,844

  32,499

  32,884

  38,730

  Humberside5

  4,670

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Riding of Yorkshire6

  —

  1,053

  1,110

  1,103

  1,030

  Kingston-upon-Hull, City of4,6

  —

  2,240

  2,284

  2,252

  2,570

  North East Lincolnshire4,6

  —

  922

  978

  1,010

  1,520

  North Lincolnshire6

  —

  521

  551

  554

  590

  North Yorkshire

  2,174

  —

  —

  —

  —

  York6

  —

  676

  752

  811

  790

  North Yorkshire6

  —

  1,642

  1,728

  1,808

  1,800

  Barnsley4

  1,269

  1,264

  1,394

  1,406

  1,630

  Doncaster4

  2,435

  2,364

  2,294

  2,249

  2,330

  Rotherham4

  1,251

  1,304

  1,310

  1,443

  2,170

  Sheffield4

  2,542

  2,594

  2,707

  2,837

  4,550

  Bradford4

  4,132

  4,376

  4,795

  4,694

  5,510

  Calderdale

  1,240

  1,309

  1,281

  1,234

  1,310

  Kirklees4

  3,030

  2,974

  2,679

  2,627

  2,990

  Leeds4

  6,023

  6,065

  6,074

  6,231

  6,950

  Wakefield4

  2,641

  2,540

  2,562

  2,625

  3,010

  East Midlands

  16,772

  17,140

  17,985

  18,333

  21,450

  Derbyshire5

  5,013

  4,943

  —

  —

  —

  Derby6

  —

  —

  1,690

  1,645

  1,930

  Derbyshire6

  —

  —

  3,387

  3,472

  4,240

  Leicestershire5

  2,365

  2,479

  —

  —

  —

  Leicester4,6

  —

  —

  2,361

  2,343

  3,230

  Rutland6

  —

  —

  41

  75

  100

  Leicestershire6

  —

  —

  72

  89

  90

  Lincolnshire

  1,563

  1,686

  1,752

  1,744

  1,790

  Northamptonshire

  2,214

  2,277

  2,398

  2,330

  2,300

  Nottinghamshire5

  5,617

  5,755

  6,284

  —

  —

  Nottingham4,6

  —

  —

  —

  2,573

  3,310

  Nottinghamshire6

  —

  —

  —

  4,062

  4,460

  West Midlands

  29,020

  29,098

  30,665

  30,522

  35,690

  Hereford and Worcester5

  567

  762

  1,663

  —

  —

  Herefordshire6

  —

  —

  —

  313

  340

  Worcestershire6

  —

  —

  —

  1,376

  1,530

  476W

  477W

  Table 1: Children aged three in free early years education places1England and each local education authority in England, 1996–2000

  Position as at January

  19962

  19972

  19982

  19992

  20003,7

  Shropshire5

  749

  790

  955

  —

  —

  Telford and Wrekin4,6

  —

  —

  —

  510

  1,000

  Shropshire6

  —

  —

  —

  381

  420

  Staffordshire5

  4,630

  4,664

  —

  —

  —

  Stoke-on-Trent4,6

  —

  —

  2,023

  1,950

  2,290

  Staffordshire6

  —

  —

  2,745

  2,656

  2,560

  Warwickshire

  1,408

  1,357

  1,415

  1,490

  1,600

  Birmingham4

  7,488

  7,427

  7,527

  7,420

  10,200

  Coventry4

  1,420

  1,674

  1,905

  1,968

  2,920

  Dudley

  2,270

  2,267

  2,279

  2,283

  2,230

  Sandwell4

  3,290

  3,035

  3,104

  3,106

  3,240

  Solihull

  1,188

  1,250

  1,359

  1,464

  1,540

  Walsall4

  3,239

  3,079

  3,004

  2,951

  3,000

  Wolverhampton4

  2,771

  2,793

  2,686

  2,654

  2,820

  East of England

  9,642

  11,658

  13,331

  14,048

  14,870

  Bedfordshire5

  1,937

  2,035

  —

  —

  —

  Luton6

  —

  —

  889

  966

  950

  Bedfordshire6

  —

  —

  1,245

  1,269

  1,210

  Cambridgeshire5

  1,495

  1,466

  1,511

  —

  —

  Peterborough6

  —

  —

  —

  318

  320

  Cambridgeshire6

  —

  —

  —

  1,161

  1,090

  Essex5

  1,166

  1,964

  2,353

  —

  —

  Southend-on-Sea6

  —

  —

  —

  392

  450

  Thurrock6

  —

  —

  —

  435

  470

  Essex6

  —

  —

  —

  1,984

  1,960

  Hertfordshire

  3,853

  4,095

  4,951

  4,908

  5,890

  Norfolk

  739

  1,493

  1,823

  1,898

  1,890

  Suffolk

  452

  605

  559

  717

  630

  London

  39,869

  40,536

  42,304

  44,864

  57,190

  Inner London

  18,696

  18,959

  19,597

  21,437

  29,160

  City of London

  12

  11

  15

  11

  10

  Camden4

  765

  802

  890

  928

  1,450

  Hackney4

  1,536

  1,474

  1,543

  1,624

  2,430

  Hammersmith and Fulham4

  1,055

  1,053

  1,055

  1,061

  1,470

  Haringey4

  1,894

  2,004

  1,944

  1,949

  2,210

  Islington4

  1,342

  1,266

  1,256

  1,283

  1,840

  Kensington and Chelsea

  486

  542

  523

  513

  590

  Lambeth4

  1,396

  1,462

  1,855

  1,911

  3,150

  Lewisham4

  1,363

  1,412

  1,475

  1,877

  2,560

  Newham4

  2,074

  2,030

  2,103

  3,189

  3,860

  Southwark4

  2,158

  2,222

  2,290

  2,278

  2,820

  Tower Hamlets4

  2,288

  2,340

  2,264

  2,405

  2,610

  Wandsworth4

  1,590

  1,614

  1,590

  1,584

  2,860

  Westminster4

  737

  727

  794

  824

  1,300

  Outer London

  21,173

  21,577

  22,707

  23,427

  28,030

  Barking and Dagenham4

  1,331

  1,332

  1,408

  1,329

  1,630

  Barnet

  1,780

  2,021

  2,010

  2,026

  2,010

  Bexley

  1,009

  1,069

  1,242

  1,300

  1,390

  Brent4

  1,778

  1,712

  1,706

  1,708

  2,380

  Bromley

  111

  107

  197

  216

  240

  Croydon

  1,420

  1,537

  1,720

  1,859

  1,830

  Ealing4

  2,705

  2,625

  2,692

  2,686

  3,140

  Enfield

  1,110

  1,112

  1,136

  1,235

  1,230

  Greenwich4

  1,785

  1,981

  1,841

  1,889

  2,600

  Harrow

  489

  451

  588

  576

  620

  Havering

  378

  449

  464

  459

  550

  Hillingdon

  473

  560

  620

  636

  1,360

  Hounslow4

  1,562

  1,563

  1,605

  1,505

  1,990

  Kingston upon Thames

  931

  888

  892

  892

  940

  Merton

  1,749

  1,644

  1,707

  1,668

  1,670

  Redbridge

  626

  687

  824

  1,318

  1,600

  Richmond upon Thames

  597

  570

  587

  555

  590

  Sutton

  270

  325

  259

  289

  250

  Waltham Forest4

  1,069

  944

  1,209

  1,281

  2,040

  South East

  10,128

  10,602

  11,763

  12,155

  13,300

  Berkshire5

  1,427

  1,413

  2,049

  —

  —

  Bracknell Forest6

  —

  —

  —

  90

  110

  Windsor and Maidenhead6

  —

  —

  —

  290

  310

  West Berkshire6

  —

  —

  —

  216

  260

  478W

  479W

  Table 1: Children aged three in free early years education places1England and each local education authority in England, 1996–2000

  Position as at January

  19962

  19972

  19982

  19992

  20003,7

  Reading6

  —

  —

  —

  614

  740

  Slough6

  —

  —

  —

  822

  930

  Wokingham6

  —

  —

  —

  90

  140

  Buckinghamshire5

  758

  887

  —

  —

  —

  Milton Keynes6

  —

  —

  301

  313

  370

  Buckinghamshire6

  —

  —

  695

  686

  690

  East Sussex5

  1,351

  1,383

  —

  —

  —

  Brighton and Hove4,6

  —

  —

  816

  770

  1,460

  East Sussex6

  —

  —

  606

  595

  570

  Hampshire5

  1,396

  1,459

  —

  —

  —

  Portsmouth6

  —

  —

  459

  495

  440

  Southampton6

  —

  —

  406

  428

  440

  Hampshire6

  —

  —

  559

  60S

  600

  Isle of Wight4

  124

  115

  125

  118

  160

  Kent5

  1,676

  1,847

  1,812

  —

  —

  Medway6

  —

  —

  —

  359

  420

  Kent6

  —

  —

  —

  1,495

  1,410

  Oxfordshire

  705

  770

  866

  908

  1,000

  Surrey

  2,053

  2,080

  2,234

  2,384

  2,430

  West Sussex

  638

  648

  835

  877

  840

  South West

  7,240

  7,384

  8,573

  8,744

  10,930

  Avon5

  3,551

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bath and North East Somerset6

  —

  308

  309

  317

  300

  Bristol, City of6

  —

  2,755

  2,817

  2,836

  2,800

  North Somerset6

  —

  159

  164

  157

  200

  South Gloucestershire6

  —

  403

  320

  325

  330

  Cornwall4

  976

  988

  962

  1,042

  2,710

  Isles of Scilly

  1

  0

  3

  2

  0

  Devon5

  1,384

  1,378

  2,210

  —

  —

  Torbay6

  —

  —

  —

  326

  390

  Plymouth4,6

  —

  —

  —

  747

  1,130

  Devon6

  —

  —

  —

  1,172

  1,200

  Dorset5

  545

  554

  —

  —

  —

  Bournemouth6

  —

  —

  287

  246

  270

  Poole6

  —

  —

  92

  78

  80

  Dorset6

  —

  —

  214

  208

  250

  Gloucestershire

  17

  58

  72

  83

  70

  Somerset

  401

  472

  499

  477

  470

  Wiltshire5

  365

  309

  —

  —

  —

  Swindon6

  —

  —

  324

  428

  410

  Wiltshire6

  —

  —

  300

  300

  320

  1 Prior to September 1999, free places for three-year-olds were available only in maintained nursery and primary schools. Since September 1999 funding has been extended to private, voluntary and independent providers.

  2 Headcount numbers collected from maintained schools in January each year as part of the Annual Schools' Census.

  3 Combining Annual Schools' Census data from maintained schools in January 2000 and data submitted by LEAs for Nursery Education Grant purposes relating to private, voluntary and independent providers in spring 2000.

  4 LEA's eligible to provide funding for three-year-olds in the private, voluntary and independent sectors via Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships. In spring 2000 there were a total of 65 such LEAs in England.

  5 Before Local Government Re-organisation.

  6 After Local Government Re-organisation.

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Newly Qualified Teacherss
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the sums provided in to the standards fund grants allocated to local education authorities for(a) the cost of the 10 per cent. lighter timetable for NQTs and (b) the assessment, monitoring and evaluation of the arrangements for NQTs in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [147550]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: In 2000–01, the costs of the induction of Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) were met as part of the £290.5 million allocated for school improvement through the standards fund. The exact amount allocated to schools for induction
  480W
  purposes was left to local education authorities to decide in consultation with their schools and with reference to guidance issued in relation to the breakdown of the standards fund. For 2001–02, £64.4 million has been specifically allocated for induction for NQTs under the new standards fund arrangements. This includes £5 million for local education authorities to retain centrally for costs relating to assessment, monitoring and evaluation of the induction arrangements, and £59.4 million to be allocated to schools to provide £1,000 per term for each NQT. All figures include both the Government's and local authorities' contributions to the standards fund.
  481W

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many school playing fields there were in(a) 1979 and (b) 1997. [147707]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: No data were collected centrally on how many school playing fields there were in either 1979 or 1997. The only data about playing fields under the previous Administration that we are aware of are derived from independent surveys carried out by the Central Council of Physical Recreation. The CCPR published a paper in 1984: "Sports Fields at Risk", which indicated that some 3,630 acres of recreation land recorded on Land Registers were at risk of disposal. A more meaningful way of quantifying the area under threat at that time is to translate it into about 5,000 school playing fields of sports pitch size.

  Data to be collected through Asset Management Plans will, in the future, provide a clearer picture of the number of school playing fields throughout England. Once they have been validated, we plan to publish data collected from Asset Management Plans later in the year.

  SSAs(Schools)
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average per pupil standard spending assessment is in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in (i) England and (ii) north Somerset; and if he will estimate the sums which would be available for education in north Somerset if the average per pupil standard spending assessment for primary and secondary schools in north Somerset were the same as the average for England. [148162]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the 2001–02 education SSA per primary and secondary pupil for north Somerset and England.

  £

  SSA

  North Somerset

  England

  Primary per pupil

  2,341

  2,588

  Secondary per pupil

  3,026

  3,313

  If north Somerset's SSA per pupil for primary and secondary schools were the same as the national average it is estimated that its 2001–02 education SSA would be £6.3 million higher. Between 1997–98 and 2000–01 funding per pupil in north Somerset has increased by £380 in real terms. In addition to an increase of £3.65 million in education SSA, schools in north Somerset will benefit from an estimated £1.83 million in Direct Grant in 2001–02. The authority will also receive £100,000 as their share of the extra £52 million made available to provide support to help some LEAs manage funding changes in 2001–02. Additionally it is estimated that north Somerset (Weston) Education Action Zone will receive DfEE grants totalling £842,000 in 2001–02 and £692,000 in 2001–02.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list, for each local education authority the(a) primary education SSA per pupil and (b) secondary education SSA per pupil for 2001–02. [148288]
  482W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is contained in the table. In addition to SSAs, authorities and their schools also receive funding through the Standards Fund, Direct Grants, and the recently announced £52 million in additional funding for authorities facing particular pressures—these special and specific grants add £110 at national level to the funding received through SSAs. The overall increase in funding for 2001–02 is over £1.9 billion or 8 per cent. This is equivalent to around £150 per pupil in real terms.

  £

  Unit allocations 2001–02

  LEA number/name

  Primary per 5–10

  pupil Secondary per 11–15 pupil

  201 City of London

  3,347.79

  14,073.05

  202 Camden

  3,667.85

  4,536.27

  203 Greenwich

  3,433.58

  4,427.49

  204 Hackney

  3,814.77

  5,120.11

  205 Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,654.93

  4,622.48

  206 Islington

  3,719.03

  4,902.99

  207 Kensington and Chelsea

  3,847.88

  4,562.50

  208 Lambeth

  3,845.04

  5,335.77

  209 Lewisham

  3,564.68

  4,630.69

  210 Southwark

  3,687.69

  4,776.13

  211 Tower Hamlets

  3,895.67

  5,031.93

  212 Wandsworth

  3,332.74

  4,250.17

  213 Westminster

  3,550.07

  4,270.38

  301 Barking and Dagenham

  2,961.78

  3,857.86

  302 Barnet

  2,818.57

  3,552.10

  303 Bexley

  2,671.98

  3,415.54

  304 Brent

  3,238.97

  4,181.91

  305 Bromley

  2,640.57

  3,345.60

  306 Croydon

  2,879.07

  3,750.14

  307 Ealing

  3,061.29

  3,994.20

  308 Enfield

  2,935.16

  3,723.75

  309 Haringey

  3,363.24

  4,379.35

  310 Harrow

  2,775.87

  3,629.17

  311 Havering

  2,632.75

  3,389.89

  312 Hillingdon

  2,768.99

  3,544.36

  313 Hounslow

  2,988.47

  3,768.10

  314 Kingston upon Thames

  2,640.55

  3,368.52

  315 Merton

  2,830.81

  3,644.84

  316 Newham

  3,362.25

  4,332.37

  317 Redbridge

  2,819.16

  3,625.59

  318 Richmond upon Thames

  2,606.31

  3,296.95

  319 Sutton

  2,680.78

  3,360.39

  320 Waltham Forest

  3,116.95

  4,000.25

  330 Birmingham

  2,733.37

  3,542.25

  331 Coventry

  2,565.82

  3,302.88

  332 Dudley

  2,357.33

  3,023.23

  333 Sandwell

  2,593.82

  3,352.48

  334 Solihull

  2,338.77

  2,975.91

  335 Walsall

  2,485.53

  3,178.13

  336 Wolverhampton

  2,610.10

  3,362.61

  340 Knowsley

  2,864.44

  3,760.33

  341 Liverpool

  2,824.15

  3,641.64

  342 St. Helens

  2,482.24

  3,205.37

  343 Sefton

  2,470.79

  3,151.80

  344 Wirral

  2,548.58

  3,299.04

  350 Bolton

  2,470.53

  3,160.00

  351 Bury

  2,394.44

  3,064.64

  352 Manchester

  2,919.98

  3,815.11

  353 Oldham

  2,548.96

  3,267.51

  354 Rochdale

  2,580.79

  3,317.22

  355 Salford

  2,594.01

  3,370.05

  356 Stockport

  2,337.02

  3,025.37

  357 Tameside

  2,464.38

  3,156.32

  358 Trafford

  2,396.57

  3,088.26

  359 Wigan

  2,374.01

  3,039.88

  370 Barnsley

  2,480.09

  3,219.41

  371 Doncaster

  2,536.74

  3,282.76

  372 Rotherham

  2,462.02

  3,134.71

  373 Sheffield

  2,512.16

  3,233.81

  380 Bradford

  2,623.04

  3,406.58

  381 Calderdale

  2,480.12

  3,194.24

  483W

  £

  Unit allocations 2001–02

  LEA number/name

  Primary per 5–10 pupil

  Secondary per 11–15 pupil

  382 Kirklees

  2,505.11

  3,228.15

  383 Leeds

  2,479.6

  3,186.71,

  384 Wakefield

  2,409.05

  3,102.44

  390 Gateshead

  2,517.35

  3,245.29

  391 Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,652.70

  3,425.14

  392 North Tyneside

  2,447.17

  3,163.73

  393 South Tyneside

  2,575.53

  3,314.67

  394 Sunderland

  2,530.02

  3,259.95

  420 Isles of Scilly

  4,438.21

  5,670.49

  800 Bath and North East Somerset

  2,315.84

  2,926.40

  801 City of Bristol

  2,545.34

  3,292.20

  802 North Somerset

  2,340.62

  3,026.13

  803 South Gloucestershire

  2,271.91

  2,943.26

  805 Hartlepool

  2,550.29

  3,284.84

  806 Middlesbrough

  2,689.26

  3,517.04

  807 Redcar and Cleveland

  2,542.19

  3,252.52

  808 Stockton-on-Tees

  2,489.55

  3,223.13

  810 City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  2,641.07

  3,397.82

  811 East Riding of Yorkshire

  2,364.65

  3,051.22

  812 North East Lincolnshire

  2,537.29

  3,268.12

  813 North Lincolnshire

  2,463.69

  3,198.19

  815 North Yorkshire

  2,429.46

  3,096.47

  816 York

  2,350.96

  3,039.32

  820 Bedfordshire

  2,522.21

  3,240.33

  821 Luton

  2,742.45

  3,522.46

  825 Buckinghamshire

  2,518.20

  3,250.33

  826 Milton Keynes

  2,596.55

  3,349.02

  830 Derbyshire

  2,363.26

  3,046.80

  831 Derby

  2,531.95

  3,263.11

  835 Dorset

  2,368.71

  3,034.68

  836 Poole

  2,331.85

  2,992.33

  837 Bournemouth

  2,447.69

  3,126.46

  840 Durham

  2,492.59

  3,218.79

  841 Darlington

  2,470.42

  3,188.30

  845 East Sussex

  2,577.07

  3,326.17

  846 Brighton and Hove

  2,669.70

  3,424.06

  850 Hampshire

  2,450.82

  3,167.24

  851 Portsmouth

  2,639.01

  3,364.89

  852 Southampton

  2,678.97

  3,467.05

  855 Leicestershire

  2,292.22

  2,959.59

  856 Leicester

  2,693.29

  3,468.54

  857 Rutland

  2,346.01

  2,905.38

  860 Staffordshire

  2,329.15

  3,000.39

  861 Stoke on Trent

  2,520.12

  3,248.60

  865 Wiltshire

  2,382.75

  3,076.98

  866 Swindon

  2,378.54

  3,059.67

  867 BracknellForest

  2,561.93

  3,326.12

  868 Windsor and Maidenhead

  2,581.57

  3,270.23

  869 West Berkshire

  2,452.04

  3,125.91

  870 Reading

  2,640.73

  3,464.21

  871 Slough

  3,009.34

  3,965.81

  872 Wokingham

  2,337.67

  3,026.03

  873 Cambridgeshire

  2,408.39

  3,073.16

  874 Peterborough

  2,569.11

  3,301.65

  875 Cheshire

  2,347.69

  3,007.91

  876 Halton

  2,592.11

  3,363.45

  877 Warrington

  2,325.99

  3,003.39

  878 Devon

  2,436.71

  3,147.24

  879 Plymouth

  2,480.16

  3,160.24

  880 Torbay

  2,474.34

  3,187.82

  881 Essex

  2,572.03

  3,307.16

  882 Southend

  2,619.90

  3,362.39

  883 Thurrock

  2,726.73

  3,509.90

  484W

  £

  Unit allocations 2001–02

  LEA number/name

  Primary per 5–10 pupil

  Secondary per 11–15 pupil

  884 Herefordshire

  2,458.13

  3,165.61

  885 Worcestershire

  2,346.48

  3,011.43

  886 Kent

  2,572.29

  3,312.35

  887 Rochester and Gillingham

  2,547.05

  3,275.99

  888 Lancashire

  2,457.40

  3,163.75

  889 Blackburn

  2,642.25

  3,397.12

  890 Blackpool

  2,500.11

  3,249.79

  891 Nottinghamshire

  2,384.66

  3,076.05

  892 Nottingham City

  2,737.82

  3,544.07

  893 Shropshire

  2,405.90

  3,082.27

  894 The Wrekin

  2,488.61

  3,210.42

  908 Cornwall

  2,468.27

  3,186.55

  909 Cumbria

  2,453.17

  3,153.66

  916 Gloucestershire

  2,373.79

  3,043.86

  919 Hertfordshire

  2,605.09

  3,332.83

  921 Isle of Wight Council

  2,653.77

  3,441.02

  925 Lincolnshire

  2,455.29

  3,159.46

  926 Norfolk

  2,477.09

  3,173.84

  928 Northamptonshire

  2,400.40

  3,082.96

  929 Northumberland

  2,432.91

  3,135.74

  931 Oxfordshire

  2,531.08

  3,235.97

  933 Somerset

  2,404.87

  3,097.79

  935 Suffolk

  2,405.33

  3,071.22

  936 Surrey

  2,574.90

  3,298.65

  937 Warwickshire

  2,361.59

  3,026.65

  938 West Sussex

  2,499.56

  3,208.68

  England

  2,587.69

  3,313.17

  Asset Management Plans
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2001,Official Report, column 33W, on asset management plans, what the timetable is for publication of local authority asset management plans condition data. [148386]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have given local education authorities the opportunity of submitting any missing Asset Management Plans condition data. Time will be needed for validation of such submissions and we anticipate that publication of data analysis will not be before this summer.

  Emergency Contraception (Staff Liability)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what guidance he has given to schools regarding the potential liability of(a) governors and (b) staff when emergency contraception is given to girls under the age of 16 by school staff or on school premises without the consent of parents; [148677]

  (2) what guidance he has given schools regarding the potential liability of (a) school governors, (b) teachers, (c) head teachers and (d) other school staff in the event of emergency contraception being provided to girls under the age of sixteen by school staff or on school premises without the consent of parents. [148678]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: The Learning and Skills Act makes it clear that governing bodies must have regard to our Sex and Relationship Education guidance when developing sex and relationship education policies. The guidance, published last July, clearly states that governing bodies and head teachers should consult parents in developing their sex and

  485W
  relationship education policy to ensure that they develop policies which reflect parents' wishes and the culture of the community they serve.

  Trained staff in secondary schools should be able to give young people full information about different types of contraception, including emergency contraception and their effectiveness. Outside the teaching situation, health professionals such as school nurses can give one-to-one advice or information to a pupil on a health-related matter including contraception. We would not normally expect school nurses to issue contraception or emergency contraception. In the few cases where school nurses are dispensing contraception, this should be made clear in school's sex and relationship education policy, which has to be agreed with parents. These arrangements should not proceed until parents have been consulted.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire of 14 November 2000 to the Secretary of State for Health, which was transferred to him, on behalf of his constituent Mrs. Smith. [149204]

  Mr. Wills
  A letter responding to the right hon. Member was despatched on 2 February 2001.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kosovo
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the(a) effectiveness and (b) value for money of the UN effort in Kosovo. [148925]

  Mr. Vaz
  The United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) has made significant progress in Kosovo since 1999. To date over 1.3 million refugees and displaced persons have been able to return. Hospitals and schools have re-opened, with over 300,000 children back in education. A functioning judiciary has been established. Joint administrative structures have been set up. Municipal elections were held in October 2000. However, much remains to be done, as UNMIK itself recognises. To the end of June last year, UNMIK's projected cost to date is £567.5 million. This would have been far less than the cost of further conflict. We will continue to support UNMIK's efforts to build a lasting peace.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the case for a cantonisation policy in Kosovo. [148922]

  Mr. Vaz
  HMG do not support cantonisation. We are committed to bringing about ethnic reconciliation throughout Kosovo. Cantonisation would only lead to a continued ethnic divide. Reconciliation will take some time but in the long run we believe it is the only viable option.
  486W

  St. Helena
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will restore the right of abode to residents of St. Helena; and if he will make a statement. [149199]

  Mr. Battle
  The restoration of British citizenship to the Overseas Territories will give their citizens the right of abode in the UK.

  The Government remain fully committed to introducing legislation to give British citizenship to the people of the Overseas Territories including those of St. Helena. Officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office have been working on the principles to be set out in the Bill and draft instructions have been agreed. We recently initiated a consultation process with the Overseas Territories on issues related to the Bill and its implementation.

  We will make parliamentary time available for this measure as soon as practicable.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what purpose the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), caused inquiries to be made about the passport application of Mr. Hinduja; and whom he employed for this purpose. [147285]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that was given by the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) on 18 January 2001, Official Report, columns 351–52W.

  The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that Sir Anthony Hammond QC will conduct a review, reporting to the Prime Minister
  "to establish what approaches were made to the Home Office in 1998 in connection with the possibility of an application for naturalisation by Mr. S. P. Hinduja, and the full circumstances surrounding such approaches and the later grant of that application".

  Congo
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's position is with regard to troops from(a) Uganda, (b) Rwanda, (c) Zimbabwe, (d) Angola (e) the Interahamwe and (f) Namibia occupying part of the territory of the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if he will make a statement. [148314]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK fully supports United Nations Security Council resolution 1291 (2000) reaffirming the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the DRC and calling for the orderly withdrawal of all foreign forces from the DRC in accordance with the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement.

  Indonesia
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on violence against Christians in Indonesia and the potential for a United Nations peace initiative; [148576]
  487W
  (2) what recent representations his Department has made to the Indonesian Government concerning violence directed at Christians in Indonesia. [148575]

  Mr. Battle
  The latest violence in Ambon illustrates the fragility of the security situation at a time when there had been some recent improvements; the Muslim and Christian holidays in December passed without serious incident in Ambon.

  Our Ambassador to Indonesia has just returned from a visit to the province and the Indonesian Minister for Settlement is arranging a further visit to Maluku with a group of diplomats this month. We will continue to work with the Indonesian authorities and UNDP to promote reconciliation, begin wider construction work and to offer practical assistance where appropriate.

  We continue to urge the Indonesian Government to exercise tolerance and restraint and remind them of their responsibility to maintain law and order and take immediate steps to bring the perpetrators of the violence to justice. I did so most recently with Foreign Minister Shihab on 12 December.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name(a) the department within his Department with responsibility for handling export licences and (b) the civil servant who heads it. [148596]

  Mr. Wilson
  Within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the processing of export licence applications is co-ordinated by the non-proliferation department. The actual scrutiny of licence applications is carried out by the relevant geographical departments, with advice from the non-proliferation department and other specialist FCO departments as needed, and consulting Ministers on sensitive cases. Since 8 January 2001, the head of the non-proliferation department has been Tim Dowse.

  Minority Ethnic Liaison Officer
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the temporary appointment of a minority ethnic liaison officer; under what length of contract the current officer is employed; and what was the budget allocation for the officer's work in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01. [148886]

  Mr. Wilson
  Linbert Spencer was employed as the Department's minority ethnic liaison adviser from December 1999 to November 2001. He continues to provide the Department with advice on a consultancy basis. He has made a major contribution to widening the Department's recruitment base to minority ethnic communities and to ensuring it benefits from the diversity of its current staff. No specific budget is allocated to this work.

  Iran
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Iran about human rights in that country; and if he will make a statement. [149198]
  488W
  Mr. Wilson
  We and our EU partners take every appropriate opportunity to press the Iranian authorities over our concerns about human rights issues in Iran. The Foreign Secretary raised human rights matters with his counterpart, Dr. Kharrazi, when they met in New York on 15 September and with the Iranian Ambassador to London on 4 October. More recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) discussed human rights concerns with Ambassador Sarmadi on 22 January. In conjunction with our EU partners, we also table twice yearly UN Resolutions on Human Rights in Iran. The most recent resolution, reflecting both positive developments and remaining concerns, was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 4 December.

  Caribbean Territories (Homosexuality)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will make an Order in Council to legalise homosexual acts in the five Caribbean territories where such acts remain illegal. [148842]

  Mr. Battle
  An Order in Council to de-criminalise consensual homosexual acts between adults in private in Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands, was made by Her Majesty at the Privy Council meeting on the 13 December 2000 and came into force on 1 January 2001.

  Premier Oil
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to Premier Oil regarding their operations in Burma. [148841]

  Mr. Battle
  Premier Oil are well aware of our views which we reiterate at all opportunities: HMG do not encourage trade with or investment in Burma. We have told Premier Oil that we would welcome their moving out of Burma as soon as and to the fullest extent that they lawfully can.

SCOTLAND

  Judiciary (Training)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what training the judiciary in Scotland was given between 1 May 1997 and 1 July 1999. [145890]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: Responsibility for training the judiciary in Scotland lies with the independent Judicial Studies Committee which was funded by the Scottish Office during the period in question. Between May 1997 and 1 July 1999 the Committee ran training events in connection with new legislation on criminal justice in Scotland and on changes in legislation affecting children's cases. Guidance was also issued to all members of the judiciary on a number of other pieces of legislation which came into effect during this period. Training in the use of information technology was also a prominent feature.
  489W

  Departmental Surveys
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97, (f) 1997–98, (g) 1998–99, (h) 1999–2000 and (i) 2000–01, (I) her Department's total spending on quantitative and qualitative surveys of policy issues by focus groups, opinion polling, task forces or other means and (II) the cost of each individual project. [146587]

  Mr. Foulkes
  An important element of the Modernising Government initiative is to ensure effective communication. No expenditure has been incurred by the Scotland Office since 1 July 1999 on surveys through focus groups, opinion polls or task forces. For the Scottish Office before 1 July 1999, such information was not collected centrally and the information could be obtained now only at disproportionate cost.

CABINET OFFICE

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much sponsorship money has been raised for the Manchester Commonwealth Games and how much more needs to be raised to meet the target set. [148981]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Manchester 2002 Ltd. has to date announced some £18 million in commercial income for the 2002 Commonwealth Games. Manchester 2002 aim to raise income from a combination of sponsorship, television rights, merchandising and ticket sales to meet the operating costs of the Games. In addition, the sale of the Australian television rights to Channel 7 television has just been successfully negotiated. Further sponsorship deals are expected to be announced this month and Manchester 2002 Ltd. are working hard to ensure they stage a successful Games.

  Civil Service (Management Functions) Act
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what delegations have been made in 2000 under the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992; to whom those delegations were made; and what the main conditions attached to them were. [149507]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  No such delegations have been made.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Order to implement the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 will be made; on what date the Act will commence; and if he will make a statement. [148108]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 February 2001]: The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 received Royal Assent on 23 November 2000. We will be consulting the industry on a statutory compensation scheme as required under the Act. Under section 7(3) of the Act, the
  490W
  provisions relating to compensation for existing businesses in section 5 of the Act came into force two months after the Act received Royal Assent.

  Under section 7(2) of the Act, the ban on fur farming will come into force on a date to be appointed by commencement order, which cannot be before 1 January 2003. However, fur farmers may close down at any time after Royal Assent and before the ban comes into force, without losing eligibility for compensation. A number have indicated a desire to do so, and we have now appointed independent consultants who will be visiting the fur farms this month. The purpose of this delayed commencement is to give fur farmers an opportunity to adjust their affairs and wind down their businesses in advance of the ban. The Government are committed to implementing the ban at the earliest opportunity.

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fish farms there are in the United Kingdom; how much it costs to acquire a licence for fish farming; and how much funding was given to fish farms in each of the last three years by his Department. [148680]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: Fish farming in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive. At 1 February 2001, there were 508 registered fish farms in England and 53 in Wales.

  Fish farmers do not require a licence to farm. They do need to be registered, but this is free of charge.

  There has been no direct funding given to fish farming by the Department in the last three years. However, some £2 million is spent each year on aquaculture research, particularly in respect of work on disease control.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what separation distances will apply to the GM farm-scale evaluations this spring. [149560]

  Ms Quin
  Following the scientific review and public consultation on separation distances that the Ministry commissioned last year, Ministers have asked the industry representative body, SCIMAC, this year to apply the separation distances for the spring farm-scale evaluations as set out in the table, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. These include changes to the distance for varietal associations and partially restored hybrids of oilseed rape (increased from 50 metres to 100 metres), and the distance for conventional forage maize (increased from 50 metres to 80 metres).

  The purpose of the separation distances is to help ensure that any possible cross-pollination with nearby compatible crops is minimised. Based on best scientific data currently available, the distances in the table should ensure that if any cross-pollination does occur, the resulting GM presence in neighbouring crops would be extremely low. The separation distances agreed should reduce cross-pollination to a maximum of 1 per cent. for any crop and considerably below this maximum in most cases. A background note on the separation distances has been placed in the Library.
  491W
  The distances in question apply for the purposes of the spring 2001 farm-scale evaluations only, and will be kept under review for future plantings. Steps are being taken to strengthen early communication at local level with farmers in the vicinity of FSE sites. All farmers hosting trials are being given clear guidance by SCIMAC that they should discuss their cropping plans at the earliest possible opportunity beforehand with their immediate neighbours. Ministers are also encouraging early dialogue at local level between FSE operators and all relevant local organic growers, and have asked SCIMAC to work closely with certified seed producers to ensure that current and any prospective EU standards for certified seed can continue to be met. MAFF are arranging a meeting with beekeeping organisations and SCIMAC to discuss specific issues affecting local beekeepers. Communication with local fanners will begin in advance of final decision

  (a)Number of officers who left the RUC in years 1999 and 2000

  Assistant chief constable

  Chief superintendent

  Superintendent

  Establishment

  9

  161

  Leavers in 1999

  0

  2

  5

  Leavers in 2000

  1

  2

  2

  Leavers as percentage of establishment in 1999

  0.0

  4.3

  Leavers as percentage of establishment in 2000

  11.1

  2.5

  (b) Number of officers who will leave under the voluntary severance arrangements up to 31 March 2001, with appropriate percentages

  Assistant chief constable

  Chief superintendent

  Superintendent

  Establishment as at 15 January 2001

  9

  161

  Police scheduled to leave January to March 2001

  3

  21

  30

  Police eligible to leave from April to December 2001

  1

  17

  51

  (a) As percentage of establishment

  33.3

  31.7

  (b) As percentage of establishment

  11.1

  42.2

  It should be noted that a further 69 officers will satisfy the necessary criteria for the severance arrangements to leave up to 31 March 2002 but nominations have not yet been sought. In addition it is not possible to determine the number of officers who may apply to leave under natural wastage, for example, resignation, health grounds, termination.

  Robberies
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many robberies of(a) post offices

  (a) Armed robberies on post offices/postal vehicles: 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000

  Date

  Sub-division

  Target

  4 January 2000

  Woodbourne

  Post Office, Andersonstown Road, Belfast

  5 January 2000

  Newtownabbey

  Post Office, Glengormley Park, Belfast

  14 January 2000

  Lisburn

  Post Office, Moss Road, Lisburn

  16 January 2000

  Enniskillen

  Post Office, East Bridge Street, Enniskillen

  19 January 2000

  Downpatrick

  Post Office, Derryboye, Crossgar

  20 January 2000

  Cookstown

  Post Office, Coagh

  22 January 2000

  Castlereagh

  Post Office, Hillmount Drive, Moneyreagh

  31 January 2000

  Lurgan

  Post Office, Derryola Road, Ahgalee

  24 February 2000

  Newcastle

  Post Office, Letrim, Castlewellan

  28 February 2000

  Musgrave Street

  Parcel Force Van, Castle Junction, Belfast

  2 March 2000

  Strabane

  Post Office, Umey Road, Claudy

  30 March 2000

  Bangor

  Post Office, Bridge Road, Helen's Bay

  5 April 2000

  Woodbourne

  Post Office, Dairy Farm Shopping Centre, Belfast

  21 April 2000

  Banbridge

  Lenaderg Post Office, Huntley Road, Banbridge

  29 April 2000

  Dungannon

  Post Office, Dungannon Road, Coalisland

  6 May 2000

  Waterside

  Post Office, Ardmore Road, Londonderry

  31 May 2000

  Grosvenor Road

  Post Office, Falls Road, Belfast

  6 July 2000

  Waterside

  Post Office, Ardmore, Londonderry

  492W
  making and formal public notification, to allow as much time as possible for any potential difficulties to be resolved.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many RUC(a) assistant chief constables, (b) chief superintendents and (c) superintendents left the force in (i) 1999 and (ii) 2000; how many are scheduled to leave in years (x) 2001 and (y) 2002; and what percentage of the establishment for those ranks during the relevant years this represents. [144691]

  Mr. Ingrain
  The information requested is as follows:
  and(b) Royal Mail vehicles there were in each RUC division in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will estimate the total sum so stolen in each RUC division in this period. [147044]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table provides details of armed robberies of post offices and postal vehicles recorded by the Royal Ulster Constabulary for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000:
  493W

  (a) Armed robberies on post offices/postal vehicles: 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000

  Date

  Sub-division

  Target

  20 July 2000

  Waterside

  Post Office, Lettershandoney, Londonderry

  27 July 2000

  Ballymoney

  Post Office, Straid Road, Bushmills

  28 July 2000

  Woodbourne

  Post Office, Glen Road, Belfast

  10 August 2000

  Ballymoney

  Post Office, Glenshesk Road, Amoy

  12 August 2000

  Strabane

  Post Office, Longland Road, Donemana

  17 August 2000

  Downpatrick

  Post Office, Cloughy

  25 September 2000

  Enniskillen

  Comagrade Post Office, Comagrade Road, Enniskillen

  10 October 2000

  Lurgan

  Post Office, Gawleys Gate, Lurgan

  21 November 2000

  Woodbourne

  Post Office, Monagh Road, Belfast

  9 December 2000

  Carrickfergus

  Sunnylands Post Office, Bridewell Drive, Carrickfergus

  Notes:

  1. Robberies where a firearm or the impression of a firearm is used.

  2.Does not include attempted robberies.

  (b) The total recorded cash sum taken during the listed robberies amounted to around £270,000 (this figure excludes the undisclosed value of postal orders, cheques, etc., also taken during some robberies).

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much the Saville inquiry has cost to date. [145478]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 January 2001, c. 637W]: The text of my answer relating to the Bloody Sunday inquiry should have read:
  "As of 31 December 2000, the cost of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry to this Department amounted to £33,834,904."

TREASURY

  Minimum Wage (Morecambe and Lunesdale)
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many workers are estimated to benefit from the minimum wage in(a) Morecambe and Lunesdale and (b) the United Kingdom. [148962]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Miss Geraldine Smith, dated 6 February 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of workers in Morecambe and Lunesdale and the United Kingdom who have benefited from the national minimum wage (NMW) (148962).
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has published estimates of the number of jobs paid at less than NMW rates for 1998, 1999 and 2000. These are based on an improved methodology using data from both the New Earnings Survey and Labour Force Survey. Estimates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions are available on the National Statistics website at:http://www.statistics.gov.uk/nsbase/themes/labour—market/nmw—lowpay—tables.asp
  No estimates are available for Parliamentary Constituencies.

  Departmental Duties
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the titles, duties and functions of Mr. Martin Roberts and Mr. Robert Allan in his Department were prior to their transfer to the Financial Services Authority. [149200]
  494W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Mr. Roberts and Mr. Allen worked in the Insurance Team of the Department during 1998 prior to their transfer to the Financial Services Authority in January 1999.

  Earnings Patterns
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the impact on(a) GDP, (b) tax revenue and (c) savings in benefits if persons (i) over 50 and (ii) between the ages of 50 and 65 had the same patterns of employment and earnings as the average of the rest of the UK labour force. [147607]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the EMU statistics which were the subject of a progress report at the ECOFIN of 19 January. [148540]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have deposited a copy of "Information requirements in EMU: Third progress report on the implementation of the Monetary Committee's report" in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conclusions were arrived at during the ECOFIN of 19 January 2001 regarding the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact. [148541]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  ECOFIN examined and agreed an Opinion on the Swedish Convergence Programme, in line with the Stability and Growth Pact. A copy of the Opinion has been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Death Certificates
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what his estimate is of the net yield per annum from the issuing of death certificates(a) before and (b) after the decision not to authorise the photocopying of death certificates; [148546]

  (2) what factors underlay the decision of the Economic Secretary not to authorise the photocopying of death certificates; and if he will make a statement; [148543]
  495W
  (3) how many offences involving (a) the fraudulent use of photocopies of death certificates and (b) the fraudulent use of photocopies of death certificates endorsed by solicitors have been committed in each of the last 10 years; [148545]

  (4) how many representations he has received (a) in favour of and (b) against the decision of the Economic Secretary not to authorise the photocopying of death certificates. [148544]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) Guidance on the Copying of Birth, Death and Marriage Certificates (October 1999) stated that it was Government policy not to authorise the copying of certificates. I received one representation against that policy. After considering this representation, I concluded that it would be inappropriate to allow solicitors to photocopy death certificates issued in England and Wales for endorsement and use as evidence of death. One representation against this decision has been received.

  No estimate of the yield per annum from the issuing of death certificates has been made and information about the fraudulent use of photocopied certificates is not held centrally. The policy is based on the potential use of photocopied certificates for fraud and not on commercial considerations.

  The Government have a responsibility to reduce the potential for fraud. A death certificate is a certified copy of an entry in a death register. Under statute it may only be certified by the registrar who holds the register and the Registrar General who holds a certified copy of the register. Similar provisions apply to birth and marriage certificates. Photocopies can conceal alterations to original certificates and will by-pass the security features—watermarks, fugitive inks—so that fraudulent use is unlikely to be detected. Misrepresentation of documents is an important element in fraud relating to identity and status. Authorising any use of photocopied certificates for evidential purposes will signify Government approval of the practice and increase their potential use for fraud. For this reason, it has been decided that the photocopying of documents for evidential purposes should not be authorised. Representations by solicitors about the cost and inconvenience when administering an estate were considered. Any inconvenience is regretted but is outweighed by the public interest in limiting the opportunities for fraud.

  Certificates of recent events are readily available from a registrar in England and Wales at a cost of £3.50. All income from registration fees, including certificates issued at Register Offices, is paid to local authorities. The fee levels are reviewed every year and adjusted to ensure that the income continues to recover half the costs incurred by local authorities in providing the service.

  Paris Club
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy towards Russian debt to the Paris Club is; and if he will make a statement. [149041]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Russia has promised to make debt service payments to Paris Club creditors under successive rescheduling agreements. In its current 496W
  economic situation, all Russia's Paris Club creditors hold that Russia should not run into arrears on payment obligations.

  Barnett Formula
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals to revise the Barnett formula. [148946]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government have no current plans to revise the Barnett formula.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the effect of aggregate tax on the quarry industry; what changes he plans to make in respect thereof; and if he will make a statement. [148649]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have received a number of representations regarding the aggregates levy from a range of organisations, including the aggregates industry, local authorities and environmental groups. Most of these were in response to HM Custo Ms and Excise's consultation on the administration of the levy in 1998 and the subsequent publications of the draft clauses. These representations will be taken into account as the legislation is finalised.

  Petrol Vapour
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of the recovery of petrol vapour for(a) use as furnace fuel and (b) use in the production of electricity. [148606]

  Mr. Timms
  No such assessment has been made.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlay the decision of the Financial Secretary not to allow a rebate on petrol vapour recovered by vapour recovery systems and used to produce electricity. [148607]

  Mr. Timms
  There is no scope within the provision of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 to allow such a rebate, and I am not persuaded that such a change is necessary or desirable given that recovery of vapour is required by environmental regulation.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the yield is of customs duty on petrol vapour recovered by vapour recovery systems and used in the production of electricity. [148605]

  Mr. Timms
  No such figure is available.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the incidence of double taxation in the imposition of duty on petrol vapour recovered by vapour recovery systems and used to produce electricity. [148604]

  Mr. Timms
  There is no double taxation. Duty is charged only once, when the petrol leaves the refinery. There is no relief from duty on petrol used to power engines or turbines.
  497W
  Petrol vapour recovered and returned to duty-suspended stocks at the refinery is, by concession, eligible for duty refund to prevent subsequent double taxation when redelivered as liquid fuel.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Wales have applied for the Children's Tax Credit. [148317]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Wales are eligible for the Children's Tax Credit. [148319]

  Mr. Timms
  It is estimated that 250,000 families in Wales will benefit from the Children's Tax Credit.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the introduction of the casework programme of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [149424]

  Mr. Straw
  In 1996 Siemens Business Services Ltd. and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) of the Home Office agreed a specification and contract for the development and operation of an integrated casework system. For a number of reasons delivery in the time scale originally anticipated did not occur.

  Officials have however worked closely with Siemens to ensure that the Information Technology (IT) provided by them supports the expansion of immigration casework and current priorities. The systems already operating as an interim solution, with which the Directorate has achieved 110,000 asylum decisions this year, provide the practical support needed. The original full casework application now seems over-complex and out of touch with current working practices. IND has accordingly agreed with Siemens that they should stand down the resources they are using to develop the full casework application.

  Siemens continue to work actively in partnership with IND on a programme of further improvements to IND's current IT, to be completed over the next year. IND and Siemens will together work through the consequent changes to the contract and payment schedule. At present, there is no change to the current contract, which runs to October 2003.

  Clandestine Entrants
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will extend the application of the civil penalty for carrying clandestine entrants to rail freight trains; when he will set the amount of such a penalty and bring into operation a code of practice for rail freight; and if he will publish a report on the consultation process. [149509]

  Mrs. Roche
  Following a formal consultation period, which ran from 13 November to 25 December 2000, the main set of Regulations extending the civil penalty to rail freight, the Carriers' Liability (Clandestine Entrants)498W
  (Application to Rail Freight) Regulations 2001, were laid before Parliament today along with a draft Code of Practice. The main Regulations come into force, for the purposes of making and laying two related instruments, namely, the Carriers' Liability (Clandestine Entrants and Sale of Transporters) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 and the Carriers' Liability (Clandestine Entrants) (Code of Practice for Rail Freight) Order 2001 on 7 February 2001. The remaining provisions of the main Regulations, and the two related instruments will come into force on 1 March 2001.

  The purpose of the main Regulations is to enable penalties to be imposed in respect of clandestine entrants who arrive in the United Kingdom concealed in a rail freight wagon. The other two instruments provide respectively for the amount of the penalty (and certain procedural matters), and for the coming into operation of the Code of Practice.

  I am placing a copy of the report, summarising the main responses to the consultation process, in the Library. Copies will also be available on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website at www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Police Productivity
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of productivity gains for police inspecting ranks in each of the last five years. [149216]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on police performance related to particular police ranks is not collected centrally.

  Essex Constabulary
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the total number of police officers who have joined the Essex constabulary as a result of the recent recruitment campaign initiated by his Department. [148697]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The National Recruitment Campaign was launched on 30 August 2000. By 31 January 2001, 22,209 Expressions of Interest had been forwarded to forces from the National Recruitment Campaign call centre, including 370 to Essex police.

  In addition to Expressions of Interest forwarded from the national call centre, I have been informed by Essex police that the force has received a further 220 requests for application forms directly from individuals as a result of the national campaign.

  Essex police have advised that it is too soon for any of the applications generated as a result of the National Campaign to have progressed to the point of recruitment, but that all the applications received are being progressed by the force in the usual way.

  Jury Trial
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to restrict the right to choose jury trial for middle-ranking offences. [148568]
  499W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As was affirmed in the Speech from the Throne, the Government propose to give the courts, rather than the defendant, the power to decide where an either-way case should be tried.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire of 5 September 2000 on behalf of his constituent Mr. Smith. [149205]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office has no record of receiving this particular letter in its correspondence database. As I now have a copy of the letter, I will respond to the issues raised very shortly.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters of 12 December and 15 January from the hon. Member for Northavon regarding Cameron McArthur. [149207]

  Mr. Straw
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State replied to the letter of 12 December 2000 on 5 February.

  The letter dated 15 January was transferred on 26 January to the Minister responsible for the issue of travellers in the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) I understand that my hon. Friend will reply as soon as possible.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Richmond Park dated 25 October 2000, regarding Miss Rosebell Kirungi (ref. K10003442). [148619]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 5 February 2001. I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to repeal section 64 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement. [149111]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is no section 64 in this Act but the hon. Member may be referring to section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which prevents the disclosure of information about the use of animals in scientific procedures that has been provided in confidence. Following the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, all statutory bars are being reviewed, including section 24.

  I held a seminar with representatives of animal protection groups and the scientific community in September 2000 to discuss the review of section 24 and officials have subsequently held a series of separate meetings with some of the organisations that participated
  500W
  in the seminar. I have also received views from the Animal Procedures Committee on this subject.

  The Government have a clear commitment to Freedom of Information and are equally committed to the maintenance of the necessary protection for individual scientists and their research institutions from the actions of animal rights extremists. I am considering very carefully how these commitments can best be met. A decision on whether to repeal or amend section 24 will not be made until later this year.

  Youth Justice Board
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place the Youth Justice Board report, "Delivering the Pledge on Persistent Young Offenders", in the Library. [148979]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This document offered advice to Ministers on the management of the work to deliver the Youth Justice Pledge. We do not propose to issue it. We publish performance figures every month.

  Police (Cumbria)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list, for each year since 1979, the total number of civilian staff employed by the police force in Cumbria; [147546]

  (2) if he will list, for each year since 1979, the total number of (a) constables and (b) police officers in Cumbria. [147547]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: The information is set out in the tables.

  Table A: Police and constable numbers for each year since 1979

  Year1

  Number of police officers

  Number of constables

  1979

  1,056

  766

  1980

  1,093

  806

  1981

  1,108

  813

  1982

  1,121

  824

  1983

  1,107

  808

  1984

  1,114

  817

  1985

  1,092

  794

  1986

  1,127

  829

  1987

  1,118

  810

  1988

  1,141

  829

  1989

  1,135

  820

  1990

  1,166

  852

  1991

  1,184

  872

  1992

  1,179

  869

  1993

  1,196

  889

  1994

  1,174

  876

  1995

  1,167

  877

  19962

  1,115

  846

  1997

  1,144

  882

  1998

  1,164

  911

  1999

  1,126

  873

  2000

  1,084

  838

  20003

  1,048

  817

  1 As at 31 March.

  2 From the financial year 1995–96 police numbers were collected on a full-time equivalent basis. In prior years police regulations did not permit the employment of part-time officers.

  3 30 September.

  501W

  Table B: Civilian support staff numbers since 1979

  Year1

  2Number

  1979

  250

  1980

  254

  1981

  257

  1982

  258

  1983

  274

  1984

  280

  1985

  295

  1986

  314

  1987

  310

  1988

  340

  1989

  351

  1990

  380

  1991

  396

  1992

  409

  1993

  414

  1994

  436

  1995

  443

  1996

  408

  1997

  451

  1998

  452

  1999

  442

  2000

  469

  20003

  505

  1 As at 31 March

  2 Civilian staff numbers are full-time equivalent.

  3 30 September.

  Football Disorder Act
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) arrests have been made and (b) convictions secured under the provisions of the Football Disorder Act 2000. [148407]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Since the Act came into force on 28 July, there have been 1,534 arrests for football-related offences as defined in Schedule 1 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (as amended by the Football (Disorder) Act 2000). No information is available on the number of convictions. Most types of offences committed in connection with football are not specific to football and convictions are recorded by category of offence rather than by the location or circumstances of the offence. However, during this period, the courts have imposed 191 of the new football banning orders introduced by the 2000 Act.

  Vehicle Crime
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that road safety and the reduction of vehicle crime are included in crime and disorder audits. [148421]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 does not specify what categories of crime and disorder must be included in the audit local partnerships must produce. However, it does require that the partnership conduct a thorough review of the levels and patterns of crime, consulting widely in the local community. It is through this process that partnerships will identify the nature and extent of road safety and vehicle crime problems in their area, as well as other crime and disorder issues.

  Crime and Disorder Audits
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the next round of crime and disorder audits will be undertaken. [148420]
  502W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires that crime and disorder strategies are formulated and implemented for a period of three years and each subsequent period of three years. The implementation date for the next set of strategies is March 2002 and crime and disorder partnerships are beginning to undertake audits in order to formulate their strategies by that date.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the incidence of the inclusion of road safety in local crime and disorder strategies. [148419]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  A Review of Audits and Strategies produced by Crime and Disorder Partnerships in 1999 was published by Home Office, Research, Development and Statistics in November 2000 under reference Police Research Briefing Note 8/00. The review found that of the 363 strategies examined, 37 per cent. (134) of partnerships had specified road safety/dangerous driving as a priority for action. Of those 134 strategies, 37 per cent. (50) contained a specific target.

  Soft-tipped Bullets
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces use soft-tipped bullets. [148858]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not available centrally. All ammunition used by the police service is approved by the Police Scientific Development Branch at the Home Office, but it is an operational decision for chief officers of police to decide which ammunition is used by officers in their force.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from hon. Members and others on the use of soft-tipped bullets by the police; and if he will make a statement. [148857]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In addition to the hon. Member himself, we have received representations recently from four other hon. Members and occasional letters from members of the public on the use of soft-point ammunition by the police.

  Hunting Bill
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to consult the Association of Chief Police Officers on the enforcement of each of the alternatives set out in the Hunting Bill; and if he will place their responses in the Library. [148305]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Association of Chief Police Officers were shown an early draft of the Bill and consulted about the options. The Association made a number of detailed comments on the proposals contained in the three options, set out in a letter of 4 December. They also issued a Press Release, dated 24 January, saying that while it is too early to reach a final view on the resource implications of any of the options, if hunting is banned, they do not anticipate a significant additional burden on the service, over and above its current commitment. Copies of both documents will be placed in the Library.
  503W

  Proof of Age Scheme
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the introduction of a national proof of age scheme. [148866]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have received some correspondence supporting the introduction of a national proof of age card. There are a number of cards, some produced under industry-led schemes and others issued by public authorities, which provide evidence of age; and we are proposing, through the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, to strengthen the duty on licensees to satisfy themselves about customers' ages before selling alcohol to them.

  Colin Griffiths
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Staffordshire police concerning the death of Colin Griffiths of Stafford on 26 December 1994. [148662]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that a report from the Staffordshire police on the circumstances of Mr. Griffiths' death is currently under consideration by the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Victim Support
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been provided for victim support since May 1997. [148893]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  When we assumed office in May 1997, Victim Support's annual grant was £11.7 million. It has since been increased as shown:

  £ million

  1997–98

  12.7

  1998–99

  12.7

  1999–2000

  17.5

  2000–01

  18.4

  Special Constables
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 January 2001,Official Report, column 491W, on special constables, what the (a) expenditure was on special constable recruitment advertising and (b) number of special constables recruited was in each of the last five years. [148582]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: The total expenditure on special constable recruitment advertising is assessed at the end of each financial year in March. The figures for the five years 1995–96 to 1999–2000 are set out in the table:

  Year

  £

  1995–96

  1,960,000

  1996–97

  1,950,000

  1997–98

  420,000

  1998–99

  355,000

  1999–2000

  910,000

  Five year total

  5,595,000

  504W
  The figures for the number of special constables recruited during the same period are:

  Recruited

  Male

  Female

  Total

  April 1995-March 1996

  2,565

  1,868

  4,433

  April 1996-March 1997

  2,959

  1,949

  4,908

  April 1997-March 1998

  2,255

  1,550

  3,805

  April 1998-March 1999

  1,668

  1,155

  2,823

  April 1999-March 2000

  1,123

  744

  1,867

  Five year total

  10,570

  7,266

  17,836

  Asylum Support
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many units of accommodation the National Asylum Support Service estimates it will provide in total in(a) 2000–01 and (b) each of the next three years; how many units have been provided to date in 2000–01; and if he will make a statement; [148824]

  (2) how many units of accommodation are provided in property under contract to the National Asylum Support Service; and what proportion of such accommodation was (a) occupied and (b) unoccupied on the first day of each month in 2000–01 to date. [148825]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: The information is not available in the precise form requested. As at the end of December 2000, 26,7001 units of accommodation were contracted by National Asylum Support Service (NASS), of which 16,600 units were allocated to asylum seekers and their dependants.

  NASS estimates that it will require 44,000 bedspaces in this financial year 2000–01. For 2001–02 NASS estimates that it will require somewhere in the region of 16,000 additional bedspaces. Estimates for future financial years are not available.

  1Figures rounded to nearest 100

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to voluntary associations which operate in England and Scotland on paying a contribution to the Criminal Records Bureau. [148694]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 February 2001, c. 433W]: This is to provide additional information to that which I was able to give in my previous reply, in relation to the issue of charges for the voluntary sector. We have listened very carefully to concerns expressed within the voluntary sector, and by others, including right hon. and hon. Members, on behalf of the voluntary sector, about the potential implications of charges to be made by the Criminal Records Bureau. We have made clear our commitment to and support for the voluntary sector and recently announced a major package to promote voluntary and community involvement. It remains our intention that the Bureau should be financed by means of the charges that it makes. But we have concluded that standard and enhanced disclosures, which include those working in sensitive positions with the vulnerable, should be issued free of charge to volunteers. We are continuing our

  505W
  consideration of the appropriate fees regime and structure for other users of the Bureau's services and we shall make a further announcement shortly.

HEALTH

  NHS Plan
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in the implementation of the national health service plan. [147339]

  Mr. Milburn
  Progress on implementing the NHS Plan is well under way. Among other initiatives we have given local health services funding for three years for the first time. Investment and reform are taking hold in cancer and cardiac services, and we have provided earmarked funding for hospital cleaning.

  Patient's Charter
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made in implementing the Patient's Charter. [147342]

  Ms Stuart
  On Friday 26 January, we launched "Your Guide to the NHS" a replacement for the old style Patient's Charter.

  The "Guide" fulfils the Government's Manifesto commitment of replacing the Patient's Charter with a clearer guide to patients rights, responsibilities and the national standards and services people can expect from the NHS now and in the future.

  Health Care (Cumbria)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next intends to meet representatives of the NHS in Cumbria to discuss matters relating to health care. [147343]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have no current plans to meet representatives of the National Health Service in Cumbria to discuss matters relating to health care; however, I have regular meetings with NHS representatives in Cumbria.

  Transplant Services (Sheffield)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had concerning the future of transplant services at Northern General Hospital, Sheffield. [147344]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government announced the modernisation and reorganisation of organ transplant services last February. We are currently considering proposals for the future of the national cardiothoracic transplant service submitted by the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group which may have implications for services at the Northern General Hospital in Sheffield.

  Community Hospital, Gravesend
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards the development of the new community hospital in Gravesend. [147345]
  506W
  Ms Stuart
  Public consultation on the proposal to develop integrated health and social care facilities on the Gravesend and North Kent Hospital site is expected to start shortly.

  NHS Employees (Cost of Living Allowance)
  Mr. Syms:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the distribution of the cost of living allowance to NHS employees. [147346]

  Mr. Denham
  Cost of Living Supplements are being introduced from 1 April for qualified staff within the remit of the Nurses Pay Review Body, working in high cost parts of England.

  The supplements will be payable to staff in designated health authority areas in London and the south of England determined by their staff Market Forces Factor. This is a measure of external labour market pressures on NHS employers.

  Renal Services
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to improve renal services. [147347]

  Mr. Denham
  The NHS Plan will deliver 450 new and replacement haemodialysis stations over the next three years, providing treatments for another 1,850 patients and better treatment for 1,200 existing patients.

  GP Waiting Times
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reduce waiting times for patients to see their GP; and if he will make a statement. [147348]

  Mr. Denham
  In a modernised National Health Service all patients should be able consistently to secure fast and convenient access to a general practitioner. The NHS Plan sets targets to achieve this by 2004. We are backing this commitment with the Access Fund which exists to help primary care trusts and primary care groups to deliver the access targets.

  Hospital Hygiene
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets he has set for improving the cleanliness of hospital wards. [147349]

  Mr. Denham
  Our clean hospitals programme means every hospital is making improvements to the patient environment. Unannounced hospital cleanliness inspections are under way.

  £31.9 million was allocated this year and a further £30 million will be allocated from 1 April to assist the programme. The first ever clean hospitals standards come into effect from this April.

  NHS Manpower
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on staff levels in the NHS. [147351]
  507W
  Mr. Denham
  The most recent staff survey (Medical and Dental Workforce Census 30 September 1999 England) for which results are available showed 1,097,350 staff working in the NHS (873,220 whole time equivalent).

  This represents a percentage increase in headcount over 1997 figures of 3.66 per cent. (3.18 per cent. whole time equivalent).

  Notes:

  1. All NHS doctors includes general medical practitioners, hospital medical and dental staff (excluding hospital practitioners and clinical assistants most of whom are Gps and will already have been counted), and medical and dental staff working in Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services.

  2. GP retainers were collected for the first time in October 1999. As at 1 October 1999 there were 972 GP retainers (headcount).

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  4. Figures may not equal the sum of component parts due to rounding.

  5. Figures exclude agency staff.

  Sources:

  1. Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census as at 30 September for each year.

  2. Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census as at 30 September for each year.

  3. Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics as at 1 October for each year.

  Modernisation Fund
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the cost of administering the Modernisation Fund. [147352]

  Mr. Denham
  The NHS Modernisation Fund has been earmarked for modernisation and developing the NHS. The purpose of the Fund is to ensure that additional resources are properly targeted to the places that need it most and can use it most effectively.

  The Government have promised, in the NHS Plan, that by 2004 the proportion the NHS spends on management costs will be reduced and a higher share of every pound will go into front line patient care.

  Nurse Recruitment (London)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to increase nurse recruitment in London. [147353]

  Mr. Denham
  The NHS Executive in London, in collaboration with NHS trusts, are implementing a plan to expand the nursing work force in London. Priority areas are:

  returning nurses to practice

  international recruitment

  recruiting from black and ethnic minority communities

  improving working lives through improved flexible working arrangements and child care provision

  market supplements effective from April 2001 affordable housing.

  National Cancer Research Institute
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will set up the National Cancer Research Institute. [147354]
  508W
  Yvette Cooper
  An announcement will be made shortly.

  Dental Services (Corby)
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of dental services in Corby. [147355]

  Ms Stuart
  We are committed to making NHS dentistry available to everyone who needs it, by September this year. Last year's dental strategy showed how that could be achieved, with up to £100 million of new resources across this financial year and the next. Residents of Corby have benefited from this funding.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the procedure for the compilation of waiting lists for(a) referral to a consultant and (b) admission to a hospital. [147356]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on numbers of patients waiting for admission to hospital and on numbers of patients waiting more than 13 weeks for an outpatient appointment is collected from NHS Trusts and health authorities by the Department of Health and is published by the Government Statistical Office. The methodology has remained unchanged since we took office.

  Cancer Services
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the development of cancer services in the NHS. [147357]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today,Official Report, column 180, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson).

  Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Strategy
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress with his sexual health and HIV/AIDS strategy. [147358]

  Yvette Cooper
  The merger of the sexual health and HIV strategies inevitably led to slippage in the timetable. However, considerable progress has been made with producing an integrated strategy that will set a programme of action on sexual health and HIV for England. We plan to issue the strategy for consultation shortly.

  Social Services Funding
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the growth of social services funding for community care. [147359]

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recent trend in the level of funding for personal social services. [147363]

  Mr. Hutton
  The resources provided for personal social services, including those provided for community care, have increased substantially in recent years and will
  509W
  continue to grow in real terms over the next three years. Last year (1999–2000) the level of resources provided for social services increased in real terms by 3.8 per cent. they increased by a further 3.5 per cent. this year (2000–01), and will continue to rise by, on average, a further 3.4 per cent. per annum over the next three years (2001–02 to 2003–04). It is for councils to decide how much of these additional resources should be used for community care taking account of local circumstances and priorities.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about community health councils. [147360]

  Ms Stuart
  A number of representations have been received about community health councils and the new structures.

  Debate on the Health and Social Care Bill currently in Committee will provide an opportunity to discuss these issues in detail.

  Hospital Beds
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional high dependency and intensive care beds the NHS has acquired since 1 December 2000. [147361]

  Mr. Denham
  Bed figures for additional high dependency and intensive care beds the national health service has acquired since 1 December 2000 are not available. The nearest available comparison is between 15 January 2000 and 1 December 2000.

  This shows an increase in the total number of available fully staffed critical care beds (which includes both intensive care and high dependency beds) of 451 adult critical care beds over and above capacity for last winter.

  The results are given in the table.

  Critical care beds—1 December 2000

  Number

  Eastern total

  211

  London total

  647

  North West total

  411

  Northern and Yorkshire total

  443

  South East total

  341

  South West total

  227

  Trent total

  253

  West Midlands total

  280

  England total

  2,813

  Beds above 15 January 2000

  +451

  Source:

  1 December Bed Census

  CJD
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with his European Union counterparts on the incidence of new variant CJD; and if he will make a statement. [147362]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) attended the Health Council in December 2000 and stressed the importance of continued 510W
  collaboration across Europe to improve our knowledge about variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD). The National CJD Surveillance Unit in Edinburgh maintains close links with its counterparts in the European Union through a Commission-funded surveillance project. We are aware of three cases of vCJD in France, and one in the Republic of Ireland.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in improving services which will cut the incidence of coronary heart disease. [147364]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Service Framework (NSF) for Coronary Heart Disease, published in March 2000, is a radical and far reaching programme which covers the whole spectrum of care from prevention of heart disease, through emergency care, primary and specialist care including heart surgery, and rehabilitation.

  The national health service and partner agencies are asked to identify areas of inequality, undertake health impact assessments, and to agree and be contributing to the delivery of the local programme of effective policies on reducing smoking, promoting healthy eating, increasing physical activity and reducing overweight and obesity by April 2001.

  Much progress has already been made in improving and expanding services which will cut the incidence of coronary heart disease. By 31 March 2001 a smoking cessation service will be in place across the NHS. Bupropion, a smoking cessation aid, has been made available on prescription since June 2000. By 1 April 2001, subject to consultation, nicotine replacement therapy will be available on prescription from general practitioners. In the future we will expect cessation services to focus on manual socio-economic groups and pregnant women and have set health authorities targets.

  As part of the strategy to promote healthy eating and reduce overweight and obesity the Department has started to pilot the National School Fruit Scheme. Currently 32 schools in three areas provide a free piece of fruit every school day to every child in nursery and aged four to six in infant schools. Hundreds more schools are soon to run the programme as part of the next phase. The Department is also funding local five-a-day pilot schemes to develop a local co-ordinated approach to increase the availability and awareness of fruit and vegetables across whole communities. The Department will publish a National Quality Assurance Framework on GP exercise referrals in February 2001.

  But the root causes of coronary heart disease are wider than health. Broader Government policies on poverty, employment and education all play a significant role in tackling coronary heart disease. There will be new national health inequalities targets to narrow the health gap in childhood and throughout life between socio-economic groups and between the most deprived areas and the rest of the country.
  511W

  Folic Acid
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to ensure that women are aware of the importance of taking folic acid during pregnancy. [147365]

  Yvette Cooper
  We encourage all women of child bearing age to increase the amount of folic acid they consume, and they are advised to increase their daily intake of folic acid by eating more folate-rich foods or foods fortified with folic acid. Women who are trying to conceive are advised to take a daily supplement of 400 micrograms until the twelfth week of pregnancy.

  We disseminate this important health information which is available with advice through local services and on request.

  NHS Operation Statistics
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) hip replacement operations, (b) heart operations and (c) cataract operations were completed in the NHS in (i) 1979, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 2000. [146988]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]: The numbers of operations in the given time periods are shown in the table.

  Operation

  1979 (discharges) (HIPE data)

  1996–97 FCEs1 (HES data)

  1999–2000 FCEs1 (HES data)

  Heart

  22,920

  162,186

  184,671

  Hip replacement2

  20,280

  37,697

  41,883

  Admissions by main diagnosis in NHS hospitals in England

  ICD-9 code and diagnosis

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  800.1 and 800.3 fracture of vault of skull with intracranial injury

  665

  721

  760

  737

  694

  651

  801.1 and 801.3 fracture of base of skull with intracranial injury

  644

  688

  686

  846

  899

  785

  803.1 and 803.3 other and unqualified skull fractures with intracranial injury

  412

  426

  397

  376

  416

  432

  804.1 and 804.3 multiple fractures involving skull or face with other bones with intracranial injury

  53

  40

  36

  30

  23

  36

  850 concussion

  11,113

  10,207

  8,130

  7,118

  7,941

  7,751

  851.0 cerebral laceration and contusion without mention of intracranial wound

  522

  535

  566

  623

  556

  671

  851.1 cerebral laceration and contusion with open intracranial wound

  15

  35

  28

  33

  26

  27

  852.0 subarachnoid, subdural and extradural haemorrhage, following injury without mention of intracranial wound

  1,620

  1,616

  1,736

  1,839

  2,050

  2,249

  852.1 subarachnoid, subdural and extradural haemorrhage following injury with open intracranial wound

  41

  61

  43

  51

  45

  61

  853.0 other and unspecified intracranial haemorrhage following injury without mention of intracranial wound

  414

  422

  351

  419

  513

  455

  853.1 other and unspecified intracranial haemorrhage following injury with open intracranial wound

  13

  21

  15

  19

  14

  18

  854.0 intracranial injury of other and unspecified nature without mention of intracranial wound

  77,009

  67,547

  59,290

  60,556

  56,423

  53,198

  854.1 intracranial injury of other and unspecified nature with open intracranial wound

  907

  737

  722

  733

  772

  735

  Total

  93,428

  83,056

  72,760

  73,380

  62,455

  61,373

  ICD-10 code and diagnosis

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Intracranial injury

  S060 concussion

  6,158

  5,109

  4,221

  3,566

  2,781

  S061 traumatic cerebral oedema

  187

  157

  151

  135

  182

  512W

  Operation

  1979 (discharges) (HIPE data)

  1996–97 FCEs1 (HES data)

  1999–2000 FCEs1 (HES data)

  Cataract

  41,430

  159,958

  212,398

  1 An sultant Episode) is defined a+s a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  2 Figures for hip replacement operations exclude emergency admissions and those with primary diagnosis of fractured neck of femur; i.e. the data are for elective hip replacements.

  Care should be taken when comparing Hospital Episode Statistics with Hospital In-Patient Inquiry data for time series, as the differences in the data collection and recording means that they are not directly comparable.

  Over the last three years, for which comparable data are available, there has been a 14 per cent., 11 per cent. and 33 per cent. increase in the numbers of heart, elective hip and cataract operations, respectively.

  The large increase in heart operations between 1979 and 1996–97 reflects in part the growth of revascularisation procedures, including bypass grafting.

  Acquired Brain Injury
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been diagnosed with acquired brain injury in each of the last 20 years. [147964]

  Mr. Denham
  Information is available, on hospital admissions only, from 1989 onwards. There was a change in the way information was collected in 1995 so the data for the period 1989–90 to 1994–95 are not directly comparable with data for the subsequent period.
  513W

  ICD-10 code and diagnosis

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  S062 diffuse brain injury

  928

  843

  937

  831

  988

  S063 focal brain injury

  378

  378

  420

  484

  404

  S064 epidural haemorrhage

  480

  530

  583

  485

  558

  S065 traumatic subdural haemorrhage

  1,741

  1,853

  1,995

  2,032

  2,139

  S066 traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage

  327

  308

  380

  351

  366

  S067 intracranial injury with prolonged coma

  28

  15

  18

  13

  21

  S068 other intracranial injuries

  544

  601

  727

  591

  635

  S069 intracranial injury, unspecified

  12,456

  10,242

  7,098

  3,454

  2,787

  Total

  23,226

  20,036

  16,529

  11,942

  10,860

  Note:

  The main diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the HES data set, and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital

  These data are adjusted for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data.

  St. George's Hospital, Tooting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many outpatients who are waiting for treatment at St. George's Hospital, Tooting, live in the London Borough of Wandsworth. [148310]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department does not collect data on where patients waiting for treatment reside.

  Children's Body Parts
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of children's body parts that have been taken without the consent of their parents at(a) Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, Norfolk, (b) James Royal Hospital, St. Edmunds and (c) Queen Elizabeth II Hospital, Kings Lynn. [148398]

  Mr. Denham
  Information is not available in the form requested. Reliable data at hospital level about the amount of organs and tissue retained following post mortem will not become available until all National Health Service trusts and medical schools have completed the cataloguing exercise to be supervised by the new Retained Organs Commission.

  Stem Cell Research
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that he receives a copy of the report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on stem cell research as soon as it is published. [147608]

  Yvette Cooper
  Yes. We will work with the House of Lords Select Committee and will consider carefully its conclusions and any recommendations it may make.

  Multiple Sclerosis Nurses
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many specialist MS nurses there are in the UK; what plans he has to train more MS nurses; and if he will make a statement. [149196]
  514W
  Mr. Denham
  Information on specialist multiple sclerosis nurses is not collected centrally. However, we understand that the MS Society has recently launched a £2 million fund to encourage the development of MS specialist nurse posts.

  The development and funding of specialist nursing posts to treat specific conditions such as MS is for health authorities, in partnership with primary care groups/trusts and other local stakeholders, to determine.

  Hospices (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial support the Government have given to Derian House hospice and St. Catherine's hospice in Lancashire. [147332]

  Yvette Cooper
  During the year 2000–01, Derian House Hospice and St. Catherine's Hospice received funding totalling almost £500,000 from the South Lancashire and North West Lancashire Health Authorities.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. [147350]

  Mr. Hutton
  Developing and improving support for people with Alzheimer's disease is a priority for us. NICE has recently recommended that donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine should be made available in the NHS as one component of the management of those people with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. The forthcoming National Service Framework for Older People will, for the first time, set national standards and define service models for older people's health and social care, driving up the quality and reducing the variations of that care. The NSF will look at conditions that mainly affect older people, including dementia.

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

Agriculture: Assistance Programmes
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What practical help other than financial or grant-aided assistance they are offering to the agricultural sector.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, given the extremely difficult conditions facing agriculture, the Government have introduced a range of help in addition to the substantial financial aid that has already been provided. This includes free business advice, training packages, action on planning issues and support for diversification. We have reduced regulatory burdens, including fewer but better co-ordinated farm inspections. We have also provided help for small abattoirs and secured EU support to maintain field margins and to deliver special help for arable farmers hit by flooding.
Baroness By ford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments, which are most welcome. Does she accept that excessive regulation and high taxation currently being imposed on UK farmers is strangling the industry? The proposed pesticide tax, the climate change levy and the water Bill, which will directly affect farmers utilising the trickle-feed system, all add costs and burdens to the industry. Furthermore, does she agree that, when some 42,000—I repeat, 42,000—people have left farming over the past two years, this is not the right moment to increase the legislative burden on farmers? Indeed, it is totally unacceptable.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not think that we are increasing the legislative burden on farmers. We are providing support to help the industry become sustainable for the future. That means giving not only short-term financial assistance, substantial though that has been, but also providing support to farmers moving into areas that will be sustainable and profitable, and that will recognise their importance to the countryside and the environment in the future. I certainly do not agree that we have not recognised the particular needs of, for example, the horticulture industry as regards the climate change levy or the pig and poultry sectors by delaying the implementation of IPPC until 2007.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government should consider offering more help to the bio-diesel industry which is
1038
environmentally friendly and would provide enormous help to an industry which is in dire financial straits?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord is a strong advocate of bio-fuels. He will be well aware that the rural development programme contains a £30 million energy crops scheme to support planting and producer groups. Furthermore, we recognise the potential for liquid bio-fuels to contribute to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. For that reason, the industry has been invited to submit proposals to the Green Fuels Challenge for significant reductions in duty on transport fuels.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the Minister commented on the Farm Business Advisory Service. Welcome as the service is, with a budget of £8.5 million for this year, is she aware that, because this was the first year that such a service has been provided, the underspend is likely to be around £3 million? Can she confirm that that sum will be rolled over to next year's spend rather than clawed back by the Treasury? The scheme is new and it has taken some time for each region to get its programme off the ground.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that I am aware of the issue raised by the noble Baroness. We shall have to wait to see exactly the level of underspend because currently we are doing well in terms of meeting applications. The point made by the noble Baroness as regards the possibility of carry-over is presently being actively pursued in government.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend referred to assistance being given to small abattoirs. Does she agree that small abattoirs are essential to many small farms and, indeed, to small butcheries? Bearing that in mind, can she tell the House how many small abattoirs have closed down since the Meat Hygiene Service took over, and whether that haemorrhage has now been stopped?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the figures for the number of small abattoirs that have closed. However, drawing on my knowledge from the days when I was responsible for the Meat Hygiene Service, I can tell my noble friend that although many abattoirs have closed over the past 20 to 25 years, that reflects a shifting pattern where some abattoirs close and others open. Indeed, I visited a farm where a small organic abattoir had recently opened. We recognise that many farmers wish to use small abattoirs in order to access local markets. To that end, the £8.7 million made available in the rural White Paper to support small abattoirs is extremely valuable to the sector.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, the Minister has referred to the current situation in agriculture and has

1039
recognised the difficulties. Is she aware that one of the main problems for farmers is the enormous amount of red tape and bureaucracy with which they are faced? Is she prepared to accept that something must be done to remove that burden in order to make life a little easier, at least so far as concerns farming operations?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the situation has been accepted. What we need now is better regulation, because we do not wish to see any unnecessary bureaucracy. That was why, in September 1999 we set up three industry-led red tape reviews and why we have acted upon them in areas such as those I have already mentioned—for example, co-ordinating farm inspections and reducing their number. Today we have published the Action Plan for Farming Bulletin, which provides an update for several of these areas. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House and I commend it to noble Lords. Furthermore, the Government will reply within the next few days to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, on better regulations.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether her department is continually monitoring the impact on British agriculture of the United Kingdom being outside the single currency? Can she further say whether arrangements are being made to advise my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter in order that he may take it into account when he is looking at his five criteria for membership?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am not aware of any such formal arrangements being made within the Ministry at the moment. I shall certainly check. I can assure my noble friend that the issues in relation to the currency and their effect on British agriculture are frequently brought to the attention of agriculture Ministers.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister further on her response to my supplementary question. How many of the other EU member states are passing on such costs to their farmers? If they are not, obviously our farmers are at a great disadvantage even within the EU, let alone globally.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness will understand that we are talking about a large number of countries responding to a large number of directives. I cannot from the Dispatch Box now give her details of implementation in every individual country in every individual instance. I accept the noble Baroness's basic point of trying to ensure a level playing field. That is why, for example, we were so pleased to see the action being taken under the Swedish presidency on animal welfare issues, particularly in relation to the pig sector.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki
2.44 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they now condemn the bombing of non-combatants in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by nuclear weapons in 1945.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we deeply regret the death of any non-combatant in war. However, we believe that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 hastened the end of the Second World War, in which many millions had already perished.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am particularly well placed to recognise that the immediate reaction to that terrible deed was to rejoice? I was on a troop ship, embarked for the purpose of going to join an operational unit in Burma, during the period immediately following the dropping of the bomb on those two cities. I should like to report to my noble friend—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I should like to ask the House whether it would care to hear what a Lance Corporal said to me as we were disembarking. A curious unease had settled on the ship and he said "Do you know, sir, what I think?" I said "No. What do you think?" He said "I think that they may have saved our lives at the cost of our children's".
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am aware of my noble friend's valuable service during the last war. That service did him honour, as it did this country. I understand the sentiments that he expresses and the sentiments expressed by that Lance Corporal. However, at that time a judicious judgment was made on the clear basis of how to help millions of people. We cannot rewrite history, and that is how the matter stays.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that thousands of British prisoners of war were suffering terribly in South-East Asia—indeed, they were dying every day—and that the dropping of the second bomb helped to save their lives?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am aware of that terrible suffering. I can certainly reassure the House that the Government's approach to the need to address the issue of nuclear weapons very much takes into account the whole nature of the conflict and the sufferings that we all went through during that traumatic period.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it seems to be a deeply regrettable nature of modern warfare that non-combatants are

1041
bombed and killed, whether it be in Dresden, Coventry, the City of London or in Sudan today? Can she confirm that the process of peace-making and the avoidance of war is at the very height of the Government's list of priorities?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am more than happy to give the right reverend Prelate that assurance. Peace is at the heart of our policies. We seek peace above all else.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, deeply regrettable as is the explosion of any atomic bomb, those particular bombs saved a great many British, American and Japanese lives?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I made clear in my Answer that that was the assessment made at the time. There has been nothing since to cause us to change that assessment.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in the spirit of reconciliation, will my noble friend consider approaching the United States to express on behalf of the 1945 allies their regret that the measures they took to end the war in the Far East resulted in the deaths of so many non-combatants?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, these issues have been well trammelled since 1945. The basis upon which we all took part is clear. In 1998 the Japanese Government issued an apology in relation to their activity. We must be content with the position at which we have now all arrived.

Iraq
2.50 p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards Iraq in the light of the reports that it has resumed production of nuclear weapons.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government share the concerns of the international community that Iraq may be taking advantage of the absence of United Nations weapons inspectors to rebuild its weapons of mass destruction. The United Kingdom remains fully committed to the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1284. We call on Iraq to admit UN weapons inspectors immediately in accordance with its obligations under the relevant Security Council resolution.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, is not Saddam Hussein, regrettably, scoring successes in the propaganda war; and is that not weakening the position of the United Nations, whether in regard to sanctions or to the proposed resumption of inspections? Is it not a fact that United Nations sanctions have never banned imports of food or medicines into Iraq, and that the security resolution to which the Minister referred increased the
1042
limit of the oil that could be sold by Saddam Hussein to fund the humanitarian aid programme; and that, therefore, the privations of the people of Iraq lie at the door of Saddam Hussein's odious regime? What are the Government doing, with our allies, to spread better understanding of those facts?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I respectfully agree with the noble Lord's comments. It appears that a propaganda campaign is being waged. We hope that it is not being waged successfully, because the issues are now becoming clear. The noble Lord is right in saying that the responsibility for the deprivation of the people of Iraq rests solely with Saddam Hussein. If any further evidence is required, one has only has to note that the regime has been using revenue from illegal oil sales, not to buy much-needed food and medicine but, for example, to purchase 300 million cigarettes and more than 38,000 bottles of whisky per month.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister about what appears to be the serious unravelling of UN control over the financial input into Iraq. As I understand it, based on a report in today's Financial Times, there is now a much increased tendency for oil companies, including western oil companies, to pay a surcharge on their oil imports, which then goes directly back to the Saddam Hussein regime. In the light of that successful surcharge by Iraq, and in the light also of the growing willingness of other countries, including Syria, to take new oil imports from Iraq without much question, not under the oil-for-food programme but outside it, will Her Majesty's Government consider suggesting a reconvening of the Security Council to see whether a more effective regime over the control of oil exports could now be instituted?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we appreciate the noble Baroness's expression of concern and anxiety in relation to this issue. It is important that the rules are applied and complied with. The Government will examine this issue. I shall write to the noble Baroness in due course if there is something further that we can do in this regard.
Lord Rea: My Lords, have the Government, either alone or through the Security Council, explored reports from Iraq that the Iraqi Government are willing to allow some form of weapons inspection back on to the soil of Iraq in return for the lifting of sanctions, which are now increasingly ineffective?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, I take issue with my noble friend when he says that sanctions are increasingly ineffective. The sanctions have had the effect of containing Saddam Hussein for 10 years. We should not underestimate the scale of that achievement. SCR 687 requires a completion of disarmament before sanctions are lifted. We cannot accept the lifting of sanctions before Iraq is in compliance with SCR 687. That would amount to rewarding Iraqi intransigence on its WMD capability.

1043
SCR 1284 offers a new way forward by agreeing the suspension of sanctions in return for co-operation with UNMOVIC and IAEA, including on key disarmament tasks. Again, no co-operation from Iraq has been noted as yet. We very much wish for that co-operation to take place.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that two of the most unhelpful nations in respect of encouraging the breaking of sanctions are Russia and France—both of which are members of the Security Council? To what extent does she think that the future health of the common foreign and security policy can be assumed if we find ourselves at odds with France, one of our principal European partners, in this respect?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Viscount that we are at odds with our partner, France. In relation to an area as difficult, complex and sensitive as this, we must continue to strive for comity, clear understanding and joint action. To date, we have been successful in achieving that. It is an end to which we shall continue to strive with great energy and commitment.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, bearing in mind the perceptive remarks of my noble friend Lord Blaker about the rising success of Iraqi propaganda and the increasing tendency for the international community to ignore the sanctions policy, has not the time come for a much more robust approach? Is not Saddam Hussein—as the Minister recognised—the real cause of the holding back of medical supplies, the holding up of the repatriation of Kuwaiti personnel, re-arming his military, developing weapons of mass destruction and preparing greater freedom to attack his neighbours? Is it not time to be much rougher with those who argue for appeasement of this international monster before he becomes re-enthroned as a kind of hero on the international scene, and one that we should have difficulty in opposing?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the sentiment and thrust of the noble Lord's comments. However, I do not agree with him that we are not already being robust. We have a very robust approach. We have made very clear the criteria that must be satisfied before the Iraqis can have the sanctions lifted or suspended, and we wait for compliance. Unanimity on those issues is important, and we are encouraging all our partners to be as vigilant as we are.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, while recognising that Saddam Hussein may well have re-embarked on the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons, is there any evidence to indicate that nuclear weapons are on his agenda—bearing in mind that that would require either enrichment by gaseous diffusion or by centrifuge, and that these technologies are unlikely to be available to Saddam Hussein within his domestic resources?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, noble Lords would not expect me to answer in any detail in relation
1044
to these matters. We are keeping a vigilant eye on the development of such capacity in Iraq; and we shall remain vigilant for the foreseeable future.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that even if Iraq cannot manufacture nuclear weapons, it is perfectly capable of importing them?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have sought to restrict the opportunities that would enable it to do that. The vigilance that I describe is attached to all imports into Iraq which would enable it either to develop that capacity or to gain access to such use.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the continued Anglo-American bombing of Iraq serving any useful purpose now?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, again I should like to make it clear so far as concerns bombing that those efforts are made in defence of our air crews, who are under attack and have been for the past two years. It is only in response to unjustified attacks made on us that we respond.

National Air Traffic Services
3 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the performance penalty regime proposed when the National Air Traffic Control Service becomes a public/private partnership is consistent with the undertakings given to the House that safety would be of paramount importance in the new arrangements.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, there is no inconsistency between the proposed performance penalty regime for National Air Traffic Services Ltd and the Government's undertaking that safety will be of paramount importance. The delay term has been set at a level that is designed to give NATS an incentive to reduce delays without in any way undermining the primacy of safety as a factor in the operations of NATS.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he recall a question that I asked when he made a Statement on the Hatfield rail disaster? I asked whether there was some inconsistency in the performance regimes and suggested that they might be perverse incentives. Will he please reconsider his answer? If air traffic controllers take into account the possibility of delays and penalties, their attention may not be fully fixed on their paramount duty of safety.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, safety is of course the paramount consideration. Your Lordships ensured that that was the case by adding an amendment

1045
to the Transport Act 2000 during its passage through the House. The advice that the Government have received from the Civil Aviation Authority on the price regulation regime, including the delay term, had the approval of the authority's board, of which the director of safety regulation is a member. My department had a meeting with the director of safety regulation to ensure that he was satisfied that there would be no adverse implications for safety if the CAA's advice was adopted in full. In the event, the Government set a somewhat lower price cap and a somewhat lower maximum delay term for the NATS PPP in its early years than was recommended by the CAA.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend recognises my interest in this matter, which is as a consultant with the British Airline Pilots Association. Does he also recognise that only the Airline Group has seen Members of this House? The other groups have so far refused to do so or have not replied to the request that we should be seen. Is my noble friend aware that the Airline Group is the only one of the three groups that operates on a non-profit-making basis? Is that not a good idea?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, my department has encouraged all of the bidders in the NATS process to meet the trade union interest. I believe that those meetings have now been held. I hope that any request for further information will be responded to sympathetically. However, your Lordships will understand that we are currently in the middle of a bidding process and that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual bids.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, during the three-month delay to the PPP, the Minister was, among other things, going to seek to persuade the controllers and employees of NATS of the merits of the Government's proposals. How successful have those efforts been, bearing in mind reports that I have seen in the press that the controllers are now threatening to strike?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, my colleagues and I have visited West Drayton to see controllers and we have been to Swanwick. I have addressed meetings of managers at NATS and we have had meetings with trade unions. I have another meeting with the trade union leadership tomorrow. We have also seen pension trustees. We understand that it is natural for people to be concerned during a time of change. However, the Government have done much to meet legitimate staff concerns, and we remain open to dialogue. I shall take forward that dialogue when I meet the trade unions tomorrow. We are determined to secure a satisfactory outcome to the PPP and a strategic partner who will enhance and complement the operational excellence of NATS by bringing in new skills in the fields of project management, customer relations and financing.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether, in his view, there is any substance to the argument that is put forward by some NATS
1046
operators, who suggest that to give a bonus scheme to a supervisor could be the thin end of the wedge, in that it might undermine safety?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, my understanding is that we already have contracts in place for senior managers, who are incentivised in terms of performance. During the years that 'those contracts have been in place, safety standards have not been adversely affected—in fact, they have improved. Safety remains the first and most important target for operational managers. The very small number of contracts that were on offer and that continued to have a very small percentage of incentive would not be detrimental to the very high safety standards that are set.
Lord Elton: My Lords, who will lose their bonus if there is a near miss?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the way in which those bonuses are structured ensures that no individual flight is ever taken into account when assessing any kind of incentive. Rather, a general incentive over general performance right across the en route sector is involved.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, is the Minister aware that not all delays are necessarily caused or can be rectified by air traffic controllers? Other causes include the military use of airspace, bad weather and handling on the airfield at an airport. Are penalties envisaged in that context?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the measure of delay that we have introduced is, as I said earlier, less than that recommended to us to ensure a smooth transition to the new regime. It does not include delays due to air traffic control at airports or to flow management problems that are attributed to other en route service providers. Moreover, it does not have any effect on consequential delays that are caused to subsequent flights as a result of knock-on effects. We will also exclude the impact of extreme weather, which removes a potential conflict between safety and financial penalties. That keeps safety paramount, as we have always intended.

Business of the House: EU Debate, 7th February
3.8 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I trust that the House will forgive me if I draw its attention to some administrative difficulties—I put it no more strongly than that—which arise in relation to tomorrow's business. I refer to the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Tomlinson. The Motion calls
"attention to the Nice Treaty and the case for European Union enlargement"

1047
and it moves for Papers. As is customary when participating in such debates, one finds it necessary to refer, often in detail, to the documents that are mentioned. In this case, we need to examine the Treaty of Nice. Regrettably, I have to inform the House that until the time at which I came into the Chamber this afternoon, an up-to-date copy of the Treaty of Nice had not come into the possession of Members of this House or of the Library. However, I am given to understand that a copy was delivered to the House of Commons Library.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, that places in a difficult position those of us who take seriously events in the European Community. Documents should be readily available and provided in time for one to be able to participate in a debate on them. The latest copy of the Treaty of Nice that I have is dated 12th December. Its reference number is 533/00, and it is 197 pages long. I assure your Lordships that it is not free from ambiguity. I suspect that your Lordships will agree that that characteristic is fairly often typical of some emanations from the European Commission and other European bodies.
I gave notice to my noble friend Lord Tomlinson of the situation. I have the document dated 12th December before me. However, although a later edition was published on 22nd December, we have been unable to see it. Before participating in tomorrow's debate—if indeed I do—I would like to be familiar with the treaty to which I may refer.
Past experience has shown that when the Commission amends documents which are dubious to begin with—such documents are numerous the ambiguities often appear in a more general and sometimes more obtuse form in the revised version. I should be glad to have the guidance of the House as to whether, in the circumstances, we wish to proceed with the debate. I warn noble Lords that I believe that, if they study the Treaty of Nice in its revised form, it will take well over a day simply to read it. I shall be glad to receive guidance on the matter, and I am sorry that I have had to raise it.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that I can reassure my noble friend and the House that his dilemma will be resolved quickly. I am sorry that the other place appears to have received a benefit not given to this House. However, the final version of the Nice Treaty, to be signed in Nice on 26th February, will be sent to the House Library this afternoon. Earlier versions have been available to the Library of the House and remain so. I cannot assist your Lordships as to whether the copy currently placed in the Library of the other place is the final or the earlier version. However, I can assure noble Lords that the final version will be available.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister advise us whether photocopying facilities will be made available in sufficient quantity to allow those
1048
of us—I know that this applies to several noble Lords—who wish to peruse this lengthy document before tomorrow afternoon to do so?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am confident that arrangements can be made. I am sure that the experience of all Members of the House is that the Library is increasingly energetic in providing assistance.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, can the Minister account for the delay? The document will be produced only a short time before the debate.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the treaty is to be signed on 26th February. I know that the debate is to take place tomorrow, but the appropriate date is 26th February. I can assure your Lordships that the final version was made available as swiftly as was reasonably practicable.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the Nice Treaty is easily available to anyone who wishes to download it from the Internet?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is certainly the case. However, I know that Members of this House like to have documentation in their hands, and not all noble Lords are as conversant with the Internet as they would like to be. Therefore, I can reassure the House that this document can now be delivered through many vehicles.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, in the circumstances outlined by the Minister, would it not have been possible to delay a little before holding the debate?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is certainly not a matter for me. However, I emphasise that earlier versions of the treaty have been made available in the Library of the House. I hope that those versions have been of some little use to Members who have wished to look at them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Government intend to publish a White Paper on this complicated treaty and whether, at a later stage, they will hold a further debate in government time?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am sure that those matters will be addressed through the usual channels.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, is not the last point that was raised one of the best to have been made this afternoon? Only recently, the House asserted its right to hold debates on Wednesday afternoons, and I commend the Labour Party for having chosen this subject. However, the debate is to be held during the second part of the day and it will be limited probably only to two-and-a-half hours. Should there not have been a proper, full day's debate in government time

1049
starting immediately after Question Time? Can the Government give a rather stronger assurance on that point? We on this side of the usual channels would very much welcome a proper debate on the White Paper when it is published.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I know that noble Lords opposite always get a ready ear from these Benches. I am sure that in their usual amicable way the usual channels will be able to sort out this minor difficulty.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the noble Baroness reassure us that the occasion tomorrow will not be the one on which we were told that we, as Parliament, would be able to scrutinise the treaty before it was brought into force? Can she reassure us that a full debate will be held in government time before it is brought into force?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there will of course be a Bill. I am confident that, during the process of that Bill through both Houses, there will be active and vigorous, if not contentious, debate.

International Criminal Court Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to mow the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the International Criminal Court Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 24,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 25 to 28,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 29 to 34,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 35 to 37,

Schedule 5,

Clause 38,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 39 to 42,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 43 to 50,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 51 to 54,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 55 to 82,

Schedule 10,

Schedule 1.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Fraud Bill [H.L.]
3.16 P.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): 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.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Electronic access to information]:
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 4, line 43, leave out from ("may") to end of line 45 and insert ("enter into arrangements with that person under which authorised officers may obtain by electronic access to those records the information which they could have requested by a notice issued in accordance with section 109B(1)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment. No. 46, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 52, 54, 57 and 59. The first four are probing amendments to clarify whether the DSS and local authorities should have an ability to require organisations to enter into arrangements for electronic access. The BRA in particular is concerned at the conditions for the exercise of the power of the Secretary of State or local authorities to require electronic access.
In the proposed Section 109BA the power can be exercised where it appears to the Secretary of State,
"(c) that facilities exist under which electronic access … is being provided, or is capable of being provided, by that person to other persons".
We believe that it is reasonable to assume that a bank which maintains its records on a computer system will have in place facilities which allow appropriate members of its staff to locate and retrieve details of its customers' accounts via electronic access. It is difficult to imagine that technically those facilities could not be made available to third parties. Therefore, this clause would allow the DSS to require any bank to make electronic access available to it and, under proposed Section 109BA(3), to specify exactly what must be made available.
We understand that this section is intended to relate particularly to credit reference agencies, where it may be simpler and cheaper to provide electronic access than to process numerous inquiries on paper. Although we recognise the desire not to make powers in Acts too specific, in this case the net appears to have been thrown far too wide.
Amendment No. 59—also a probing amendment—inserts a defence of reasonable excuse into the offence provision under Clause 2. There may be a number of valid reasons why a person cannot comply with a requirement under Sections 109BA or 110AA. As currently drafted, the Bill takes no account of that and creates an offence of strict liability, regardless of the circumstances of the particular case. We are of the view that every case should be considered on its own merits and that only wilful refusal to comply with a requirement under the Bill should be culpable. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 46 and the other amendments in the group.

1051
Electronic access to information is an extremely important aspect of the fight against fraud. Credit reference agencies and telecoms providers both have facilities for people to go online in order to obtain information. This is a quicker and cheaper process for their customers, and is a valued service, particularly in the financial industry.
The amendments would not prevent authorised officers accessing information electronically. Equally, they would not prevent the Secretary of State entering into the arrangements that would be required to ensure such access. Nevertheless, they could be damaging amendments.
Amendments Nos. 46 and 52 seek to allow the Secretary of State to enter into arrangements for electronic access with organisations on a voluntary basis, rather than giving him the power to require them to enter into such arrangements. We have been informed by one service provider that it would charge £l per inquiry made electronically, as compared to £10 for each inquiry made to it in writing.
If a business did not want to help the DSS to fight fraud, which is unlikely but possible, that difference in price could put it in a prime position to thwart our efforts, and the DSS would have to spend millions, not thousands.
By drafting the clause in this way, by providing for a power to require organisations to enter into arrangements, we have sought to ensure that the Government can obtain a fair deal. The payment provisions in Clause 3 and the safeguards that I am about to mention will ensure that this deal is not obtained at the expense of fairness to the private sector: it is a precautionary provision, which we think achieves a balance between the needs of the various parties involved.
We appreciate that businesses are concerned about the security of their information and wish to screen who has access to that information. Consequently, a power to require them to enter into arrangements may leave them feeling insecure, and I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Astor. However, I can assure noble Lords that we would put in place strong safeguards against abuse. Access to databases would be allowed only to specifically authorised officers. These would be of at least executive officer grade, and would be centrally located within each of our administrative areas. They would be managed by a more senior officer, and would be and highly trained through our Professionalism in Security programme. Access to databases would be controlled by passwords. We would also obtain a record of all inquiries made on the database, which could be cross-checked against our own records. Any discrepancies suggesting improprieties could be spotted and thoroughly investigated. I also refer noble Lords to the Computer Misuse Act 1990, under which officers who break into databases can be imprisoned.
We shall do all that we can to ensure that the information we obtain under these measures is lawfully obtained. Our safeguards will be such that, if
1052
authorised officers misuse their powers to access databases, they will be both caught and punished, and they will know it.
Amendments Nos. 54 and 57 cover the same issues as Amendments Nos. 46 and 52, but in relation to local authorities. Everything that I have said thus far applies also to these amendments. Local authorities also need this provision. However, they have to go one step further and go through the process of obtaining the Secretary of State's consent before they can use these powers.
We considered very carefully whether local authorities should be required to obtain consent before entering into arrangements for electronic access. On balance, however, we decided that it was desirable. We should ensure that local authorities are able properly to use this provision to obtain almost instantaneous responses to their inquiries. As we have repeated ad infinitum, housing benefit, which is administered by local authorities on our behalf, is one of the areas most susceptible to fraud.
The Secretary of State will need to consider whether those local authorities are willing, and able, to implement safeguards and audit trails that would deter and identify abuses of electronic access. He will need to consider their overall management controls, whether they have been subject to complaints before, whether they have had an adverse benefit fraud inspectorate report-in short, whether they are running a tight ship, and one that the DSS thinks will be properly handled.
These issues are, of course, relevant to all the inquiries that would be allowed under these provisions. However, given the instant access to information through electronic access, we thought it best to build in the additional safeguard of scrutiny by the Secretary of State, before a local authority is permitted to use such powers.
Noble Lords need not worry that local authorities will have to pay more for inquiries until they have achieved consent because the DSS will use its electronic access facilities to process inquiries on behalf of local authorities, until such time as they can do so themselves.
Turning to Amendment No. 59, I can assure noble Lords that the Secretary of State is under a duty to take into account any reasonable excuse that an organisation may have for not providing electronic access to information. The Secretary of State and local authorities are always under a duty to act reasonably wherever they have a power of discretion. This is a well established principle of administrative law, and would apply to this provision. If the Secretary of State or a local authority failed to act reasonably, their actions would be subject to judicial review, and if that review were successful, the decision would be set aside. I appreciate, however, that there may be practical concerns about whether we would act reasonably and take into account reasonable excuse.
We already have powers to obtain information from employers. They sometimes have a reasonable excuse for not complying with our requests for information; for instance, if their payroll system has crashed.

1053
Authorised officers are already used to distinguishing such "reasonable excuses" and coming to sensible arrangements to work around the problem.
Concern has been expressed that the relating to an organisation's capability to provide electronic access could be used, for example, to force an organisation to provide us with electronic access to bank details simply because its customers can access their own bank accounts over the Internet. It may be helpful if I explain how these provisions will work in practice as this is the first of the amendments in Clause 2, and it may prevent us having to go over the same ground later.
The Bill allows us to require electronic access in only two circumstances: first, where such access is already available to another organisation, as is the case with the credit reference agencies; and secondly, where the capacity exists to provide such access to another organisation. In the second case, I stress that the capacity must already exist.
It is not open to the Secretary of State to demand that new computer software or hardware be obtained to facilitate electronic access to an organisation's records. The power is aimed at circumstances where a business is planning to provide access to a third party but is unwilling to give it to the DSS. In such cases, the Secretary of State could require that he, too, should have electronic access. There is no intention—and I doubt whether the Bill would permit it—for the Secretary of State to require electronic access to a company's records apart from in the circumstances that I have mentioned.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am happy to put on the record and to assure noble Lords that the Secretary of State will not require any business to provide electronic access to its records unless it is already doing so, or plans to do so for another organisation.
I hope that I have given the noble Lord the reassurances that he perfectly properly sought, and that against that background he is able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the Minister for that very full answer and the assurances she has given. The Minister stated that the first four amendments were damaging amendments. I had pointed out that they are only probing amendments. The Minister also stated that some business might not want to help the DSS to fight fraud. I have not spoken to a single business that has taken that position. I was grateful for the reassurance about the strong safeguards that the Government intend to introduce against abuse of electronic access. In regard to Amendment No. 59, I am also grateful for her reassurance as to reasonable excuse for not complying.
A great deal of detail has been given, and I shall read Hansard carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 47 to 50 not moved.]
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 5, line 10, leave out ("could") insert ("should").
The noble Lord said: Earlier in our deliberations on Clause 1 we made it clear that we were strongly in favour of information being provided to the Government to enable them to deal with the problem of fraud. However, considerable doubts were expressed earlier about the side effects of the proposals. We were very pleased to hear the assurances of the Minister. The first was that the decision on whether there should be an inquiry should not turn simply on whether it was likely to be a case of fraud. The Minister has undertaken to introduce amendments on Report to cover that point. Similarly, on the doubts expressed in relation to the suspicion that members of a group may be involved, she again gave an undertaking, although that fact did not seem to catch up with last weekend's Sunday Telegraph.
This amendment takes the same approach. In exercising the fairly draconian powers that are provided for in the Bill, we are concerned that in each case there should be a reasonable suspicion that a particular individual has taken action that may be regarded as fraudulent.
In Section 2, which is concerned with electronic information, it appears that in subsection (2) the Government seek to reassure us. It says:
"An authorised officer—
(a) shall be entitled to obtain information in accordance with arrangements … only if his authorisation states that his authorisation applies for the purposes of that subsection".
We are more doubtful about subsection (2)(b) which states that the authorised officer:
"shall not seek to obtain any information in accordance with any such arrangements other than information which relates to a particular person"—
and this is the crunch of the matter—
"and could be the subject of a requirement under section 109B above".
We are concerned that what appears to be a protection for the individual may turn out not to be protection because an authorised officer has to show only that the person he is investigating could be the subject of an inquiry. That is closely related to the debate that we had on whether it is likely or not. We believe that he should be entitled to obtain the information by electronic means only if he has a reasonable suspicion. We believe that there would be better protection for the individual and for the prevention of fishing trips—in this case by electronic means—if the amendment were agreed to. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have great affection for amendments like this. I used to table such amendments, no doubt to the entertainment and education of the Chairman of Committees.
Amendment No. 51 seeks to change the wording in new Section 109BA(2)(b). This particular subsection ensures that authorised officers make electronic inquiries only of people who could be the subject of a requirement under Section 109B. The amendment, as the noble Lord explained carefully, seeks to substitute

1055
the word "could" for "should". Technically, I believe that the amendment is meaningless, but that has never stopped us in the past, so it should not stop us now.
Perhaps I can deal with the substantive point. I hope I can dispel the concerns of the noble Lord that may have prompted the amendment. The people about whom we may seek information are defined in Clause 1 (new Section 109B(2B) and (2C). The provision as currently drafted means that we would be able to obtain information by electronic means only about people who fall within those provisions. Consequently, your Lordships should have no fears that the scope of electronic access to information is any wider than the power to obtain information in writing. Therefore, in the light of that explanation, which I believe it is useful to put into Hansard, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. As she points out, it is a classic form of words and not infrequently such classic forms of words convey the concerns that the Opposition have without necessarily wanting to see them incorporated in the Bill. We still have some concern about this matter which reflects a theme that runs throughout the Bill. In the light of the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 5, line 24, at end insert ("; and
(e) such arrangements as are necessary to provide the person with a report upon the investigation should they either he incidental to the investigation in process or, if the subject of that investigation. found to be innocent of any wrongdoing").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 53, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 64. Amendment No. 53 suggests at line 24 on page 5 that we should insert a further provision. Subsection (3) refers to:
"The matters that may be included in the arrangements that a person is required to enter into under subsection (1)" —
regarding electronic provision and so on. We take the view that the amendment would provide an appropriate additional protection.
Amendment No. 64 concerns a different point. With regard to data held by credit rating agencies, it is well known that an individual may obtain the details that are held by an agency either generally or, more particularly, electronically. I believe that that is an important protection. In that instance we would have a series of investigations of which, apparently, the individual would not be aware. We believe that there is a case for saying that that information should be disclosed so that, if necessary, individuals can obtain redress or take corrective action in the same way that they could do so if they found that a credit rating agency held inaccurate information on its records.
We are concerned that the overall provisions of the Bill will result in a large number—20,000 or whatever—of investigations. We feel that an individual should know whether such an investigation has taken place and what information is being held by the Government, having collected information from a whole range of different sources that may affect an individual's position with regard to credit rating and so on. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 53 would impose a duty on authorised officers to prepare a report of an investigation for those on whom information was obtained, where they were incidental to the investigation or found innocent. The effect of the amendment as drafted would be to issue the report of the investigation to the information provider, not to the subject of the inquiry. I am sure that that was not the intention of the noble Lord. Nevertheless, that would be the effect, which would be wholly contrary to the Data Protection Act—I believe the word "person" gives rise to that. It would also compromise the investigation and be unfair to the subject. That, of course, could be repaired by redrafting.
More substantively, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. I shall explain why. First, we shall ensure that those claiming benefit know that they may be the subject of the powers of investigation. Benefit claim forms will make it clear to claimants that the information that they provide may be checked with third parties. Moreover, we shall not use the powers before we have published a code of practice that will be available to anyone who wants to know more about our ability to obtain information.
Secondly, the Data Protection Act provides further safeguards. Any individual is free at any time to ask an organisation what data it holds on him. That includes the DSS, as we said previously in Committee. Provided that the information requested would not jeopardise an investigation, the department must provide it. The DSS receives about 2,500 requests for such information each year.
I discussed with officials what an individual may receive from the DSS if he or she sought such information. Let us take the example of an individual who is now 30 but who has been at an FE college, has had a year on housing benefit and JSA while retaking, on a part-time basis, one A-level, has gone to university and after leaving university has been on JSA for three or four months before going into a full-time job. I suspect that that simple example will be redolent of the nephews, nieces, sons or daughters of noble Lords. If that individual asked the DSS what information it held on them, they would get back a print-out of information about their JSA payment, including details of their income, the dates on which they moved on to and off benefit, any refusals to do appropriate work while on JSA, and, above all, information about their NICs, which is often the reason why people inquire whether they are building a full retirement pension. However, we would not have information on their housing benefit, their labour market details or their current financial status. They

1057
would therefore receive a print-out ranging from a few to a large number of sheets, depending how many years of NICs records they had, which is the largest constituent element.
That information, which is available now, is sought by approximately 2,500 people per year. Under the Data Protection Act, that information will continue to be provided with reasonably expeditious speed to anybody who seeks it. Anybody can check the information and correct it if necessary. It would be unprecedented to go beyond those safeguards in law enforcement in this country. I believe that those safeguards are sufficient to protect the individual against unwarranted intrusion.
Amendment No. 64 requires the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the disclosure of information according to certain standards, which are to be drawn up, and for those standards to form part of a code of practice. It requires the disclosure of information, which is unspecified, to persons incidental to the inquiry and to persons who are found not to have committed an offence. It also requires an official to monitor the application of those standards and to report.
The amendment is redundant. That is because the procedures and standards to be adhered to for the disclosure of information and for the prevention of unauthorised disclosure are already enshrined in law and in existing guidance to staff. This amendment adds nothing to the existing safeguards.
The law already provides strong safeguards against a person unlawfully obtaining or disclosing information. Those have already been mentioned. Our Protection of Customer Information Guide, which is publicly available, sets out in detail the rules governing the disclosure of personal information. A revised version was published in April 2000. We are currently considering the production of an information guide dealing specifically with the right of DSS customers to access personal information kept about them. I hope that that will be available by the autumn.
I hope that I have met the noble Lord's concerns. Nothing in this Bill overrides the provisions of the Data Protection Act. The use of information obtained under these powers would be controlled strictly in accordance with the principles of that Act. We cannot do otherwise. Further, all investigations would be carried out according to the procedures laid down in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, and their statutory codes of practice. The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act code of practice sets out procedures for the retention and disclosure of information in criminal cases.
Anybody can seek access to the information held, providing that it does not jeopardise, or is not prejudicial to, a fraud investigation. In addition, the standards involved in this and other areas of fraud investigation will be overseen by an official. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that we have in place a very full set of safeguards. I
1058
welcome the opportunity to place them on the record. In the light of those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: We are grateful to the noble Baroness for her full reply. Her statement that nothing in the Bill contravenes the Data Protection Act may be true. However, the Data Protection Commissioner does not take the view that nothing in the Bill gives her cause for considerable concern. That is one of the reasons we are particularly anxious to clarify a number of points.
I should like, with the help of the Minister, to clarify a particular point. She has said that if an investigation is carried out under this Bill, the department will be in possession of a mass of information about the subject of the inquiry. Information obtained from banks, credit rating agencies, water companies and telephone companies will presumably be kept on file simply on the basis of a suspicion that an individual may have engaged in fraudulent activities. It is not clear to me why an individual should realise that and, therefore, ask to see information that was not previously held—information which, in the event, would not be needed because the department had concluded that no fraud had been committed.
First, I am not clear why, in such a case, the department would need to continue to hold all that information. Secondly, I do not understand how individuals will know that they are suspected and that that information had been collected. They may feel that it should not, for example, be left to float around the local office of a local authority whose staff may know, or may even be the next-door neighbour of, the individual concerned. Perhaps the Minister will also tell us whether the information collected will be held indefinitely by the local authority or whether it will be removed from the record.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My understanding is that information will not, to use the noble Lord's words, float around. I have emphasised that only a very limited number of properly trained officials will be accountable to a professional fraud supervising officer. That, together with the back up of the provisions of the Computer Misuse Act and the Data Protection Act, should prevent such floating around of information. I know that the noble Lord used the expression in a colloquial way. I can assure him that if that happened, we should have failed in our safeguards. It is very important that we should not do so. The information will be very tightly controlled, as will access to it. If it transpires that somebody may be making improper use of information concerning, for example, a former partner, we shall be able to catch that person, who will have no future with either the local authority or the DSS. If I have misled the noble Lord on that point, I shall certainly return to it.
Secondly, the noble Lord asked how long the information would be held. I have answered that question in Committee previously. We expect the

1059
records to be held for about 18 months and then to be destroyed. In the event of an ongoing inquiry, they could be held for a longer period.
Thirdly, these investigations will not arise out of the blue. Reference has been made to innocent people not knowing of the existence of a fraud inquiry. To some extent, such investigations have to be secretive, by reason of the fact that we are dealing with the heavy end of fraud here—sophisticated people who might, if they suspected they were being investigated by the DSS, rearrange their financial affairs, their bank accounts and the like. In the case of a genuinely innocent person who may have made an error, the first response from the DSS would be to try to understand any discrepancy of information. We are not seeking to prosecute people, but we will prosecute in cases that involve a deliberate intent to defraud, where we have acquired that information on reasonable grounds.
I therefore doubt that there will be many cases of innocent people having reasonable grounds for being upset that information is being held about them. That is not how it will work. Errors will be sorted out locally. If it is discovered that benefit has inappropriately been claimed, that benefit may be stopped. We are after people who deliberately twice—certainly once—defraud the system. We are not referring to innocent people but to people about whom there is a reasonable suspicion, who are likely to share information. It is true that they will not necessarily know what information the DSS has collected on them.
Our code of practice and the measures that I have outlined for individuals to access information that is held mean that individuals could access that information in the 18 months after an investigation has been brought to an end and before the papers are destroyed. That additional precaution is in place, if somebody has reason to believe that the DSS has inquired about them and wants to check that there is no inappropriate information. That, too, would be a safeguard.
I hope that I have dealt with the noble Lord's points: first, that the information will not float around; secondly, that it is unlikely to target innocent persons and take them by surprise, because we are dealing with the heavy end of fraud, although I admit that it could sometimes happen; and, thirdly, that if somebody is found to be innocent or information is not required for an ongoing fraud investigation, it would be destroyed after 18 months. My understanding is that that would also apply to local authorities. If I have any further information on those points, I shall write to the noble Lord, but that is my understanding.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the Minister. We are concerned about these matters for the reasons that we expressed in Amendment No. 1 to Clause 1; namely, that the department will carry out these investigations without any outside authority from, for example, a magistrate. We have previously debated that point at length. In the absence of amendments which have not
1060
yet been made to the Bill, one must be concerned that the provision may result in a considerable intrusion into the privacy of innocent people.
I want to be clear about one matter which the Minister mentioned and then I shall seek to withdraw the amendment. She said that this is at the "heavy end" of the market. That is true as regards organised fraud, the collusion of employers and so forth, but I understand that the information will be collected even if a comparatively minor case is being investigated. Therefore, I am not clear about the definition of "heavy end" in this context.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was trying to draw a distinction. Let us take disability benefits as an example. When we check on claims for, say, disability living allowance, between 15 and 20 per cent are found to be inappropriate. However, in very few cases is there fraud. People get better, there is a change of circumstance and they do not report back to us. In those cases, we do not go after them in order to prosecute because there has been an error which has been sorted. It has been established that the eligibility for benefit does not exist and benefit has been withdrawn.
Here we are talking about the heavy end of fraud. We are talking about people who have knowingly and deliberately produced false information in order to establish a claim to a benefit to which they are not entitled. That is what I mean by "heavy end" as opposed to a case which is in the grey area between error and fraud; for instance, someone recovering but none the less continuing to draw disability benefit. I cannot recall many cases in which we have prosecuted someone in receipt of DLA. A prosecution would arise in a case where, for example, a claimant had impersonated someone. That would be deliberate and knowing and what I would describe as the "heavy end" of fraud. That is the distinction I was seeking to draw.
Baroness Noakes: The Minister spoke of prosecution but the powers relate to obtaining information. We are discussing safeguards around the use of the powers to gain information. She spoke as though such cases were black and white but I am not sure that they are. We should consider cases, for example, dealt with by the adjudicator in relation to the Customs and Excise.
It will be found that often junior officials see cases in black and white, but they are not. Supervisory procedures fall down and it is not always the case that officials, however, well trained and even if authorised, will reach the right decision. That is why my noble friend is looking for safeguards.
I understand that the Government are trying to catch the villains but in practice the proposals are likely to affect those who are not villains. For that reason, we are looking for safeguards against abuse—admittedly inadvertent abuse—of the provisions.
Lord Higgins: It may be less disorderly if I speak now and then the Minister can reply further. I am somewhat puzzled by the whole business. The Minister

1061
said that the provisions will be concerned only with the heavy end of the market, but she now appears to be saying that no investigations under the Bill—the demands for information and so forth—will be carried out in cases where, for example, someone simply forgot to tell the department about a change of circumstance. I understood that the provisions would deal with the "lighter end" of the market; that information would be collected on cases in that category, and that it would be held by the department.
If the Minister is saying that the provisions are concerned only with serious cases, that puts a totally different complexion on the Bill and on the likelihood of achieving the savings which the Government hope to make.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We are making a false distinction between the "soft" and "heavy" end of fraud. The information is being collected where there is reasonable ground under Clause 1(2C). Paragraph (a), which is subject to later amendments, relates to,
"a person who has contravened, is contravening or is likely to contravene provisions of the relevant social security legislation",
and is what I would call the "error" territory. Paragraph (b) relates to,
"a person who has committed, is committing or is likely to commit a benefit offence",
and is the "fraud" territory.
In terms of the heavy end of fraud, we shall collect information. If a person is, so to speak, innocent or if the case is easily resolved because there was an error, the information will be scrapped within 18 months. The same rule applies to local authorities. It is likely that the information will be held longer only when someone is likely to commit a benefit offence and there is an ongoing inquiry which might lead to a prosecution. That was the point I was making.
As the noble Lord knows, we would always go to the claimant in the first place for an explanation of the discrepancies which have given rise to the "reasonable grounds" under Clause 1(2C)(a) and (b). The powers would be used only where fraud was suspected. That is what I meant by "heavy" as opposed to "error". The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was right in saying that cases are not clear-cut and that the area is shaded. If someone has had, say, a kidney transplant and continues to claim DLA because he or she needs constant attention as a result of dialysis, the line may be crossed.
However, I do not believe that there is an issue to be resolved and I am not sure why the noble Lord continues to press me. Clearly, we need to collect the information either in terms of a contravention of the legislation, which is likely to be an error, or a potential offence, which is likely to be fraud. We would normally go to the person concerned and, under paragraph (a), if that person can clear up our concerns, no problem will persist. However, if the case falls under paragraph (b), we will go on to collect further information. At that point, we may seek access to information which will validate what the claimant has told us because we do not believe it to be true. That is what I meant by the
1062
"heavy end"; someone deliberately misleading the DSS and the benefits system. We would seek information from third parties and so forth because we had well founded reasonable beliefs.
Lord Higgins: We shall need to read carefully what the noble Baroness said, in particular what appears to be a clear statement of government policy; namely, that they will collect the information only if, at the lighter end of the market, they have already asked the claimant whether he has made a mistake—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We would not invariably ask the claimant. I am saying only that in normal circumstances the claimant would be the first port of call for an explanation of why the discrepancies appeared to exist.
I am thinking on my feet, but one can imagine a transnational case in which the last thing one wants to do is to tip people off that inquiries are being made. I would not want that statement to be seen as an absolute statement.
Lords Higgins: In the light of that reply, which we shall study carefully, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 not moved.]
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 6, line 7, leave out from ("person") to end of line 11.
The noble Lord said: Standards of scrutiny and conduct in matters relating to confidential data are, to say the least, variable in some local authorities. While most local authorities pursue their responsibilities diligently, this probing amendment is an opportunity to highlight the lack of safeguards and to seek reassurance from the Minister.
Disclosure of investigation could lead to physical threats against both elected councillors and council staff. The public have justifiable fears that the powers granted in the Bill could be open to abuse. Looking at some inner-city authorities, whether Hackney or Doncaster, one sees sufficient instances of malpractice and fraud by both elected members and officers to make it evident that safeguards need to be in place. As the Data Protection Commissioner made clear, the volume of information and the quality of some local authorities' safeguards mean that abuse is likely. Until we have a code of practice and know what is in it, a member of the public who felt that a local authority had abused the powers that had been given to it in this Bill would have little recourse save through the ombudsman. That can be a lengthy and unsatisfactory process. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Government are very clear as regards this amendment and the circumstances in which we would wish authorised officers to make inquiries of the organisations listed. They may be made only when an authorised officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is or

1063
may be committing fraud. We have gone over some of this territory before. Inquiries may be made only about particular persons. That is set out in the new Sections 109B(2B) and (2C), in the Bill. The provision which this amendment seeks to remove ensures that when they are making electronic inquiries, authorised officers are limited in the way I have just described. Our policy intention, which will be achieved by this Bill, is that an officer should not be able to make any inquiry electronically that he could not make in writing. In other words, the protection in Clause 1 has a halo effect on Clause 2.
By removing lines 8 to 11, the amendment widens local authority powers in ways which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Astor, did not intend. Section 109B contains the provisions which limit authorised officers to make inquiries only where they have reasonable grounds. By removing those lines, the link to Section 109B would be removed and, dare I say it, local authority staff would be able to pick names at random. I am sure that the Committee would not wish that to happen.
More generally, the protections I have already suggested remain. Benefit claimants will know that their information can be checked with third parties and that they are under a duty to tell the truth. If, knowing that, they lie, we have the right and the ability to check their information.
As regards local authorities requiring the consent of the Secretary of State before obtaining electronic access to records, I have already explained that it is our intention that they will not go online until the Secretary of State is satisfied that the necessary safeguards are in place. Again, only some local authorities will have that power and that is where we are confident that they have properly trained and professional officers in place who are subject to these codes. I am certain that the noble Lord has no wish to see unfettered access to electronic information either for local authority or DSS investigators, which is what this amendment would achieve. I suggest that the noble Lord may wish to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: The noble Baroness is correct. I said that this was only a probing amendment and that we were seeking reassurances from the Minister. She has given those reassurances and the clarifications that we sought. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 57 to 59 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Astor of Hever: The e-envoy, Alex Allen, is preparing a White Paper which will oversee a whole range of confidential and other relevant issues that may question or impact on Clause 2. The Data Protection Commissioner cited the work of the e-envoy and suggested that rushed legislation in this or any other area would be bad legislation. That was demonstrated by the destruction and withdrawal of
1064
the first version of last year's e-commerce Bill. The Question whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill gives the Minister the opportunity to explain why the Government believe it wise to pre-empt the envoy's findings. Have the Government synchronised the proposals of this Bill with the work programme of the e-envoy?
Liberty believes that the powers conferred by this clause will be open to both intentional and unintentional abuse. The risk of intentional abuse is clear. Although the Bill gives the Secretary of State or a local authority the power to require the person or body giving electronically accessed information to record the use made of the facility, it is not an absolute requirement. Even if the requirement is imposed, presumably the records are likely to be scrutinised only by the investigators themselves or by the people working for the same organisation, if it happens at all. Given that considerable use is likely to be made of that facility, it would be very easy for an investigator wanting, for a reason of his own, to seek information about someone to access information without being found out.
The risk of unintentional abuse stems from the fear that more information is likely to be accessed by electronic means than where a written request is made. The right to acquire information proposed in the Bill will be subject to requirements in the existing Section 109B(1) that an investigator should request only such information as he or she reasonably needs. An investigator who believes that someone is working for cash in hand while claiming benefit might ask that person's bank for details of any deposits of over, say, £50. A bank employee responding to that written request will ensure that only that information is given. If an arrangement were to be set up with the banker under which electronic access is given to records of transactions on a person's account in the way that many bank customers now access their accounts, the record will not be vetted by a bank employee and the investigator is likely to have access to details of all transactions on the account. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to these concerns.
Lord Goodhart: Unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Russell is unable to be present today because he has gone down with flu. He and I put our names to the objection that Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill. I have very little to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, has said on this matter. However, the fact that great concerns have been expressed about Clause 2 by the Information Commissioner, Liberty and Justice—once again I declare that that is an organisation with which I am associated—should give the Government cause for thought and consideration as to whether further safeguards are necessary before Clause 2, as it now stands, can properly be put into effect.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord, Lord Astor, has pressed me on three points. The first was e-commerce, the second was intentional abuse by investigators and the third was unintentional abuse by them simply because it is the noble Lord's

1065
understanding that more information might be returned through the electronic route than by the written route. I understand the concerns.
As regards the e-envoy, it may be helpful if we follow it up in writing. We simply propose to use electronic access which already exists and which could be used so easily. There will be greater controls on electronic access than on written requests because the former will be tracked and an audit trail made available for DSS arrangements.
I need to follow up the noble Lord's points as to whether anything may be forthcoming from the e-envoy. I am not aware that there is because of the relatively limited nature of what we are doing in Clause 2. We can do no more under that clause for these purposes than we can under Clause 1, which obviously does not involve electronic access. If there is anything useful that I can add, I shall be very happy to do so.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the noble Baroness. We have had a number of letters on this point. I shall be grateful for a follow-up letter, as the noble Baroness has suggested.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My understanding is that there is no impingement, but I shall check and make sure that that is correct and write to the noble Lord more fully so that I may specify what overlap there is, if any, or any degree of calibration which may be needed between the two bodies.
The noble Lord's second concern was intentional abuse and whether we need to use electronic access at all. At the core of the matter is whether obtaining information online from bodies which already hold it electronically is cheaper, quicker and less burdensome than obtaining it through correspondence. One credit reference agency advises us that it would charge £1 per online inquiry, as opposed to £10 per written inquiry; in other words, it is cheaper to use a computer than employ someone to answer a question. If there were concerns about doing it in writing, that would add to the delay. Electronic access is much speedier, and I believe that it is also a useful safety check.
I should like to reassure the Committee that an authorised officer may obtain only online information that relates to an identified person where there are reasonable grounds to do so. Any inquiry that would not be allowed in writing under Section 109B would not be allowed under these provisions. Therefore, there could not be unintentional abuse, because one could obtain by electronic access only information that one could obtain in writing. One is concerned solely with the mode, not a different kind of information.
The next point is the possibility of deliberate or intentional, as opposed to accidental, abuse. All I can do is repeat the safeguards against abuse that we shall put in place. Officers who used these powers would require special authorisation from the Secretary of State. They would be located in a central unit in the department's administrative areas, and only a handful of officers would be authorised in each area. The individuals would be of executive officer grade and
1066
would be managed by a more senior person. They would receive thorough training under all modules of the Professionalism in Security programme.
We would give serious consideration to any additional training that private sector organisations wished to provide to people who used their services; for example, BT. Authorised officers would be required to make inquiries in accordance with a published code of practice and fully document their grounds for inquiries. That documentation would be subject to routine checking by managers. En other words, if anyone deliberately abused the access to databases we would know about it. As a result, we would follow it up with disciplinary action and, if necessary, sack the official concerned.
With regard to local authorities, the Bill recognises that there are differences in the safeguards which they might apply when making arrangements for electronic access, which means that they must obtain consent from the Secretary of State. Again, we are involved in training issues. If necessary, I can provide information about how we intend to train officials. However, I do not believe that the noble Lord requires that information this afternoon. I shall respond to the noble Lord in detail. My understanding is that there is no overlap with issues to do with the e-commerce envoy, but I shall check the position and ensure that the noble Lord is made aware of it by way of a letter in the Library. There should not be unintentional abuse because one can obtain by electronic information only that which one can obtain under Clause 1 in writing. As to intentional abuse, the safeguards that I have listed two or three times should be sufficient. I realise that this may be a source of concern. However, in the light of my response I hope that the noble Lord is able to agree Clause 2.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her full answer. As to the first point, I look forward to receiving a letter, a copy of which is to be made available in the Library. We shall consider carefully the other points that the Minister raises. We have received a number of approaches from Liberty and the Scottish Law Society. We shall discuss this matter with them and consider the position.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Arrangements for payments in respect of information]:
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 7, line 16, leave out from ("that") to ("in") in line 19 and insert ("arrangements are in force for requiring the making of payments to cover costs").
The noble Lord said: In rising to move Amendment No. 60, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 61 and 62. Amendment No. 60 is a probing amendment to clarify how far the Secretary of State is prepared to go to reduce the very substantial costs to business occasioned by the Bill. The amendment seeks to tighten the loose provisions in the Bill for the recovery of costs incurred by companies as a result of the provision of information. The new wording would make such payments mandatory rather than merely

1067
discretionary and ensure that payments accurately reflected the real cost to industry of providing information.
The Minister partially addressed the issue of cost in responding to Amendment No. 8. However, she said that it was not appropriate to make payments for bulk information requests. The point requires some clarification. As the Bill indicates at least a willingness to contribute to cost recovery by companies, perhaps the Minister can clarify for what the Government envisage paying. Logically, the response of the Minister during consideration of Amendment No. 8 suggested that utilities might—but only might—receive payment for any new software systems that they developed in order to provide bulk information to the Government. However, they will not be compensated for the provision of any bulk information the cost of which is as yet unknown to those companies. I look forward to receiving clarification from the Minister. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): I must point out that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 61 under the pre-emption rules.
Baroness Noakes: In rising to speak to Amendment No. 60, I should like to refer particularly to Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The amendments are similar in intent; namely, that the Secretary of State should make payments to those who provide information under the new powers created by the Bill. The difference is that Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 are more specific as to who should be paid and how much. I should like to explain why I believe that greater specificity is desirable.
As to Amendment No. 61, Clause 3 is quite restrictive in terms of who can be paid, not only in relation to the bodies listed in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) which notably exclude banks, credit businesses and insurance companies. Even if one is in that list one gets paid only if the Secretary of State believes that it is appropriate. There are further restrictions, to which my noble friend Lord Astor referred, in respect of bulk information provided by utility companies under Clause 3(2). Amendment No. 61 seeks to bring all the bodies which may be subject to a request for information within the scope of reimbursement.
By their own estimates the Government stand to gain between £200 million to £400 million by the enactment of the Bill. In so doing they will impose new regulatory burdens on those who are likely to need to provide information. Banks, credit businesses and insurance companies, all of which have expressed willingness to assist with the implementation of the Bill, do not understand why there is not even a possibility of payment under the proposed legislation. One must put that in context. According to the regulatory impact assessment, 390,000—or 44 per cent—of all inquiries will be made to banks and
1068
insurance companies and another 95,000 will be made to utility companies. They cannot understand why they should not be reimbursed for anything beyond bulk information.
The Minister explains that the intention largely is to pay those whose business it is to provide information and not others, but I do not believe that that is a general principle. For example, there are provisions in the recently enacted Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to pay for communications data. Arrangements are in place for that purpose, notwithstanding that the data are already held by those organisations. I do not believe that it is a general principle which should guide the reimbursement provisions of the Bill.
The regulatory impact assessment says that the extra cost to business is between £2.5 million and £7.6 million. That is another puzzle. Why are the Government concerned about such a relatively small amount in the context of the public expenditure totals of the DSS? A number of those who have looked at this part of the Bill have genuine concerns that the cost to business will be considerably in excess of the stated figure. If it is a larger sum, it increases the case for reimbursement. A number of those who have commented on this matter find it difficult to estimate the cost because, in the absence of a draft of the code of practice that has been referred to, in practice it is difficult to work out what the burdens upon them are likely to be. Amendment No. 61 is about widening the scope.
Amendment No. 62 is intended to make more specific the payment of the reasonable costs incurred by those who respond to requests for information, not the amount that the Secretary of State believes is appropriate. I accept that, even with that amendment, the big question that remains is: what is the cost? Is it short-run or long-run marginal cost? Does it include the opportunity cost of capital?
I am not seeking answers to those questions today because they would be better answered by some form of guidance. I seek to probe whether or not the Government will look at Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 and provide a fairer balance between what the state understandably is trying to achieve in terms of stopping massive benefit fraud while relieving the burdens on business.
Baroness Crawley: Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she tell the Committee where is the evidence of the greater cost that she talks of when we are talking about firms that already hold the information that we seek?
Baroness Noakes: I shall try to help. If one is an organisation, say a bank or an insurance company, and there is a great deal of operational data, the actual process of responding to an information request creates an administrative burden, possibly a systems burden and certainly a paper burden. People would be needed to carry out these requests. Therein lies the nature of the extra administrative costs involved. We are talking about very large numbers of inquiries—390,000 for banks and insurance companies and

1069
95,000 for utility companies. We are not talking about one per year per bank, but about potentially large numbers. That adds up to a great deal. Therefore, the nature of responding to individual requests is a large part of the costs. With bulk information, the costs are more likely to be in software amendments and the associated labour costs in processing them.
Lord Goodhart: My noble friend Lord Russell put his name to Amendments Nos. 61 and 62. I, therefore, rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
I should be interested to know the logic behind the differentiation in the organisations that qualify for repayment of their expenses. For example, why can utility or credit reference agencies be repaid, but no repayments be made to banks, insurance companies or organisations which provide consumer credit? In either case the question is: should the burden of complying with these regulations lie on the customers of the organisations—no doubt the costs will be included in the charges made to customers generally—or should the burden lie on the taxpayer? There is a strong case for saying that in all these cases the burden should rest on general public funds. It is somewhat different from, say, the financial burden of complying with the considerable PAYE regulations where companies do not get a refund; it is an inherent and unavoidable part of their business to employ people. This is a different matter where it would be wholly appropriate for the costs of any business which was called upon to provide information to be refunded as far as is reasonable out of the general taxpayers' funds. Amendment No. 61 would simplify the legislation by requiring costs incurred to be repaid without having to set out a long list of those entitled to repayments and adding a delegated power to add more.
Baroness Fookes: May I press the Minister about the details of what might happen if the Secretary of State brings in regulations? At the moment the legislation is so vaguely couched that one concedes that no regulations or arrangements might be brought in at all. But if the Government intend to do something along these lines, can we have some idea of the way they would approach the problem of reimbursing costs? Like others before me, I am blessed if I can understand the distinctions made between those who fall on the right side of the line and might be paid and those who do not. Also, if arrangements are not made, or do not cover everyone, should the costs be passed on to the ordinary customers of the various institutions? That seems to me to be grossly unfair.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall do my best to answer the questions raised. Amendments Nos. 60, 61 and 62 relate to payment for information. Amendment No. 60 seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that arrangements are in force for requiring payments to be made to cover costs to persons on the list in Clause 3(1) in respect of information obtained under these new powers.
Amendment No. 61 seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that arrangements are in force, as he thinks appropriate, for requiring payments
1070
to be made to persons on the list in new Section 109B(2A) in respect of information obtained under these new powers. He could decide not to make any arrangements at all. However, his decision could be judicially reviewed and he would need reasons for choosing to make arrangements to pay some organisations and not others.
Amendment No. 62 seeks to require the Secretary of State to pay information providers an amount equivalent to the costs they have reasonably incurred. Let me address the concern made by a number of Members of the Committee about whether organisations are on—as the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, said—the right or the wrong side of the line. I shall first explain why we have listed the organisations we have at Clause 3(1). Our starting point is that where organisations are required by law to provide information to government, we do not pay for it. That is a well established principle.
Companies have to provide extensive information to the Inland Revenue, Companies House and so on, but are not reimbursed; rather, they suffer penalties if they fail to comply. The Inland Revenue, for example, does not pay for such information. Citizens must pay and bear the costs of complying with laws passed by Parliament for the common good. As noble Lords have said, the only exception is under RIPA, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which provides powers for a wider cross-section of the public sector to obtain information about telecommunications.
The Bill follows the principle that governs when the Inland Revenue pays for information. Like any other organisation, the Inland Revenue purchases relevant commercially available information where the provider is under no statutory obligation to provide it. The Data Protection Commissioner, now the Information Commissioner, requires organisations to complete detailed registrations of their data holdings, purposes, suppliers and recipients, but she does not pay them for this information. Banks are required to report suspicions of money laundering to the National Criminal Intelligence Service; businesses in general are required to make VAT returns to Customs and Excise; the utilities are required to provide information to the regulator to enable him to carry out his statutory duties; and so on.
Since the 1940s, the DSS has had power to require information from employers about their employees. Again, that is not paid for. However, although the general principle is that government do not pay for information that they are authorised by law to collect, when we were considering bringing forward these new powers we were persuaded that there were special reasons for making an exception to these general principles in the cases outlined in Clause 3(1). We think that it is reasonable to pay those organisations that make their living from supplying information in return for payment. That is why we brought forward a power to pay credit reference agencies. We also think that it is reasonable to pay the utilities for extracting data on consumption—the bulk data—as outlined at new Section (2D) in Clause 1(2). That is because they

1071
are the only organisations included in the Bill which will be asked to provide information for the purposes of electronic matching. That approach is in line with the department's approach to the Royal Mail, which we also pay for providing electronic data for matching.
We included telecommunications companies because they have invested in special technology to help to meet government inquiries. Members of the Committee will note that these powers do not allow us to require organisations to alter their procedures or to invest in special technology, and so on. That is why telecommunications suppliers are in a special position.
Clause 3, as currently drafted, requires the Secretary of State to make such payment as he considers appropriate, whereas the amendment states that payments should cover costs. If the Secretary of State exercises his powers unreasonably, his decision is subject to judicial review and would be set aside if it were found that he had acted unreasonably.
The amendments risk plunging the department into complex negotiations and renegotiations with each supplier of information about what they consider to be the reasonable costs of providing each and every piece of information. Needless to say, the view of a business as to what is reasonable will be guided by considerations different from ours. Companies have a legal duty, quite correctly, to protect the interests of their shareholders and their customers. Clearly, that means providing the best return on investment. The better way, as already provided in the Bill, is for the Secretary of State to be able to meet what costs he considers appropriate and to have that power curtailed or curbed where necessary by judicial review. The alternative, as proposed by this amendment, is the power for some businesses to delay the use of these powers by haggling over the cost of providing information needed to fight benefit fraud.
The amendments would also have the effect of restricting what we could pay those organisations which make their living from selling information—that is, the credit reference agencies. Currently, we propose to pay them the market rate for their services, but if this amendment were to succeed we would be able to pay them only their costs.
I can give the assurance that we will enter into early negotiations with businesses eligible for payment to establish a fair price. Officials are holding regular meetings with business to agree the terms of a code of practice. That will cover arrangements for payment. We have already told credit reference agencies that we will pay them the going rate for access to their data. This is fair and proper. It is in everyone's interest to fight fraud. Companies pay taxes as well as individuals. It is this tax revenue which funds the social security system, and which is being stolen. Businesses operating in the informal economy which do not pay their dues in tax and national insurance, and which employ people who are committing benefit frauds, compete unfairly with businesses which are responsible corporate citizens. Our demands will not
1072
be unreasonable. We will seek to make our inquiries in a way which minimises the cost. But business has a duty to help government to fight crime.
Nor do I accept the proposition that businesses cannot afford to help us to fight crime. We have estimated in the regulatory impact assessment that the cost of compliance to information providers will be between £2.5 million and £7.5 million. Taking the higher amount, some £3 million of this would fall to banks and building societies. Divided among the top seven, this would be a cost of under £500,000, which is significantly less than the remuneration which any one of them paid their top executive in 1999, according to their annual reports. We are talking about cost to them of perhaps £400,00 or £450,000. One such company paid its top man £3.25 million a year in salary. The pleadings of poverty from the business sectors from which we would seek information simply do not stand up to close scrutiny. If I were to be pressed on this point, I should be happy to read into the record top salaries and profits before tax of the major companies—£2.5 billion for Barclays Bank and so—on from the 1999 annual reports. I am happy to take up the Committee's time in reading this information into the record, but I hope it is felt that I have made my point. In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: Before I respond, will the noble Baroness clatify two points? First, do the Government have an estimate of the cost to these outside bodies that have fallen on the wrong side of my noble friend's line? Secondly, did I hear the Minister correctly when she said that she was going to enter into negotiations with the commercial credit reference agencies? I assume that they will be paid commercial rates.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think that I addressed both those points at length in my answer. On the second point, the answer is yes. On the first point, I was estimating the higher figure of £7 million to be the top figure falling on businesses. The share of that apportioned out would come to something like £450,000 to £500,000 per bank. I was setting that against the profits of £2.4 billion for Barclays Bank, £1.25 billion for the Halifax, £3.6 billion for Lloyds TSB, £1.2 billion for the Royal Bank of Scotland, £3.8 billion for British Telecom, and so on. I hope that in the course of my earlier remarks I addressed the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Baroness sits down, is it not also true that there has been a good deal of publicity from time to time about some of the very high salaries paid to the chairmen and chief executives of some of the utility companies? Many of those companies make very large profits. Would not that argument then lead to the implication that no payment ought to be made to any organisation or business?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In Committee last Thursday I tried to make the distinction between the payments to the utilities for bulk information for

1073
which they would need to put in place new software packages and the rest, and the individual inquiries—they hold that information already—for which they would no more be paid than would a bank or building society. In that sense I hope that I have addressed the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Lord Astor of Hever: We are very disappointed with the Minister's response. Her point about pleadings of poverty being untrue will disappoint the business sector. There will be substantial costs to business. Legitimate businesses and individuals are not there to act as a branch of government administration. We shall consider these points very carefully and may want to return to them at the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No 61A:
Page 7, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) any local authority;").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 61A it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 62A. Amendment No. 61A is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 62A, which suggests that at page 8, line 17 we should insert:
"For the purpose of complying with duties under this section, the costs of doing so shall be met by monies provided by Parliament".
The issues raised by these amendments, while they relate to the question of payment, are significantly different from the amendments we have just discussed. In that context, given the speech by the Minister, I am not clear how much the chairmen of credit rating agencies are paid and whether that supports her argument. No doubt, they are paid very small amounts.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Equifax and Experian are both international companies with business worth £15 billion to £20 billion and having across the world 16,000 employees. I suspect that their position is rather different from a company based in the United Kingdom.
Lord Higgins: Nonetheless, it means that they can probably afford to bear the costs in the same way that the banks or building societies can, according to the Minister.
Amendment No. 61A is concerned with local authorities. There are significant differences. In the very helpful meeting that was held with the Minister, her officials and others, the view was expressed that the money which the local authorities were failing to protect was the money belonging to central government. Therefore, it seems not inappropriate to suggest that if one is going to take measures to prevent such fraud, the costs of that should fall upon central government rather than on local authorities. Not surprisingly, that is the view of the Local Government Association.
1074
The point goes wider than that. The expenses that the local authorities will incur are not simply those involved in operating the system to prevent fraud, particularly housing benefit fraud. In the view of the local authorities, the effect of the provisions in the Bill will impose other strains upon them. They refer, in particular, to the Government's proposals for the so-called "two strikes and you are out" policy that might mean that individuals in a local authority area find that they are rendered homeless. That would involve additional costs. That is the view of local authorities.
Local authorities are also worried about the effect the proposals may have if the costs are borne by them rather than by central government. For example, they suggest that the standard spending assessment will apparently remain the same but they will have to cover the cost of operating the proposals in the Bill. The result of that will be that they have fewer resources to carry out the normal duties of a local authority. If the money that they were saving was their money, that would be one thing. As I understand it, the Government's position is that it is central government's money. We will find a reallocation of resources between central and local government as a result of local authorities having to bear this cost—there is apparently not to be an adjustment in their standard spending assessments—and local services will deteriorate.
It is also the case that there will be differences between one local authority and another. Local authorities in particularly deprived areas, where there is perhaps a tendency for people to find that they are engaged in activities of a kind which the Bill is intended to prevent, will find that their resources are reduced more than those provided to other better off areas which are less likely to engage in some of the forms of fraud with which the Bill is designed to deal.
Local authorities feel that they are being discriminated against because the power given to them in the Bill is limited compared with the power given to the DSS.The ability to check bulk information from utilities as an indicator of residence is at least as relevant, if not more so, for housing benefit and council tax benefit as it is for central government If I understand the Bill correctly, central government and the Department of Social Security will be able to use such bulk information but local authorities will not. To that extent, not only will local authorities be lumbered with the costs incurred in protecting central government's money, as they see it, but they will also be handicapped because the provisions of the Bill will not be equally available. Local authorities will have fewer resources in the sense of additional information to do their job than the Department of Social Security. Local authorities feel that they are being hard done by. My amendments would cover most of the problems.
There are significant differences between local authorities. In a news handout on 30th January the London Borough of Wandsworth pointed out that it is being commended on the action it has taken against fraud. That is in contrast to a report from the benefit fraud inspector relating to Camden and one or two other local authorities. There is a discrepancy. It may

1075
be that the resources available to Wandsworth to cover the cost of the Bill's proposals are smaller than those made available to other more deprived areas.
It is interesting that the report on Wandsworth by the department's independent benefit fraud inspector noted that Wandsworth had done very well because of a new verification programme which it had instituted. The Minister indicates assent. To what extent will the verification process, which presumably will effectively fulfil the objectives of the Bill, be extended nation-wide? The noble Baroness said that there are 409 local authorities in all. How many of the 409 are likely in the near future to adopt the verification process, which apparently has been so successful in the London Borough of Wandsworth?
In particular—I first raised this point with the noble Baroness a long while ago—to what extent will there be standardisation of the forms used by local authorities for housing benefit? Given the problem of housing benefit fraud, it is extraordinary that there still appears not to be a standard form, though again the department's benefit fraud inspector has commended the form used by the London Borough of Wandsworth.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Three mentions and they are in.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: That is true. Alternatively, with some of the other boroughs, three mentions and they are out. But that would be a sordid party political point to make, which did not cross my mind for one moment.
There are differences in ability and determination to deal with these problems. I cannot help but feel that the arguments put forward by the Local Government Association show that local authorities will be operating the provisions of the Bill with less enthusiasm and efficiency than would be the case if it was made clear to them that the Government are seeking to protect central government money—that is the view expressed by the Minister—and that therefore it is appropriate that the cost of doing that should not fall on those paying local taxes. It would be far more appropriate, efficient and effective if it were done on the basis of national financing of local authorities for carrying out what is effectively for the benefit of central government. If that is not done, it will be to the detriment of local authorities and local communities.
I hope that the Government will accept what is a sensible amendment put forward by local authorities. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope that I shall be able to answer all the noble Lord's points. These amendments—the paving amendment and the substantive amendment—seek to explore how local authorities will be funded to meet the cost of any of the information that they have to pay for under these provisions. The provisions on obtaining information
1076
do not require local authorities to do anything new. They merely add to the means at their disposal for detecting and preventing housing and council tax benefit fraud.
Local authorities already receive an annual subsidy for administering housing and council tax benefits, which includes the detection and prevention of fraud. These arrangements are already enshrined in our legislation—at Section 140 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
These provisions also provide powers for additional subsidies for specific action. Specific subsidies are provided for action taken to prevent fraud, such as work under the verification framework. The noble Lord asked specifically what proportion of local authorities had now adopted a verification framework. The information from the Audit Commission report for 2000 is that 44 per cent had done so. In the previous year, 1999, the proportion was only 19 per cent. Therefore, we can already see how far local authorities have moved. The Government have made available £100 million over three years to meet the costs of all local authorities adopting the framework. As a result, the number taking it up is rising. We are meeting the costs of that initiative.
Specific subsidies are also provided as a reward for the fraud that local authorities detect. The more fraud they find the more subsidy they receive. These powers should make it easier for local authorities to detect fraud. For example, a local authority may receive a tip off that a housing benefit claimant had been bragging about the savings and investments that he had, none of which he had declared on his housing benefit claim. If the claimant denied having any savings, there is no way at present that the local authority could independently check that. With these new provisions, it could check with a credit reference agency to find out to what financial organisations the claimant had applied to open accounts with and then check those financial organisations to find out whether he did in fact have any savings. So, far from putting local authorities at a disadvantage, the ability to check information with independent sources will enable them to find more fraud and consequently to increase the subsidy they receive. If the Committee would like me to do so, I could spell out the degree of subsidy they actually get and the degree to which, if they go above a certain threshold, they receive additional proportions of the money saved and detected. Thus, there already exists a means of paying them for the inquiries they make of organisations; they are paid a reward.
The noble Lord suggested that the level of subsidy provided to local authorities is insufficient. We believe that it is sufficient. We have increased the amounts available to local authorities for the next three years. The increase generally for 2000–01 is 2.5 per cent, which is in line with inflation, but the housing benefit caseload has decreased by approximately 6 per cent. This recognises that local authorities have transferred some of their stock to housing associations and that those housing benefit cases may now be more complex.

1077
I could go on to talk about the subsidy arrangements and the incentives being provided for those, but I am sure that what we are doing is fully adequate.
The noble Lord asks why local authorities do not have the same range of powers as the DSS; and I am saying that they do, with two exceptions. One is that only the DSS may obtain information on the quantity of supplies of utilities, that is, the bulk data. That is because the bulk data is matched against our records of housing benefit provided to us by local authorities. We then send any potential problem cases involving housing benefit back to the local authorities with the appropriate information.
The other small exception is that local authorities will need the consent of the Secretary of State before entering into arrangements to obtain electronic access to records. This came up when we discussed amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and I tried to explain that we wanted local authorities to have the positive consent of the Secretary of State to ensure that they had verification frameworks, good reports and a benefit fraud inspectorate in place, to ensure that this information was not just floating around in inappropriate ways, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, put it.
I hope that I have addressed the points raised by the noble Lord and that I have assured him that we shall provide the information that he seeks and that the concerns of local authorities over meeting the costs of data collection and relating to prosecution are not as significant as he fears.
On the noble Lord's point about homelessness, we are expecting perhaps only 150 to 300 cases across the country where housing benefit is affected. He will know that if you commit an offence against housing benefit, it is not housing benefit that will normally bear the penalty but income support or JSA. This is quite deliberate, because we are not seeking to make people homeless, particularly those with families. The number of cases where housing benefit is affected is not expected on average to be more than one case per authority. His fear about the cost to local authorities of dealing with any homelessness that might result should not arise in practice.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord's concerns about the verification framework, payments for subsidy for detecting fraud and the unwarranted fears of local authorities about homelessness.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, as always, for that full reply. It leaves one very clear question in one's mind: why is it that the Local Government Association seems to be totally unaware of the points the noble Baroness was making with regard to the extent to which there are already provisions in standard spending assessments to cover the prevention of fraud? It may regard the amount as inadequate, but at the moment the representations we receive seem to suggest that it is completely unaware that any of the money that it receives is supposed to be devoted to this purpose. That seems quite extraordinary.
1078
On the noble Baroness's final point, she said there was only likely to be one case per local authority, perhaps less. It would thus appear that the amount of extra money we are going to obtain as a result of this proposal will not be very great. That is in terms of prosecutions—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think the noble Lord may have misunderstood me. I am not saying that there will not be a vast number of offences against housing benefit, but, as he will know, housing benefit is sanctioned, and money lost from housing benefit, only if there is no other qualifying benefit against which the sanction may be met. For example, if someone committed an offence against housing benefit, and most people (although not all) getting housing benefit are on income support or the JSA, the deduction would be against income support or JSA, even though the offence was committed against housing benefit. This is a way of protecting families against homelessness. As I said, our best estimate is that only 100 to 150—or a number of that order—will face an actual reduction in housing benefit, as such, which might produce a situation where someone could not afford to pay their rent.
Lord Higgins: Again, I am grateful, but this seems to suggest that the Local Government Association, which raised the point about the possible cost of homelessness and so on, is not aware of what is happening on the ground. Moreover, it seems that the department is not telling local authorities; so this is a rather strange situation. One presumes that the representations one has received were no doubt made in good faith, but the association seems to be unfamiliar with the situation described by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I entirely take the noble Lord's point. Perhaps it would be helpful if I repeated my answer in the form of a rather long letter to him. We could not only put a copy in the Library, but also send a courtesy copy to the Local Government Association so that it could circulate the contents to its members. Would that meet the noble Lord's concerns?
Lord Higgins: Yes, I think so; because there seems to have been a rather serious breakdown of communication. I now understand the point which the noble Baroness is making about there only being one case where housing benefit fraud is involved, because it is likely that fraud applies not only to housing benefit but to other benefits as well.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Even if there was no fraud against income support and JSA, and the fraud was only against housing benefit, the benefit sanctioned would be income support or JSA. Is that understood?
Lord Higgins: Yes, I understand the point which the noble Baroness is making; I hope that the Local Government Association might also. We need to see whether we can improve the communication. If the

1079
noble Baroness is prepared to answer in the way she has outlined, preferably as soon as possible, we can see whether on Report we get a rebuttal showing that it is not the Local Government Association but the Department of Social Security which is unaware of what is happening at the front end.
It is obviously very important that fraud against local authorities should be dealt with also, and the noble Baroness has pointed out that they will be able to check their data against that provided by the department, as far as bulk data is concerned. That is probably a sensible arrangement and we certainly agree with what the noble Baroness said with regard to electronic communications: that local authorities will be allowed to search for data on individuals only if their system is approved by the Secretary of State.
Having said that, it does seem rather an awful situation if we cannot trust the local authorities to deal with these matters in the way one would wish, so that the Secretary of State actually has to check up on them to see whether their computer systems are or are not inviolate. A great deal of data will be held on those computers, which would suggest that this is a matter of some concern.
However, these are not matters for the Department of Social Security but rather for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the department concerned with local government. In the light of the Minister's kind assurance that she will write in the way she has described, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 62 and 62A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Goodhart: The issues I sought to raise on whether Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill have been covered, to a large extent, in the debate on the first group of amendments to the clause. For that reason, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served were Ito pursue them.
Clause 3 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 63:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
CODE OF PRACTICE
(" —(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare a code of practice on the use and processing of personal data for purposes associated with the provisions of this Act or the relevant provisions of any enactment amended by this Act.
(2) A copy of any code of practice prepared under the provisions of this section shall be laid before Parliament.
(3) Before he lays before Parliament a copy of any code of practice prepared under this section, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to publish a draft of that code and consider any representations made to him about that draft by—

(a) the Data Protection Commissioner, and

(b) any other person or body,

and he may modify that draft accordingly.
(4) A code of practice prepared under the provisions of this section shall not come into effect until it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament and issued by the Secretary of State.
(5) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise the whole or any part of a code of practice issued under the provisions of this section, and the provisions of subsections (1) to (4) above shall apply to any such revision, with appropriate modifications.
(6) It shall be the duty of the individual nominated by the Secretary of State to keep under review compliance with any code of practice issued under the provisions of this section, and in pursuance of this duty he shall have power to require the provision of any information necessary to him in the discharge of this duty.
(7) Where the individual nominated by the Secretary of State considers that the provisions of any code of practice issued under this section have been breached, then such a breach will be deemed to be a breach of the principles to which that part of the code relates.
(8) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament annually a report on the monitoring of compliance with any code of practice issued under this section.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendment No. 102. This rather lengthy amendment seeks to insert into the Bill a new clause which would, in effect, provide a draft code of practice. We have spent a great deal of time discussing the code of practice in the course of our debates. When we had our helpful informal discussions with the Minister, we understood that the code of practice would be produced between now and Report stage. That is extremely important if we are to ensure that many of the doubts which have been expressed can be dealt with adequately through a code of practice rather than on the face of the Bill. Obviously, some proposals can appropriately be dealt with in that way. However, when we see the code of practice we may find that other points ought to be incorporated into the Bill.
Amendment No. 102 amends the commencement provisions by stating that,
"no such statutory instrument shall be laid until an order containing the code of practice for the administration of this Act shall have been approved by both Houses of Parliament".
This may be a technical problem in that, before it is introduced, it would be desirable for the House and another place to be given an opportunity to express their views on a code of practice and, if possible, to suggest amendments to it. We shall need to see how that might be done either on Report or at Third Reading.
It will not be a simple matter to devise the code of practice. A large number of aspects of the Bill, in particular those which have been raised by the Information Commissioner and by Justice, have given us cause for concern. I believe that we might also be able to tighten up the proposals as regards the extent to which the investigation to be carried out is justified and so forth. Perhaps the noble Baroness can now confirm that the code of practice will be published between now and the Report stage.
In Amendment No. 63 we have drafted a form of words which reflect a certain degree of plagiarism. I understand that this code of practice was suggested in 1997 by the Labour Party spokesman on a similar issue—Mr Henry McLeish was the author. Although

1081
some things have changed since 1997, I doubt whether this issue has changed to any great extent. Perhaps we should begin by adopting this code and then seek to amend it at later stages.
At this point, can the Minister tell the Committee whether the Government envisage producing a comprehensive code of practice? Can she also confirm whether the Information Commissioner—I must say that I thought the title, "Data Protection Commissioner" was rather better—will be involved in the preparation of the code? Will the code that we see at the next stage have been approved by her? If that is the case, then a great many of the qualms which have been expressed about the terms of Clause 1 will be alleviated. Perhaps the noble Baroness can bring us up to date and let us know the state of play. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I support the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on this matter. The code of practice will be extremely important, in particular as regards the concerns raised in connection with Clause 1 on the infringement of human rights. If we are not to have any degree of judicial control put in place over the use of the powers under Clause 1, then a good, solid code of practice will be absolutely essential. Furthermore, it is strongly desirable that we should have not only a code, but a code that is subject to a measure of parliamentary control. The initial version should be subject at least to the affirmative resolution procedure, as is proposed here.
I am not sure that I agree with some of the drafting in the amendment. Subsection (7) of the proposed new clause is a little unclear in its meaning and effect. I believe that we may also encounter problems with Amendment No. 102, which would prevent the Bill being enacted until a resolution had been passed. Nevertheless, I agree with the principle and I am happy to express my support.
Baroness Noakes: In expressing my support for the amendment, perhaps I may widen the scope a little. As drafted, it covers the use and processing of personal data. However, another area is causing concern. At the briefing given by the Minister before we began our deliberations in Committee, she spoke of the way in which the code of practice would exactly cover how the powers are to be used and how business will interface with the DSS and local authorities. That is important and will cover many unanswered questions being put by the corporate organisations which will be affected by the new powers.
Although what I have pointed out is not contained in the wording of the proposed new clause, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could express her view on the matter.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We have always intended that the information gathering provisions in Clauses 1 and 2—although not for the rest of the Bill—would be subject to a code of practice. Noble Lords will recall that I explained during the first Committee
1082
day what the code might contain. However, it may be helpful if I specify in greater detail the kind of issues to be addressed by the code.
I should say also that noble Lords will receive a draft version of the code of practice before the Report stage. It will draw on comments made by noble Lords and also by business. That may provide the opportunity being sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The final version will be shown to the Information Commissioner. That explains how we aim to proceed.
The code of practice will cover the following issues: why we need to make inquiries; the extent and nature of the new powers; who can use them; how we will authorise officers to make inquiries; the standards to be expected from those using the powers; how we will safeguard the information obtained; what kind of information we will require; what will be done with the information; penalties for misuse of the powers; from whom we will require information; how we will get it; how we will manage our requests for information; the statutory duty to provide information; who will be the data subjects; what are reasonable grounds; training of staff; what checks we will make to ensure that our requests are lawful; the safeguards in place to ensure confidentiality and security; appeals and complaints procedures; rights of subject access; principles of electronic access; human rights compatibility; data protection compatibility; and paying for information. The code will set out the distinctions between making inquiries about individuals and bulk matching. Indeed, it will be written in a way that will meet the concerns of three audiences: the investigator, at whom it is primarily aimed; the data provider and the data subject.
I have taken up the Committee's time with that explanation because I thought it might be useful before we come to Report stage to specify the code I hope that the Committee will agree that it is extremely full and that it meets any residual concerns.
Complaints about DSS staff will be addressed to the professional standards unit of the office of our chief of investigations, as will complaints about local authorities if complainants do not get satisfaction from the local authorities themselves.
We all agree that the code of practice should provide a clear guide to authorised officers, setting out the limitations of their powers and the standards of behaviour expected of them when conducting their inquiries. We have discussed previously in Committee the level of experience we can expect those officials to have. We have already consulted with representatives of business and we are seeking to meet them in regard to working on the draft and before the draft becomes the final code of practice.
The new clause proposed in Amendment No. 63 contains a number of detailed provisions relating to the code of practice. There is a great deal within the proposed new clause with which I concur, although I am not convinced that it all needs to be included in the legislation. It is important to produce a draft code of practice for consultation—which we shall do—and that the consultation should be widespread and

1083
include the Information Commissioner and the organisations likely to be required to provide information. Our commitment to consultation is clear. When the code is published, it will be relevant to all decisions by authorised officers to request information under the new powers.
I listened to the debates on Second Reading and at last week's Committee stage. That is why I have tried to spell out what will go into the content of such a code of conduct and to ensure that business will have ample opportunity to take part in consultations and to comment upon it.
I recognise the concern about the need for additional certainty on this issue—which is the point behind the amendment—and I should like to consider further whether, and in what form, the Bill should contain provision for a code of practice on Clauses 1 and 2. If the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment, I shall endeavour to bring forward a government amendment on Report to address that concern.
As to Amendment No. 102, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has already done his "this is a wrecking amendment" speech because it is technically flawed. He is, of course, absolutely right. It was never our intention to commence the provisions in Clauses 1 and 2 without a code. The problem with the amendment is that it makes the whole Bill subject to a code of practice and we could not implement any part of it without one. I cannot think that that is what the noble Lord intends.
I could go on, but it may be that in the light of the heavy guns fired by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the grapeshot from myself, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, may feel that he does not wish to pursue this matter either. I shall not continue with my remarks as to why it would be inappropriate to apply it to colluding employers, benefit penalties and so on because I cannot believe that that is what the noble Lord intended. The code of practice is not relevant to that part of the Bill.
In the light of that explanation and the rather full description of what may be contained within the code of practice, together with reassurances about not only consultation but seeking to give it some security by returning with an amendment to place it on the face of the Bill, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: Perhaps I may deal, first, with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Now that I look at the amendments and the way in which they interact, it seems to me a rather good way of proceeding. Perhaps one should consider adopting as normal practice that a Bill should not come into operation until the statutory instruments authorised by the Bill have been considered. No doubt there would be problems with that. I accept fully what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said.
The noble Baroness said that at Report stage we would have a draft of the code of practice. We welcome that. It is a sensible way of proceeding; goodwill will
1084
flourish and we shall do what we can to improve matters. However, I was slightly puzzled when she said that the House will have a draft of the code of practice at Report stage but the Information Commissioner will not receive it until it is final.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. Perhaps my remarks were obscure. I was taking it for granted that, like other people, the Information Commissioner would be commenting on the draft. The final report—which is the framework within which the Information Commissioner would seek to scrutinise subsequent DSS activity—would be laid before her.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins: I now understand. Again, that is a sensible way of proceeding. It would perhaps be helpful if the noble Baroness could comment on two points. It appears that the code will cover only Clause 1 and Clause 2, which deals with electronic access to information; it will not cover any of the other aspects—for example, colluding employers—which, no doubt, will have to be dealt with on the face of the Bill.
The Minister also opened the door a little towards saying that one might consider whether some of the items one could put in the code of practice should not be put on the face of the Bill. Again, that is something we shall need to consider.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I said that I was willing to reflect on the matter—partly in response to pressure from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. At the moment, the code of practice exists only in so far as I have stated. I have said that I am willing to come back with amendments to say that there will be a code of practice on the face of the Bill, which then gives it statutory authority. That is sometimes done, it is sometimes not done. If it is satisfactory to the Committee to give it that basis, that may be helpful. Obviously, matters such as colluding employers raise completely different issues from those connected with data protection, with which the code is associated.
Lord Higgins: That is extremely helpful. We shall seek to co-operate. I have said throughout that we are as anxious as the Government to prevent fraud—if not more so. The side effects of the proposals are difficult, in particular the question of whether there should be some degree of supervision over the department in deciding whether a particular case should be investigated. We need to consider that further, not least in the light of what the noble Baroness said about the heavy end of the market as against the light end and so on.
We look forward to seeing the draft. We should perhaps consider the timing. Obviously, the sooner we can see it the better. I assume it must already be in draft. We should also consider whether some time should elapse between Report stage and Third Reading in order that any outside representations we receive can be taken into account in the subsequent discussions on the code.

1085
The Minister is being very forthcoming and we are anxious to ensure that the matter is dealt with in a reasonable manner. I am sorry about Amendment No. 102—which drew such scorn from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—but we cannot have everything. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Exchange of information with overseas authorities]:
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 8, line 21, leave out ("it appears to the Secretary of State") and insert ("the Secretary of State is satisfied").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 65, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 66. Amendment No. 65 probes the standard of satisfaction which must be achieved before the Secretary of State would exchange information with overseas authorities. Clause 4(1) specifies the conditions which must be in place before the Secretary of State can disclose information to an overseas authority. At present, it is sufficient if it "appears" to the Secretary State that adequate safeguards are in place to prevent any improper use of information. We believe that these provisions are of sufficient importance that the Secretary of State should be "satisfied" that the requirements of that subsection have been fulfilled.
Amendment No. 66 ties in with the two earlier amendments relating to a code of practice and standards. Clearly, the reliability of any information received from another jurisdiction will vary. Ministers should explain what they intend to do to ensure the reliability of information, and on what basis they will rule out, or rule in, information with regard to a particular jurisdiction. What information will be given, or will not be given, to authorised officers about the reliability of a particular source? How will that information be reviewed; and how will its quality be tested? I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Baroness Fookes: I strongly support the amendment. It is a matter for concern that security should be satisfactorily achieved when other countries are involved over which we have no jurisdiction. Therefore, this proposal is particularly important.
Perhaps I may briefly hark back to the code of practice. As I understand it, the code of practice will relate only to Clauses 1 and 2. I should have thought it entirely reasonable that it should relate also to Clause 4, dealing with the exchange of information with overseas authorities.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have quite a full answer to this amendment; as this is a technical issue, perhaps Members of the Committee will bear with me. I could merely address the direct points, but it may be useful if I set out some of the background.
Both amendments relate to Clause 4, on the exchange of information with overseas authorities. Amendment No. 65 is about the standard of
1086
satisfaction that must be achieved before the Secretary of State would exchange information with overseas authorities. Amendment No. 66 seeks to substitute the word "necessary" for the word "reasonable" in new Section 155A(3) which the Bill would insert into Part XIII of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992. The clause requires all reasonable steps to be taken to secure that information obtained from another country is not used for any purpose not authorised in the understanding to exchange information with the other country.
Of all the clauses in the Bill, Clause 4 has attracted the least amount of comment and the greatest degree of support in our public consultation exercise. Transnational benefit fraud is a serious problem. It is sufficiently serious for the Council of the European Union to pass a resolution on 22nd April 1999 on a code of conduct for improving co-operation between authorities of member states concerning the combating of transnational social security benefit and contribution fraud and undeclared work, and the transnational hiring out of workers. But it is difficult to say how serious, as we simply do not have the information we need to see the full implications. We know from the cases that come to light that many are organised and involve large sums of money—for example, the gang who hijacked the identities of 171 Irish citizens to make false claims. I mentioned this case at Second Reading. The problem is not peculiar to the UK and Ireland The German and Dutch authorities are concerned about the problem of people claiming unemployment benefits in one country while crossing the border daily to work in the other.
What this clause is not about is cracking down on asylum seekers, who are in any case now supported by the new Home Office arrangements and not the benefit system. I repeat the categorical assurance that I gave earlier that the powers in this clause would not be used to pass information about a person seeking asylum in the UK to the government of the country from which he had fled.
The Information Commissioner has an important role in this, in that she participates in the work of the "Article 29 Committee", set up under the EU data protection directive to advise on data protection issues arising at a European level. The committee's recent work includes consideration of the level of personal data protection in certain non-EEA states to produce an approved list. We should not consider entering into an arrangement to exchange data with any country that did not meet with her approval. That is a strong statement.
We envisage that such exchanges would be with a limited number of countries, where there was evidence that transnational benefit fraud could exist. This is likely to be our near EU neighbours, in particular Ireland—geographical proximity clearly increases the scope for cross-border fraud—and countries outside the EU with which we already have a close relationship.
A Memorandum of Understanding between the government of the United Kingdom and the overseas government would govern any arrangements that we

1087
enter into. The process of agreeing the terms of that understanding would provide ample opportunity to explore safeguards. Any document prepared for UK signature would have been closely examined by lawyers not only at the DSS, but also at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who will have close regard to human rights and data protection issues. We would not enter into any arrangements with any country that did not have adequate arrangements in place against improper use of information, or due regard to human rights. We would take into account all relevant information: the character of the regime, the administrative safeguards as well as the legal ones, and the political relationship between our countries, to name but three. We clearly would not enter into a relationship with any country that did not have a stable democratic system of government, and we would terminate any existing arrangement if circumstances changed for the worst. Again, that is a very strong statement.
We have already agreed a Memorandum of Understanding with Ireland on closer co-operation to combat transnational social security fraud. The measures in the Bill would provide the legal basis for the DSS to disclose information to the Irish Social Security Department. However, we would not use these measures until the Irish Government had also secured legislation. The text of this memorandum is publicly available. Any other such arrangements would also be made publicly available.
What we cannot do under existing powers, which is why we are seeking to include this clause, is to exchange information in bulk. What we seek to do, when the enabling legislation is in place in both the UK and Ireland, is to match our entire social security live load to pick up the people who are claiming in both jurisdictions—or appearing to do so, as many may be the victims of criminals who appropriate the identities of innocent citizens to make false claims.
In practice, this data matching will almost certainly be done in England by the DSS's data matching service, which has the infrastructure and expertise to do so. It would thus be covered by the DSS Code of Practice on Data Matching, which has been endorsed by the Information Commissioner. Indeed, she wrote the foreword, in which she stated:
"I am pleased to report that since welcoming the first edition a year ago I have received only a very few enquiries about the Department's data matching exercises. In other words, the code seems to be achieving two twin goals of setting out for DSS staff the standards that they must follow, and of explaining to benefit claimants the nature of the checks that are carried out and the safeguards".
So there is praise and support from the Information Commissioner on the code that currently governs the situation.
When one country decides to provide information to another, it does so on a voluntary basis. In so doing, it may wish to place restrictions on the use to which that information can be put. Our understanding with Ireland specifies that information about an individual which one authority transmits to another will be used
1088
exclusively for the purpose of administering social security legislation. As Members of the Committee can imagine, there are particularly sensitive issues around the uses to which information that passes between Northern Ireland and the Republic could be put. We are well aware of some of the complexities, as are Members of the Committee.
For it to appear to the Secretary of State that suitable arrangements are in force to allow exchange of information, he must first satisfy himself that that is the case. I hope that, given this full answer—which I thought it important to place on the record—I have reassured the Committee that we are not about to hand over our social security records to Saddam Hussein. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the Minister for that full response. We feel that the two amendments merit such a response. As the Minister said, transnational social security fraud is a very serious problem. We on these Benches will do everything possible to help to stamp it out.
I was grateful for the Minister's assurances on asylum seekers, and for the assurance that the Government will not enter into any arrangement with any country that does not have an adequate use for such information or a democratic form of government. I thank my noble friend Lady Fookes for her support. In the light of the Minister's helpful response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Loss of benefit for commission of benefit offences]:
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 10, line 42, at end insert ("provided always that no such reduction shall exceed 10 per cent.").
The noble Lord said: Members on these Benches regard this as an important amendment. During the clause stand part debate on Clause 6, I shall again emphasise that, as your Lordships already know, we are extremely concerned about using the reduction of benefit as a method of imposing punishment for misbehaviour.
I wish that I could speak with the eloquence that my noble friend would have used if he had been here today. This subject is of great concern and raises questions about the fundamental nature of state means-tested benefits. The proposal is that there should be a reduction in certain benefits of 40 per cent. Evidence taken by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee made it clear that there were certain—admittedly rather limited—circumstances in which that 40 per cent reduction could be applied twice over, which would lead to a reduction of 80 per cent.

1089
That could occur in the context of a refusal to attend a job interview under the rules relating to the jobseeker's allowance.
Income support includes something that is perhaps a little more than a basic minimum standard of living. It does so even if the basic minimum is looked at in the short term. Obviously, income support includes an element that will enable people to clothe themselves. It is arguable that if benefit were withdrawn for a short period of no more than three months—that is the maximum period, under the Bill, during which benefit can be withdrawn—one could always defer one's need to buy clothes until the end of that period.
There is no study or definition of what might be called the absolute minimum basic standard below which one would start to suffer really serious problems, such as malnutrition. The relevant figure is likely to be somewhat higher than that associated with the absolute basic minimum standard, and it is likely to be somewhat higher than 60 per cent of income support. Although we do not know the answer to certain questions, it appears that there is a real risk that reducing income support to only 60 per cent of the standard level will mean that one goes below that absolute basic minimum standard.
The 10 per cent figure that is proposed in the amendment might not take one below that absolute basic minimum standard. If one goes below that standard, the benefit fraudster may suffer hardships that are damaging to his or her health. He or she may have standards of nutrition and of heating during cold weather, for example, that are less than those that he or she would have had in prison.
An even more important consideration involves the fact that when the fraudster is the member of a household, the other members of the household will not get differential treatment. The fraudster will not be told by the rest of the family, "You can have a piece of bread without cheese while the rest of us have bread with cheese". There will be a common standard between all members of a household; their resources will be pooled. A hardship will therefore be imposed on the fraudster, which may be regarded as a legitimate form of punishment, and, inevitably, on the other members of the family, especially on children. That will apply even if, as is the case, the children's element in income support payments is not reduced. If the cut means that the family has to choose between the fraudster's cigarettes and the children's clothes, I am afraid that it is all too obvious who is likely to lose out.
We are seriously concerned about the use, in any circumstances, of benefit reductions as a means of punishment, even over a relatively short period. We feel that any figure should be imposed only after it has plainly been justified by a study as a figure below which real long-term problems such as damage to health are likely to begin. On that basis, we are not satisfied that a 40 per cent reduction would be justifiable. We believe that a considerably lower figure is necessary.
Lord Higgins: This is the sort of amendment in relation to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would
1090
convey his view with eloquence. We are sorry that he is not with us and hope that he will soon recover and return to help us in our debates.
The problem with the penalty—withdrawing benefit from someone who has committed benefit fraud—was spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart; namely, that the relevant person may be in very limited circumstances, unless, of course, the fraud has been singularly successful. The amendment that the noble Lord moved will reduce the extent of the penalty to 10 per cent. I rather doubt whether that would make a significant difference one way or another. The problem is rather different.
I have a question for the Minister about the clause. Subsection (3) states that,
"the offender's entitlement for that period were reduced in such manner as may be prescribed".
I am not clear about the word "manner" in line 42 on page 10. It is a rather odd word to use in that context. It might be preferable if the Bill stated that the entitlement would be reduced "by such an amount as may be prescribed". The phrase, "in such manner" is a little strange.
The noble Lord referred to the problem of cigarettes. Some time ago, the then Policy Studies Institute carried out a survey which had a most extraordinary finding. People living absolutely on the limit as regards income support spend a very high percentage of their income support on cigarettes. The survey also showed the extent to which the Treasury gained as a result of that operation. There would be a real problem if such a sanction were imposed.
The sanction is related to the approach that involves the ruling, "Two strikes and you're out". I understood from our earlier debate on local authorities that only 800 individuals were prosecuted last year. Presumably, a small proportion of those are second-time offenders. Perhaps that is not the case and they all are. Even so, the total is still only 800.
I forget the precise paragraph in the excellent report of the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, which deals with this issue. However, it raises the question of whether this type of penalty is appropriate. Either the offence is serious, in which case presumably a custodial sentence would be appropriate, or it is not serious and the consequences spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would follow.
That brings me finally to our earlier discussion about, for want of a less "jargony" expression, the light end and the heavy end of the market. The more I think about what the noble Baroness said earlier, the more doubtful I am about the distinction and the extent to which the Bill will be effective on the light and heavy ends of the market. However, I believe that the penalty set out in this clause is clearly directed at the light end of the market; that is, towards people who have somehow slid into fraud. It is not directed at the organised crime or collusive employer end of the market.
Therefore, from that point of view, the penalty appears to be remarkably badly targeted. If we are to make a distinction between the light and heavy ends of

1091
the market, we need to consider what the appropriate penalties might be and whether an alternative penalty to that proposed in the clause might not be more appropriate.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask what he has in mind.
Lord Higgins: I was intending to wait and see what the Minister might suggest. I believe that a genuine problem exists here. Clearly one can go for custodial sentences or whatever in relation to the heavy end of the market. However, if the case appears to be at the light end of the market but none the less the Government carry out an investigation and find that fraud is involved, I am not sure whether we should consider a penalty which is more closely related to the criminal side of the operation.
I agree that a real problem has been outlined which we need to consider. I am unable to propose an alternative off the top of my head, but the matter raises all the problems which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, spelt out.
Baroness Crawley: From this side of the House, I, too, wish the noble Earl, Lord Russell, a speedy recovery from his flu. However, we do not wish his amendment well for the single and simple reason that the effectiveness of the proposed sanctions in the Bill will be unacceptably diluted by it. The sanction of a 40 per cent reduction in income support and JSA for two-time offenders needs to be robust in order truly to tackle the fraud perpetrated. We are talking about single-minded, incessant offenders.
The sanction also needs to be robust in order to act as a proper deterrent. In that regard, I believe that the issue of numbers raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is important. In a sense, it is not so much the precise scale of the number of offenders that matters as the ability to reduce that number and ensure that a sufficiently robust sanction is in place to act as a deterrent.
Yet, although the sanctions are robust—there is no doubt about that—they are proposed with qualifications. Those qualifications are included so that the sanctions do not constitute hardship in the sense referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, with regard to levels of survival, starvation and so on. We are not talking about that. We are talking about a robust deterrent which gives a clear signal to those who might be tempted to go down that road. However, it should also ensure that two-time offenders do not suffer unacceptable hardship.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I, too, regret that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, should be absent for such a bad reason as flu—I am sorry; Freud says that one never makes a mistake—that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is absent due to flu. Clearly it is the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, who is giving me the hard time
1092
and that is why his name came to mind. I do not wish him to catch flu. Our proceedings would not be the same in his absence, despite the very able support which he receives from his noble friend Lord Astor.
Before I respond to the amendment, perhaps I may pick up one point. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked me about the weight of "in such manner". "Manner" covers different amounts: it may be 40 or 20 per cent, depending on the personal allowances of the claimant. Those can vary according to the claimant's age, for example, or the age of his children, and so on. That is why the word "manner" is included in the Bill rather than the word "amount".
I return to the substance of the amendments. They seek to limit to 10 per cent of a single person's allowance the amount by which income support or JSA could be reduced by the imposition of a fraud sanction. As my noble friend Lady Crawley said, the intention of the two-strikes clause is to deter the persistent, hard core, repeated benefit offender from re-offending. We are tackling that problem by reducing benefit or denying such people access to benefit.
It is not right that people should expect to remain on benefit as though nothing has happened when, according to the court, they have abused the system not once but twice. I suspect that most people would be surprised to learn that, having defrauded the system at least twice as established in the courts of law, offenders continue to draw benefit.
It may be helpful if I provide some statistics. The best information that I have is that we expect approximately 10,000 prosecutions of people who have committed one offence. However, the figure would be approximately 500 in relation to those who have committed two offences. That is the scale of the problem which we are discussing.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked whether a double sanction would apply in some cases; for example, where someone was claiming JSA, was actively seeking work and was sanctioned. Such situations are extraordinarily rare—we believe that only 10 cases a year may arise. In such a situation, a person could free himself of the 40 per cent reduction whenever he wished by becoming available for work. In other words, the second 40 per cent sanction is entirely in the hands of the person who is defrauding the benefits system. If he wishes, he can repair the situation immediately. Therefore. I do not accept the weight of the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
As my noble friend Lady Crawley said, for the sanction to be meaningful, it must be seen to be proportionate. The current provisions for hardship payments and benefit reductions have been in existence for many years and have also been introduced more recently for those who fail to comply with the ONE work-focused interviews, the CSA and so on. I have given an undertaking that the hardship payments which are available to those who are sanctioned but are without adequate other means will maintain parity with these levels of sanction.

1093
Currently, the sanction is a reduction of 40 per cent of the single person's allowance, or 20 per cent if a member of the household is either pregnant or seriously ill. I believe that assurance was sought with regard to the delegated power, and we shall ensure that that situation is made clear.
The provisions relating to the 40 and 20 per cent reductions on JSA have been tried and tested. We believe that they provide a sensible balance between protecting vulnerable people and their dependants while remaining meaningful and effective. A member of a family may defraud the system and it may be established twice by the courts that he has done so. If that person then expects to maintain his standard of living; at the expense of the children, I agree that it will be difficult to alter that situation from the outside.
Such incidents already occur in families which many of us may regard as, to use a technical term, dysfunctional. One member of a family may inappropriately apportion to himself an unfair degree of benefit. Such problems arise when one is dealing with a household-related benefit. I accept that. There is no way to overcome that unless the person who has committed the fraud is ejected from the household, and the household becomes a lone parent household. We think that reducing the sanction to just 10 per cent would be inadequate. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said he did not think that that would make much difference.
To put the matter in perspective, I should like to give some examples that have been worked out for me. The first is of a lone parent with two children, receiving housing benefit and council tax benefit worth £70 a week on top of income support. If she had the full sanction of 40 per cent, possibly because she was cohabiting, or there were undeclared earnings that we had not been aware of, her current income of £191.30 would fall to £170.42, a cut of about £21. For a couple with two children, a cut of approximately £21 would also apply. In the case of a seriously ill or pregnant lone parent with one child, with a total benefit income, unsanctioned, including housing benefit and council tax benefit of £186.95, a sanction of 20 per cent, given that she was seriously ill or pregnant, would bring her income down to £176.
The sanctions are meant to be a deterrent. They are not so harsh that they would put people into serious destitution. I believe that we have struck the right balance. We have gained experience from other areas of the DSS where these sanctions apply, and where it has been accepted that the balance is about right.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has certain worries, which I can understand, but perhaps he can suggest a sanction that would not bear on other members of the household but only the person committing the offence. That is a real dilemma. The scope of the sanction, which tends to be between £10 and £30 off benefits, is not so unreasonable that it would generate real hardship. But it would have the deterrent effect we
1094
seek. In the light of those remarks, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins: The people we are talking about here, the "two strikes and you are out" group, are neither light nor heavy; they are in between. They are clearly not trivial, but they are also not engaged in organised crime or anything of that kind.
I do not know that it is appropriate for the Opposition Benches to suggest alternative penalties, but has any consideration been given to the possibility of imposing community service, to be done in the evenings for example?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The magistrates' courts already have the power to impose community service or imprisonment.
This is an offence against the benefit, not once but twice. People will know when they first draw that benefit that the information they give will be checked, and that there will be penalties if they do not give the correct information. It would mean that somebody had not learnt their lesson from the first case before the magistrates' court and had gone on to repeat the offence. We are talking about quite small numbers of 350 to 500. I am quite willing to look at the question of community service. However, I feel that if people have twice deliberately defrauded the system established by the courts, then one should look at the benefit that is the subject of the fraud. I will, however, reflect on the situation. I suspect that quite a high proportion of offences will be committed by single people, and that therefore other members of the household NA, ill not bear part of the cost.
Lord Grabiner: I dealt with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in paragraph 7.37. I am not sure that this solution will be remotely acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. There is a division of view on this point on the opposite Benches.
In order for a court to impose a sentence of community service, it has to be satisfied that the case would otherwise appropriately be dealt with by a prison sentence. It is only in those circumstances, in a suitable case, having obtained the consent of the defendant, that a court can impose a sentence of community service. That is an alternative possibility in paragraph 7.37 to the primary proposal, which is the "two strikes and you are out" point.
As a matter of principle, under the current rules for JSA, even if the conditions for entitlement are met, limited payments can be withheld for a specified period if jobseekers unreasonably cause or prolong their unemployment. For example, if they refuse to take a job without good reason, they can be sanctioned. The sanction period under the existing arrangements, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, is between one and 26 weeks. As a matter of principle, the point we are discussing is something that is already well established under our social security law.

1095
There is a very important distinction between the jobseeker example and the case we are now discussing where there have been two previous convictions for benefit offences in the criminal court. I would be interested to hear the noble Lord's reaction to that point. I appreciate, without wishing to put the answer in his mouth, that he would say that those rules were also wrong in principle.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, for his intervention. I can see some grounds for distinction between JSA here and income support. In the case of income support, what you are getting is, by definition at this stage, what you are entitled to get, and that is reduced because of something you have done in the past.
The Minister suggested that a reduction in the household income from £191 a week to £170 a week is not a damaging reduction. I should like to say that for a family that is very much on the financial borderline, that kind of reduction, prolonged for even a period of 13 weeks, could still be devastating. I continue to believe that withdrawal of benefit in these circumstances, on the basis of "two strikes and you are out", is a deeply unsatisfactory form of punishment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not suggest for a moment that withdrawal of £20 for a lone parent, with a couple of children, would not generate hardship; of course, it would generate a degree of hardship. Equally, depending on the psychology one uses to approach this matter, a lone person would know, in advance of her first offence, that if she gives false information she can be prosecuted; yet she has been prosecuted and found guilty and continues. Might it be that because it would generate hardship, she might, on reflection, be deterred from committing a second benefit offence? We are seeking to prevent the offence occurring rather than punishing people after the offence because they have taken the matter so lightly.
Lord Goodhart: The people who become involved in that kind of situation are very often inadequate people who cannot break their own cycle of misbehaviour.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We are talking about deliberate, knowing fraud.
Lord Goodhart: I understand that. This concerns people who lie because they believe it is the easy way out and an easy way in which to acquire more money. However, they are unable to see the long-term consequences. Of course, the hardship falls not just on them, but also on their children, for the reasons that I explained. That is why we believe that this is a deeply unsatisfactory form of penalty. Of course, it is not my intention to divide the Committee now. I shall consult my noble friend, and I suspect that we shall return to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 11, line 27, at end insert—
("Likewise any third party either informed of the restriction or contacted as part of the investigatory process shall be notified of the quashing of the conviction.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment concerns a part of Clause 4 which is concerned with putting matters right if they have gone wrong. It suggests that if there has been a mistake, any,
"payments and other adjustments shall be made as … if no restriction had been imposed by or under this section that could not have been imposed if the conviction had not taken place".
We suggest that any third party who has been informed of the restriction or contacted as part of the investigatory process shall be notified that the conviction has been quashed. If something has gone wrong, we are anxious to ensure that the status quo shall be established. Clearly, in a number of cases there are problems, as was said earlier, not least in local government where the situation is not satisfactory. It seems to us that we should make provision to ensure that a situation of the kind that I have described is put right if it arises. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This amendment would require the department to inform any third party who had been contacted during the course of a fraud investigation that lead to a second conviction, or who had been notified of the imposition of a sanction, that the conviction had been subsequently quashed on appeal. The intention behind the clause is to ensure that any money deducted from a claimant's benefit, as a result of a fraud sanction, is repaid in the event of one of the convictions being squashed.
Lord Higgins: I think the noble Baroness means "quashed".
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes. That comes from singing the previous night. Whenever we in the parliamentary choir sing the "Excelsis" in Fauré's Requiem, our "s"s come in the wrong places. One can tell Members of your Lordships' House who sing in the choir by the fact that they have an obsession with where the letter "s" goes.
The intention behind the clause is to ensure that any money deducted from a claimant's benefit, as a result of fraud sanction, is repaid in the event of one of the convictions being quashed. That is only right and the same principle applies to other benefit sanctions.
It is not, and never has been, normal practice to inform third parties either of the result of an investigation in which they may have been involved, or to notify them if a sanction has been imposed. To do so may well be contrary to the principles of the 1998 Data Protection Act. That is not to say that such information will never be passed to third parties. There will, for example, be occasions when housing benefit has been sanctioned and the local authority needs to be notified that benefit should be repaid.

1097
Of course, we would tell a local authority in situations such as those, as we already do, so that is not needed on the face of the Bill. This amendment would not add anything to the Bill; it would impose additional burdens on the department and it may have serious implications under the Data Protection Act and Human Rights Act. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: I do not understand why. Why is it contrary to the Data Protection Act or the Human Rights Act to tell those who have heard about it that a conviction has been quashed? I have difficulty in understanding why that affects the Human Rights Act. I can see that it may affect that Act the other way around, but I do not understand why there is a problem in relation to this amendment. It merely proposes that the department should ensure that the matter is put right if people take an adverse view of an individual for the wrong reasons.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My understanding is that third parties may not know that a person has gone through the courts, that the matter has been officially upheld and that it has been quashed on appeal. All of that would be the divulging of information to third parties in terms of the circumstances, when they may not have known the original information. I am assured that that would involve a breach of the Data Protection Act as supervised by the Information Commissioner.
Lord Higgins: I am sorry to persist when the noble Baroness has been so helpful on other matters. Under the words of the amendment, the third parties have been informed of the restriction or have been contacted as part of the investigatory process in relation to the individual concerned so I do not believe that putting it right would be an infringement.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was reading the amendment of the noble Lord which states:
"Likewise any third party either informed of the restriction or contacted as part of the investigatory process".
The noble Lord is quite right about the first part of the amendment, but "contacted as part of the investigatory process" would mean that they would need to have been notified that the person had gone to court, that he had been convicted and that subsequently the conviction had been quashed, or they may have no such information. As I just said, that is my understanding of where we could run foul of the Data Protection Act.
Lord Higgins: I understand that the second part of the amendment may be faulty in that respect. If need be, we could deal with that on Report. But if a third party has been informed of a restriction—namely, that an individual has had her benefit restricted because she
1098
had been fraudulent twice—and to say to the person who was informed of the restriction that it was unjustified, seems to me to be reasonable.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps the noble Lord can help me. What body or person does he have in mind that would be informed on the first point, whereupon he would need further information in order for the first information not to stand, apart from local authorities? I have already made the position clear in relation to local authorities. They would be notified.
Lord Higgins: The main problem is with local authorities. If they are to be involved, that is fine. That is where I have concerns.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am puzzled. About half of my reply related to local authorities. I am happy to restate what I said. There will be occasions, for example, when housing benefit has been sanctioned and the local authority needs to be notified that benefits should be repaid. Of course, in situations such as those, we shall tell a local authority. That is nothing new as we do that already as a matter of course if benefit has been suspended or withdrawn for any other reason. So that does not need to be put on the face of the Bill. It is custom and practice. I believed I had made that clear in my earlier remarks.
Lord Higgins: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 71 to 73 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 12, line 22, leave out from second ("references") to ("to") in line 24.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 74 seeks to rule out a case where a conditional discharge has been imposed as regards one of the two benefit offences for the purposes of Clause 6. It may be that it is not drafted entirely correctly because I suppose that it would extend to a case where a condition had not been satisfied because a second offence had been committed within the conditional period.
A conditional discharge is imposed for a relatively trivial offence or an offence in respect of which the court thinks it is not necessary or desirable to impose a sentence having an immediate effect, but the defendant is given a discharge contingent on not committing a further offence within a specified period. If that specified period elapses, the conditional discharge ceases as a form of punishment and the slate is wiped clean. It seems to me inappropriate that that should be one of the strikes for the purposes of the "two strikes and you are out" legislation.
Lord Astor of Hever: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 75, which makes it clear that if a person in Scotland receives an absolute discharge from the court or is placed on probation, he is not regarded as having

1099
been convicted. This amendment seeks to ensure, therefore, that for the purposes of this Bill a person placed on probation or granted an absolute discharge will not be treated as havingbeen convicted of a benefits offence. In Scotland, an absolute discharge or probation order does not in law amount to a previous conviction. It is necessary to make that distinction. If a court deems it appropriate to dispose of the case in that manner, it would not seem appropriate further to penalise the accused person by the deduction or removal of benefit.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall be extremely brief on both amendments, which relate to the question of what constitutes a conviction for the purposes of the loss of benefit provisions. In many respects, the type of sentence imposed by the court is not relevant to these provisions. What matters is whether or not the court has found a person guilty of benefit fraud, not what follows on from that. However, both amendments raise technical issues with regard to the question of sentencing which I should like further to consider and return to on Report. On the basis of that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Goodhart: In the light of the Minister's reply, which I welcome, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: Most of what I had intended to say has already been said in relation to Amendments Nos. 68 and 69. However, there is a difference. By removing Clause 6 altogether from the Bill, one would achieve the objective of preventing the removal of benefits from being used in any circumstances as a punishment. Clause 6 therefore goes somewhat further than Amendments Nos. 68 and 69, which would reduce the level of punishment from 40 to 10 per cent.
I make it clear that the real objective of those on these Benches is to remove altogether the reduction in benefit as a penalty for previous convictions for benefit fraud. At Second Reading my noble friend Lord Russell said:
"But in my scale of consequences, disentitlement is arguably a more severe punishment than imprisonment. I can see a strong case for imprisonment. But leaving people with no visible means of subsistence is something which the Minister knows, and has known for a long time, gives me profound misgivings".—[Official Report, 16/1/01; col. 1055]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thought at the time that it was very odd to suggest that prison is worse than receiving a 20 or 40 per cent reduction of benefit in terms of sums of £20 to £30 on an income of £200. It is incongruous to suggest that deducting up to £30 from £200 is worse than sending someone to prison,
1100
especially in cases in which children are involved. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, really believes that. I invite him to say whether he identifies with his noble friend's statement.
Lord Goodhart: A reduction in benefit could in some circumstances be a worse penalty for other members of the family. I can understand that generally for a fraudster it would not be. For other members of the family, depending on the family circumstances, it could be. Therefore, I am not prepared to disassociate myself from my noble friend on that particular issue.
Our view is that Clause 6 should not stand part of the Bill. We do not raise this objection as merely a peg on which to hang a debate. We genuinely believe that Clause 6 should not stand part. I shall not force the question to a Division today, but we may return on Report with an amendment to omit Clause 6.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I understand that the noble Lord's argument is based on family budget unit material and the like, and I accept that that is a powerful argument. I am anxious not to concentrate too much on the distinction between hard and soft and the weight to be attached to that distinction. However, to assist the Committee's understanding of our proposal, I should like to read into the record one or two examples of benefit fraud.
One claimant in receipt of incapacity benefit was found to be working as a disc jockey. He had fraudulently claimed a total of almost £9,000 before being caught and successfully prosecuted. Within weeks of being sentenced, he was found to be working while again in receipt of benefit. He was again successfully prosecuted, but not before he had run up a further overpayment of £500.
Another claimant was prosecuted when he was found to be working while claiming income support. He was convicted and received a conditional discharge for one year. Fifteen months later, he was again successfully prosecuted for stealing a relative's child benefit giro cheques. That still did not stop him. Within two years he again appeared in court for attempting to obtain the jobseeker's allowance, to which he was not entitled.
Another claimant was prosecuted and convicted for two offences of girocheque fraud. Some months later, he was prosecuted a second time for similar offences. That was not the end of the matter. He was later successfully prosecuted a third time for working while in receipt of incapacity benefit. On that occasion he had amassed an overpayment of almost £1,000.
There are many more examples of others who have not slipped into the system by error. The examples that I have given involved the commission of deliberate, repeated fraud. The public cannot have faith in a social security system that provides money to people who deliberately, wilfully and persistently defraud that system. I believe that that would bring the system into disrepute. The benefit sanctions proposed are appropriate to the level of fraud that we are discussing. As a result, I hope that the noble Lord will allow this clause to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Powers to supplement and mitigate loss of benefit provisions]:
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 15, line 13, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: My moment has come! In moving this amendment, I speak also to the amendments grouped with it in my name.
The Committee will be aware of the Report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. The committee has been painstaking in its scrutiny of the Bill, for which I am grateful. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will convey my thanks and appreciation to the committee, of which he is such a striking and senior member.
The committee in its report made a number of recommendations, one of which concerns the enabling power at Clause 9(1)(a). Paragraph (a) provides a power to add by regulations to the list of benefits which are sanctionable under the loss of benefit provisions at Clauses 6 to 12. The committee was of the opinion that that type of change was sufficiently important to warrant primary legislation. I can reassure Members of the Committee that the Government have no intention of making sanctionable any of the benefits currently exempt from the sanction by virtue of Clause 6(8). Paragraph (a) of Clause 9(1) was included in the Bill to provide future proofing against any change to the structure of the benefits system; for example, the creation of a new benefit.
We take seriously the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and after consideration we agree with its recommendation. Therefore, Amendment No. 77 removes paragraph (a) from the Bill. As a consequence, any future addition to the list of sanctionable benefits will require primary legislation. Amendment No. 78 makes a consequential amendment to subsection (4) of Clause 9 because the removal of subsection (1)(a) makes it redundant. Clause 10(3)(a)(i) is also made redundant, and is deleted by Amendment No. 80.
I hope that the Committee will welcome the amendments, which follow the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the amendments. The Government have listened to the advice given in the fifth report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, in particular the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We welcome the amendments.
Lord Goodhart: I, too, welcome the amendments, as do my colleagues on these Benches—absent though most of them are! The Government have listened to
1102
what has been said. Future proofing is unnecessary because any new benefit will be introduced by primary legislation. That will be the opportunity to acid it to the list of benefits which are not sanctionable. I am grateful to the Minister for tabling these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 15, line 29, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Loss of benefit regulations]:
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 15, leave out lines 42 and 43.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 81:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
ANNUAL REPORT BY SECRETARY OF STATE
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State must make an annual report to Parliament on the effects of reduction or withdrawal of benefit under the process contained in section 6.
(2) Such report shall include information on—

(a) the means of subsistence available to those so sanctioned;

(b) the incidence of homelessness among those so sanctioned;

(c) the incidence of imprisonment among those so sanctioned; and

(d) the death rate among those so sanctioned.").

The noble Lord said: For a long time and in a number of different situations, my noble friend Lord Russell has pressed for more information about the effects of benefit withdrawal. As yet, he and I have had no such information and are not satisfied that proper and adequate research has been done on the effects of benefit withdrawal in terms of increased crime, homelessness, health and death. We believe that if research were done—admittedly, the sample is small—the withdrawal of benefit would show significant adverse results.
In those circumstances, we believe that if benefit withdrawal is included as a penalty under the Bill, the fullest information should be provided about the consequences on those who suffer it. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was a little surprised to see the amendment tabled in this way, given that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised it fairly in the closing part of his Second Reading speech. Although I did not have time to address the matter as fully as I would wish, I wrote to the noble Earl on 25th January giving the Government's view. I had hoped that that would meet his concern. I do not know whether there is anything in the letter with which the noble Lord. Lord Goodhart, is uncomfortable or wants to challenge.

1103
I have assured the noble Earl that we intend to monitor the effects of the sanction, as we would monitor any new social security policy, particularly one designed to combat fraud. I have specifically given an undertaking that as well as looking at the sanction's effectiveness as a deterrent, we shall also monitor the economic impact it has on individuals' lives, including the adequacy and accessibility of hardship payments. I have also given the noble Earl my undertaking that monitoring will take particular account of specific groups of claimants, including those recently discharged from prison.
We constantly monitor the effect of sanctions. We have done so for labour market sanctions and we have agreed to do so for the community sentence sanction introduced in the previous social security Bill. However, we need to bear in mind that the number of people who may be affected is considerably smaller under in this Bill than for either of those sanction regimes. We do not envisage the fraud sanctions being applied to more than 500 people in any year. Those without other means of support will be able to access hardship payments after two weeks at the longest.
Obviously, the effects of sanctions were meant to be experienced, but, equally, while they might generate a degree of hardship, a 20 per cent cut in a person's income does not cause "destitution". I would not accept words such as that. The people about whom the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, are concerned will experience a two-week delay before a hardship payment is made. I find it difficult to understand how we can conduct meaningful research into the relationship between two weeks without benefit and such significant life events as homelessness, imprisonment or death.
I wondered yesterday how, if I were asked to carry out such a research project, I would go about it. I find it almost impossible to conceive. It would depend almost entirely on the alternative resources people might have; the family support available to them; their usual diet; their standards of health; their expenditure patterns; how much they drank; how much they smoked; whether they were on drugs; what they spent on travel; and how much any or all of that was genuinely discretionary and could therefore be used to offset their penalty. It would also depend on the quality of their existing housing, given that housing benefit was not normally removed.
One would have to know the answers to all those questions and weigh them in a sample of, at most, 300 to 500 people going without benefit for two weeks. The group going without such benefit might be even smaller. In terms of effects on health, it is hard to know how to relate imprisonment and death to two weeks without benefit without knowing a claimant's state of health beforehand; what other means of support he had; what his eating and drinking patterns were; and so forth. One could not do it. Research based on a fortnight's withdrawal of benefit would not be plausible and meaningful.
1104
Importantly, we shall monitor the effects of the sanction in order to see whether it deters people. We hope that it will. I ask noble Lords to temper their expectations of what can be delivered given the small size of the group. It will be hard to identify statistically valid information about trends. As the measure is designed to act as a deterrent more than anything else, the indication of success, as my noble friend said earlier, will be a fall in the number of people to whom it may be applied. That would be a more meaningful statistic.
I could argue at length about the nature of social policy research but, as envisaged, I do not see how research on the effect of withdrawal for a period of two weeks of hardship payments, with some degree of a cut in benefit, can produce detailed information which would be meaningful and academically respectable. One cannot connect two weeks' loss of benefit with factors such as imprisonment and death. It is just not possible. I realise that normally I would be arguing this matter with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is happy to cover the field of social research. If the DSS were kind enough to offer me such a task I would suggest that it reviewed its thinking on the matter.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I do not entirely agree with the Minister about the difficulties of statistical analysis in this matter. I accept that one has to look into the circumstances of the people concerned to find out why they have died, been imprisoned or whatever. It is not very difficult simply to look at the figures. One may find that people entitled to hardship payments are not claiming them for some reason. If one found that the number of people on whom benefit withdrawal has been imposed was at a statistically higher rate than through death or imprisonment or loss of home, one would certainly want to look in more detail at the causation. If one finds that there is no significant difference, then one does not take the further steps. If there is a significant difference, one then looks at a cross-section of individual cases to see why there is a much higher rate. That seems to me to be both legitimate and possible.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was going to press the noble Lord on this issue. It may be that 350 cases a year suffer that benefit penalty. Let us suppose that, compared with another control group, the difference was one death. How would the noble Lord be able to attribute that? It would not be statistically significant. There would be the healthy population consideration, age for age; educational standards or the lack of them. How would one do it? If one were dealing with the minimum statistical sample of 303, one would have to have figures of the order of 20 plus for it to begin to be statistically significant to the degree that the noble Lord suggests. The information could not be arrived at in this way. That is not to say that the department would not be tracking and monitoring what happens,

1105
which is different. But with the sample size given, a research-based project would not permit robust findings.
Lord Goodhart: I do not believe that 300 plus is statistically a very small sample. A great deal of such work is done on much smaller samples. I accept that if the difference is one death, that is not significant and no further research would be carried out. But if one finds there are, say, 20 deaths, that would be an astonishingly high figure. Even if the figure were 10, I believe that one should investigate what is happening in more detail.
There is no point in carrying on the argument further at this time of the evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Interpretation of sections 6 to 11]:
[Amendment No.82 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Colluding employers]:
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 85 not moved.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No.86:
Page 18, line 20, after ("conduct") insert—
("(ca) stating that he may within 30 days of the date of the written notice make representations to the Secretary of State or authority as to why he believes that the provisions of subsection (1) or (2) are not met;").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 87. Amendment No. 86 also stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I tried to explain at Second Reading that my underlying concern was to ensure that the scales are not tipped too far against employers, recognising that the provisions of Clause 14 will bear most heavily on the small business sector.
I am emphatically not against the main thrust of the clause, which offers penalties as a cost-effective solution to warning off real offenders. I am certainly not against dealing properly with any offenders. As I said when we were discussing Amendments Nos. 53 and 64, the concern is that what appears to be clear-cut to an official may not appear so to others. We can point to examples in other parts of government administration where that is the case. I cited the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise.
The concern is that without some kind of oversight of procedures small employers may be made the offer of a penalty, which amounts to little more than "Pay-up or else". The "or else" is that if one does not pay one goes to court, which is expensive and time-consuming. As regards small businesses, it takes the eye off the ball in running such businesses.
Amendment No. 86 seeks to add another requirement to the notice procedure set out in Clause 14 to give the allegedly colluding employer, in addition to the details of the alleged conduct and penalty offer,
1106
30 days in which to make his case as to why he is "not guilty". This extra procedure would allow the smaller employer the opportunity to make his case.
Amendment No. 87 provides that the Secretary of State shall consider those amendments and either withdraw the provision or re-issue it. It is no more onerous than that. There is 30 days for the alleged colluding employer to state his case, but the other 30-day period does not run from that. The provision includes a safety valve against the possibility of genuine mistake or excessive zeal by officials. I put this amendment forward as one possible solution to the problem which I outlined previously in the hope that the Minister will provide some thoughts on how there can be some additional protection in particular as regards the code of practice about which she spoke earlier and Clauses 1 and 2 and not as regards Clause 14. There are no other sources to which we can turn to see what protection might be offered to those affected by what is proposed in Clause 14. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: It is right that someone who receives a notice of this kind should have the opportunity to reply to it and explain why it does not apply and should not be expected to pay a penalty in lieu of prosecution. I await with interest what the Minister has to say about the intended safeguard to ensure that someone who receives such a notice is entitled to challenge it.
Lord Higgins: I support my noble friend Lady Noakes. A safeguard of this kind seems appropriate. We are in a rather strange situation where people may pay up rather than go to court, even though they have a reasonable basis on which to believe that they have not been justifiably accused but find it an easier way out of a situation and less time-consuming.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope that my answer addresses those concerns; if not, the Committee will wish to return to the issue. The purpose of Clause 14 is to streamline the sometimes cumbersome, and always expensive, process of prosecuting collusive employers. It would allow the department and local authorities to target limited prosecution resources at the most serious cases and deal with the less serious by administering a swift civil penalty, which has been welcomed by the relevant business organisations.
However, it is implicit in the provision that before making a penalty offer the department or local authority must first decide that there is a case to be answered in the courts. They could not form such a view without first properly investigating the case and interviewing the person under caution. These procedures comply with the PACE regulations which are in place to protect alleged offenders by ensuring that investigations are conducted appropriately and that the case is based on admissible evidence. Any mitigating factors which would make it inappropriate to consider a penalty would already have been taken into account; for example, where the employer suffered ill health and the threat of a penalty might worsen that condition.

1107
No matter how well intentioned, these amendments would have the effect of adding an extra layer of bureaucracy to the scheme and could conceivably prevent cases going to court. The amendment gives the employer the right to a 30-day period during which he could ask to have the validity of evidence rechecked. If that was exercised and evidence was still deemed suitable the department would have to go through the process of offering him a penalty for the second time. The employer would get a second written notice stating that he might be offered a penalty. If he agreed to the penalty, he would have a 28-day cooling-off period (which is already built into the system), at the end of which he could still refuse the penalty and opt to go to court.
That process would give a collusive employer a very extended right to delay proceedings and prevent the case going to court at all. At worst, taking account of the time taken to recheck evidence and administer an administrative penalty for the second time, including associated notifications and interviews, there might be a delay of about three months before a case could be brought to court. Such a delay might activate a time bar, which could put a case beyond the period for which a summary prosecution could be brought.
The Social Security Administration Act 1992 provides that proceedings for an offence under that legislation must start within three months of the completion of evidence gathering, or within 12 months of the commission of the offence, whichever period last expired. In those circumstances, the employer could be prosecuted for only a more serious offence which allowed a longer period before a prosecution had to be brought. Such prosecutions would potentially carry a higher penalty.
Cases of collusion in benefit fraud are complex and, consequently, very labour intensive. Collusive employers often use the power that derives from their position in an organisation to distance themselves from the fraud. This kind of offence is, therefore, difficult to prove and takes up a large amount of staff time. The amendment could unnecessarily add to the amount of time already spent on an individual case, as there is a high risk that some employers would use it simply as a delaying tactic and come out of time altogether.
The substantive point on which I seek to give reassurance, particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is that we already have sufficient arrangements in place to safeguard employers. The existing penalty in respect of claimants provides a precedent and many details about how safeguards would work in practice are already established. There is a 28-day cooling-off period. An employer who feels that he has been "bullied" into accepting a penalty, or that it is based on insubstantial evidence, but none the less believes that it is the easier option, would be able to use the 28-day period to put his grievance to the fraud investigator's manager as senior DSS officer to reconsider the case. If, for example, an employer felt that he had made a statement under duress, or that evidence had been fabricated, it would be open to him
1108
to make a formal complaint against the official or officials concerned. There is a robust and well established mechanism to handle any such complaint. In that case, any further action would be held in abeyance until the complaint had been fully considered.
Moreover, the department and local authorities are bound by Crown Prosecution Service guidance. This already places a constant duty to review evidence and ensure that it is in the public interest to prosecute. Even if the employer did not put grievances to the department until the 28th day of the cooling-off period, existing procedures would ensure that the case was checked before a penalty was administered or the case was brought to court. It is worth remembering that the employers concerned would know whether they had acted fraudulently and they should accept a penalty; they would have that choice.
We intend that decisions on whether it is appropriate to offer a penalty should be taken not by the fraud investigator but by someone higher in the chain of command—the noble Baroness expressed concern about that on the previous occasion—following detailed and explicit guidance. The guidance would make clear that the penalty should be offered only as an alternative to instigating criminal proceedings. During the implementation period the chief investigating officer and the department's lawyers will institute a system to check a random sample of cases in which a penalty is to be offered. I hope that that mechanism provides an assurance that administrative penalties are offered in appropriate circumstances according to policy guidance. In light of that fairly full explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness is able to withdraw the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: Perhaps I may ask one question about the procedure explained by the Minister. I believe that the noble Baroness said that during the 28-day cooling-off period the person to whom the penalty had been offered could approach a grievance manager. Would that procedure be drawn to the individual's attention at the time the notice was issued? Would the person concerned be aware of it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: He or she would. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise the issue.
Baroness Noakes: In the light of that response, I should like to reflect further on the matter. However, the response addresses many of my concerns in tabling the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 18, line 40, after ("subsection,") insert ("not less than").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 88, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 89, 90, 91 and 92, and to the Question that Clause 14 stand

1109
part. Much of the Bill that we have debated so far results from the excellent report by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, to whom the Committee is grateful. But the Committee will be aware that another report was prepared by Mr John Scampion, a commissioner of social security, and placed in the Library of the House of Commons on 24th January 2000. That report was the result of a government-ordered independent inquiry. The recommendations of that report appear to be reflected to a very small extent, except perhaps in relation to Clause 14, in the present Bill. Therefore, the purpose of these amendments is to reflect the concern expressed in the Scampion report that any penalty should include a means of recovering the amount defrauded and should act as a deterrent. Unlike a moment or two ago, in this context we are not speaking of someone who commits fraud and, if his benefits are removed even by 10 per cent, finds that the penalty is severe. Clearly, the people who are engaged in this kind of fraud are well able to bear the penalty. Therefore, in relation to this clause it seems appropriate that, as in other areas of law, criminals should provide redress as far as concerns their ill-gotten gains. Amendment No. 88 and the other amendments in the group relate largely to that point.
There is a broader point in relation to Clause 14 which has not been touched on other than perhaps at Second Reading. While various aspects of the Bill have much to commend them—although we have concerns about the side-effects which have been debated at length in Committee—on this particular issue we doubt whether the Government have put sufficient resources into combating fraud. I believe I pointed out at Second Reading that the rate of return from further investment would appear to yield far more than the cost of devoting more resources to it. The Bill may turn out to be necessary, but even if such legislation was not being introduced, we should be investing far more in the detection of fraud. All the analyses suggest that that would reduce, not increase, the net burden on taxpayers.
At earlier stages we spoke about organised crime and so on. In a sense the clause relates to that, although there may be other areas where further investment may produce a good rate of return and reduce the level of crime. However, not only are the level of resources not adequate but the matter is not being pursued with sufficient enthusiasm, if I may put it that way. The Audit Commission's report on protecting the public purse shows that one local authority in eight does not have a whistle-blowing strategy and one in six does not have an anti-fraud strategy in place. That is an extraordinary situation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Has the noble Lord seen the figures which the Audit Commission quotes from the previous year which show by how much local authorities have improved their performance?
Lord Higgins: I am all for them improving performance, but it is still—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord cannot say that we are not doing anything when as a result of
1110
our initiatives the Audit Commission is able to show substantial and valuable progress being made by local authorities since we have come to power.
Lord Higgins: I am not saying that. I am saying that even at this level, although progress may have been made, the reality is that faster progress could be made, and with an increase in revenue compared with the costs. The gap is substantial. There is no reason why more rapid progress should not be made. I pay tribute to the point made by the noble Baroness, but the figures produced by the Audit Commission for the overall situation are still fairly bad. Therefore, we hope that more can be done in relation to the recommendations of the Scampion report.
In that context, can the Minister tell us exactly where we stand on some of the recommendations in the report? For example, there was a proposal for a single benefits investigation agency in place of BASIS and BFIS. I am not clear whether or not that has happened. Perhaps she could tell us whether it has. Also, is the benefits intelligence directorate now in operation? There was some coverage of the matter in the press a few days ago. The position is not entirely clear.
In the context of Clause 14 overall, it would be helpful to have a statement by the Minister which is a little more forthcoming than that which my honourable friend Mr Pickles, in another place, received from Angela Eagle, the Minister who replied on the issue of benefit fraud. Against the overall background of the Bill, it would be helpful if we can establish whether as much as can be done is being done to cover the broader aspects of what we have described earlier as "the heavy end of the market". I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has spoken on specific points as well as to the amendments. Perhaps I may try to deal with them and then come back to some of the broader issues he raised.
Working while claiming is the most significant area of benefit fraud, costing the taxpayer around £500 million every year in income support, JSA and housing benefit alone. Often fraud exists. We are talking about collusive employers and not other forms of fraud on local authorities, such as in relation to housing benefit and so on. That is a different area of the Bill. I shall not be tempted by the noble Lord to discuss local authorities because we have already done so. We are now dealing with collusive employers.
However, prosecuting such employers is usually lengthy and always expensive. It is not always the most effective way to tackle the problem. That is why we are going for a swift civil penalty for small-time offenders to streamline the process.
Current legislation provides a number of offences under which a collusive employer can be prosecuted. But the process is often time-consuming and costly. Even the most straightforward case can be heard in court twice, and sometimes a third time. That ties up resources. So we seek financial penalties in cases which

1111
would otherwise have merited going to court, and where, obviously, they have been accepted by the employer as an appropriate alternative.
It may be helpful by way of example to describe the type of case for which a penalty might be offered. In a recent case, the owner of a sandwich bar deliberately furnished Benefits Agency inspectors with false information relating to the working hours and wages of an employee to support a fraudulent claim for benefit. The fraudulent overpayment in respect of the employee amounted to about £450. On being presented with evidence of his collusion, the employer admitted guilt. The case went to court. He was convicted and ordered to pay a fine of £1,000 and legal costs of £650. In such a case the penalty would save time and resources that may otherwise be engaged in lengthy court proceedings. In addition, it is in everyone's best interests.
There are cases for which a penalty would not be appropriate and where prosecution would be the first option. For example, in a different case, the owner of a plant hire company deliberately obstructed Benefits Agency fraud inspectors during an investigation and produced a false list of employees to conceal the fact that he was employing benefit claimants. He even allowed employees time off to go and sign on to claim benefit for being unemployed. Investigators working jointly with Customs and Excise also found evidence of dishonest evasion of VAT to the tune of £130,000. Although he had declared zero-rated work for VAT purposes, the employer's turnover was far greater. In addition, he was charging customers VAT which he did not pass on to Customs and Excise.
Penalties would not replace prosecution for that kind of serious case of collusion; rather they would extend the range of punitive measures for small-time offenders. We seem to be back to small or large and soft or hard. An administrative penalty of between £1,000 and £5,000 offered to a collusive employer as an alternative to prosecution— with the 28-day cooling-off period previously discussed—sends a strong message that operating in the informal economy to the detriment of fair employers carries a high price. Those who decline the offer of a penalty would go to court.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 88, 89, 90, 91 and 92. The amendments have the effect of undermining the purposes of the clause. They add complexity to the scheme and could, conceivably, discourage employers from accepting the penalty and, instead, persuade them to take their chances in court.
The amendments seek to penalise the employer with an extra charge, on top of the penalty, based on the amount of the employee's fraudulent overpayment. Therefore, where the employer's act of collusion results in an overpayment of benefit, he would be offered a bigger penalty. That adds complexity to the scheme which I do not believe is particularly fair.
The majority of small-time offenders, at which the penalty is aimed, are currently prosecuted for giving false information. The employer's offence is normally to tell a lie at a specific point in time in relation to his
1112
employees. However, it is very difficult to tie the individual employee's overpayment to the employer, principally because the employer is unlikely to know what benefit he or she receives. For example, an employer may lie to fraud investigators in respect of one of his or her employee's hours of work or amount of wages. That would constitute an offence. But it does not mean that the employer is responsible for the length of time that the employee's fraud might have gone on, the benefits claimed, or the rate at which they were paid. That is why I believe that it would be unfair.
In the majority of cases it is unlikely that sufficient proof could be obtained to apply the charge under the amendments. It would make calculating the amount of the penalty more complicated for investigators to administer and for employers to understand. If the additional charge is applied, it is unlikely that an employer would even agree to pay it in preference to going to court, which could show that he was not aware of whatever was going on.
The clause already reflects a maximum penalty that a court might impose if an employer is prosecuted and convicted. An additional charge, such as that suggested in the amendments, is likely to take the total penalty beyond that of a court sentence. It would, therefore, remove any incentive for an employer to agree to the penalty. It would actually undermine the purpose of the clause which is to punish small-time offenders without unnecessary prosecutions. As I say, that could well be unfair because he would be penalised for parts of the offence that were not committed by him but by the employee. Therefore, this would not be fair to the employer.
The size of the penalty already strikes the right balance. It acts as a sufficient punishment and deterrent against future fraud, but is a realistic alternative to prosecution. Employers would be given a clear choice: they can accept a penalty of between £1,000 and £5,000 or their case will be submitted to the prosecuting authorities for consideration. As an alternative is always available and the people concerned can decide whether to accept the offer of a penalty, the amount is not a sentence but a consistent benchmark against which the employer can make his own judgment. It also has the advantage of simplicity. They would be able to make that decision without fear that there may or may not be subjective judgments about how long it might have lasted and so on.
It is very often suggested—although not particularly today—that this is about an undue burden on business. The only people burdened are those who are committing fraud, whose case would warrant prosecution but, because they have admitted guilt, they prefer to accept a penalty to the advantage of all parties concerned in that it releases resources to go after even more complicated cases which are certainly above the £5,000 figure. We think that employers who facilitate fraud should be punished, but the court system is not the answer in every case. That is why we have brought forward the clause.
I have responded in detail to the amendments and to the clause. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, ranged widely in his Clause 14 stand part speech. He produced

1113
much material that was not even relevant to Clause 14 but was more appropriate to Second Reading. The noble Lord is not sure which path to take—whether he seeks to reduce the impact of the Bill or whether he thinks we are not attacking fraud sufficiently seriously and he wishes to strengthen this Bill. If that is the case, I look forward to seeing amendments from him in due course asking us to increase the penalties. Behind this lies the charge that we are not doing sufficient about fraud, that we could do more and do it faster.
I take issue with that. Figures released at the end of last month for benefit paid between April 1999 and April 2000 show that losses from fraud and error had dropped by 6.5 per cent. It is now the case that 404 out of 409 local authorities have online access to essential benefit information held on DSS systems. That will save £24 million. Three hundred and eighty-eight local authorities are now receiving housing benefit claims electronically via the department; 246 local authorities are signing up to perform tougher identity checks on housing benefit claimants; 359 local authorities have signed up to the scheme with the Royal Mail to stop housing benefit claimants acting fraudulently by having their mail re-directed from false addresses. This year specialist identity checks will be launched nationally, as piloted in the Balham area since June 1997, where there have been over 200 arrests. Cross-checking DSS records and other state records has already saved over £150 million, and we will be able to extend this role. Over and beyond that, we have made clear that we have targets to reduce income support and JSA fraud by 25 per cent and over the next five to 10 years I believe—and I would need to check—by 50 per cent in all.
I do not take seriously the charge made by supporters of the previous government, who for 18 years did very little about fraud. It has been left to an in-coming Labour Government to tackle something that corrupts the system. I think that it will be confirmed by the Audit Commission that local authorities in particular, but government in general, have made very substantial progress—more in three years than in the preceding 10 years—in trying to eradicate fraud. Therefore I do not take the noble Lord's complaints on this front seriously.
The noble Lord asked about the Scampion report and why no single investigation agency is being established as recommended. We have set up a new fraud intelligence unit as recommended by the Scampion report. It is headed by a former deputy head of MI5, a point which amused your Lordships previously. We have set up a new chief investigator's office, as was recommended. Scampion has welcomed what we have done and regards our progress as very acceptable indeed. I hope that I have addressed the points raised by the noble Lord. Indeed, I have tried to answer some of the points that have nothing to do with Clause 14. I have done so in the spirit of dissemination of, I hope, useful and accurate information.
7 p.m.
Lord Higgins: Some of what the noble Baroness said was helpful. I am still concerned about her reaction to
1114
Amendment No. 88 and related amendments. It seems clear that the Government are so enthusiastic about the proposals for a quick penalty settlement rather than going to court that in a number of cases the fact that a penalty is imposed will not cover the loss to the Exchequer of the fraud which has taken place. The Scampion report makes it clear that any penalty should include a means of recovering the amount of funds that have been defrauded. The noble Baroness seems to be setting her face against that proposal on the grounds that, if we did that, people would not settle for a penalty and they would have to go to court.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That was one point. The second point, which was more substantial, is that I thought it was unfair. The point is that the employer will have committed one offence—lying about the hours and wages of an employee. It is not necessarily the case—although it can be—that the employer is then responsible for the amount of benefit subsequently defrauded. That is the responsibility of the employee. To connect the two would be to punish the employer for an offence over which he does not have personal and direct control.
Lord Higgins: If he had not committed the offence of colluding in the fraud, the fraud would not have succeeded. The Exchequer would not have lost the money. The penalty imposed on an employer would be the amount of money the Exchequer had lost as a result of his collusion. He is a party to the fraud. If he were not a party to the fraud it would not take place.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: He was a party al: the opening stage of the fraud; he is not a party necessarily at all subsequent stages. I am very surprised by the noble Lord. Lord Higgins. Far be it from me to take the line of the Conservative Party about burdens on business, but to hold the employer subsequently responsible for everything that happened after he had told an initial lie—which could involve huge sums of money, and he may have had no knowledge that it was being done in that way—would seem to be not appropriate justice.
Lord Higgins: I understand the noble Baroness's argument. Nonetheless, the reality is that if he had not told this little lie, in the words of the noble Baroness, the fraud would not have taken place. Taxpayers are bearing the consequence of him having told that lie, which does not seem in that context so little. I shall think about what the noble Baroness has said. It does not seem to me that the penalty that will be imposed is other than one which would result from the action which the offender has taken. I shall consider carefully the point that the noble Baroness has made.
On the broader point raised by the noble Baroness, there is concern about the extent to which local authorities seem not to be pursuing the matter with appropriate enthusiasm. We have not opposed the Bill. We continue to take the view that if we can deal with the problems of the side effects it will be a worthwhile Bill and one which will reduce the burden

1115
on the taxpayer. I shall consider what the Minister has said. I may wish to return to the matter at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 89 to 93 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Offence of failing to notify a change of circumstances]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Nicol): In calling Amendment No. 94, I have to point out that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 95, 96, 97 or 98.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 20, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 94 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 95, 96, 97 and 98. As Clause 15 is currently drafted, there is a danger that it has been drawn too widely. It may bring within the strict terms of the offence people who work for housing associations who have no criminal intent and, through no fault of their own, may find themselves doing something illegal. I think of housing professionals, such as housing officers working for housing associations among others. What will be the position of these workers who have entered into a relationship of professional confidence with their client, probably about an unrelated matter, and it then becomes apparent during the course of a confidential interview that a change in their benefit status has occurred? Will they be compelled to report the change—at the risk of criminal sanction—or break their client confidence?
Many charities and supported housing projects rely on direct payments of housing benefit for their financial viability. They also rely on their reputation for complete client confidence. We seek to protect those people. They are also precisely the same categories where the landlord relies on direct payments because of the transient nature of the clients. Giving up direct payments is not an option.
The consequences that would flow from the conviction of such people could be catastrophic for both themselves and their employer. Officers would find it difficult to find work in the sector and there are several dire consequences for landlords as well. First, as a corporate body, they would also be liable for the same offence. Secondly, those in control, such as the manager or the trustees of the housing association, would also be liable. Thirdly, the landlord's right to receive any direct payment could be placed in jeopardy. That could cause administrative chaos, disruption to tenants and a cash-flow crisis for the landlord, especially if it is a large housing association, as the only option would be to pay each tenant individually.
The current offence of failing to report a change of circumstances has a safeguard against what I have described but it is swept away by the clause. Under the current offence, a person with "reasonable excuse"—
1116
broadly speaking, a person with no criminal intent—would not be at risk of prosecution; hence the inclusion of the words "without reasonable excuse" in the amendment. The proposed subsection does not undermine the intention of the Bill but it avoids a situation whereby those without criminal intent find themselves within the strict terms of the offence.
I look forward to the Minister's clarification on these points. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am slightly concerned. I have an extremely long speech which addresses each of the amendments but at no stage does it refer to housing associations or charitable bodies, which were the substance of the noble Lord's concerns. If the noble Lord will allow me, I shall give a brief reply. If my answer does not meet his concerns, I shall cover the issue in correspondence and come back to it at Report stage. I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee by going through cases about widows and so on which have not been raised by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord asked whether professionals could be guilty if they did not pass on information—in other words, would there be third party liability. The answer is no. The liability occurs when the third party knows that the change affects benefits and causes or allows the beneficiary not to report it. Third parties are not responsible if they do nothing and the claimant fails to report the change.
I think that I have addressed the major issue raised by the noble Lord. I can quite understand where he is coming from and the worries that organisations might have on this issue. If he needs any further clarification, I shall be happy to follow it through with correspondence; and, if necessary, he can return to the matter on Report.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. We have received most of our briefing from the Chartered Institute of Housing. I should like to discuss the noble Baroness's response with the institute and possibly come back to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 95 to 98 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 99:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
("Miscellaneous
ANNUAL REPORT BY SECRETARY OF STATE
— (1) The Secretary of State shall

(a) undertake an annual assessment of the level of benefits fraud and related issues; and

lay a report of his findings before each House of Parliament.

(2) The first report shall be submitted no more than 18 months after the commencement of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be helpful to consider also Amendment No. 101. Amendment No. 99 suggests that the Secretary of State shall undertake an annual assessment of the level of benefit fraud and related issues and lay a report of his findings before each House of Parliament, starting not latter than 18 months after the commencement of the Act. We are all concerned about the level of benefit fraud and the extent to which improvements are being made in dealing with it. Therefore, it seems appropriate, following the passage of the Act, that there should be some form of annual assessment as to what progress is being made. An annual report would enable that to be done.
Similarly, Amendment No. 101 provides that it shall be the duty of an authority administering housing benefit or council tax benefit to make a report stating the level of fraud, the number of cases, and so on. Despite the progress which the noble Baroness rightly said has been made over the past few years, the level of fraud is a cause for concern. That is particularly so in relation to local authorities where the degree of enthusiasm between one authority and another seems to vary considerably. Given the importance of housing benefit fraud and the problems associated with it, one very much hopes that further progress will be made. However, it seems to be a question of raising those local authorities which are not performing well to the level of those which are taking the matter seriously.
Some of the situations which I described earlier give one cause for concern. What I have proposed would be an appropriate way of monitoring the way in which the Bill is operating and, more generally, the way in which we are tackling these problems. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On the face of it, the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 99 seems reasonable. It is only right that the department should measure the level of benefit fraud and report its findings. But we already do that. The new clause is flawed in two respects. First, it would require the department to do significantly less by way of measurement of the level of fraud in the most vulnerable benefits—income support and jobseeker's allowance—than it does at present and will do in relation to housing benefit from April. Therefore, the noble Lord's amendment, far from encouraging us to ratchet up our battle against fraud, would encourage us to ratchet it down.
Secondly, it could potentially weaken the independence of our estimates. We currently measure the level of fraud and error in IS and JSA not on an annual basis, as proposed in the new clause, but continuously throughout the year. Each year more than 30,000 cases are closely examined by specially trained officers to establish whether benefit is being paid correctly and, if not, why not. From April this year we will launch the first ever programme to measure the level of fraud and error in housing benefit across all 409 local authorities on a continuous basis. We measure these benefits—or will measure in the case
1118
of housing benefit—on a continuous basis because we know that they are most prone to fraud and error; otherwise, we would have snapshots, with the fraud running for many months.
That is not to say that we ignore other benefits. We are currently running an exercise to measure the level of fraud and error in incapacity benefit. The results will probably be published in the summer. In consultation with the National Audit Office, similar exercises will in future be conducted on other benefits. Therefore, we hardly need a statutory requirement to measure levels of fraud and error in benefits. It is an integral part of our business. The fact that we have developed a robust regime for measuring levels of fraud and error has enabled us to set tough targets for reducing losses in our public service agreement.
In the past the department had a multitude of targets for its anti-fraud activity—the number of visits, the number of fraud referrals, the weekly benefits savings from detected fraud, and the number of claims withdrawn. Those targets generated lots of paper but they were all about measuring activity rather than success in removing fraud from the system. Now we have just one target—the one to which I referred in our previous debate —by which people can judge the success of our anti-fraud strategy; that is, to reduce losses in the two most vulnerable benefits, IS and JSA, by 25 per cent by March 2004 and by 50 per cent by March 2006. Fifty per cent is the standard we are setting ourselves. I cannot conceive that anyone, including the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will not agree that that is a most challenging target by which to be judged. Nothing in the noble Lord's amendments would increase our ability to meet that; indeed they would actually reduce our capacity to do so.
When we came to power in 1997 we made an important change in the way in which our estimates of the level of benefit fraud are published. They are now published by the Office for National Statistics. This may seem a trivial point but it is not. In the past, benefit fraud figures could be said to have been used as a political football, but any publication by the Office for National Statistics is subject to a strict protocol under which Ministers have no say in either its content or the timing of its release. This very important safeguard of complete independence from the DSS or any suggestion that figures were being manipulated or delayed just before a by-election, or anything like that, would be lost under this amendment if the department were to take back responsibility for publishing the benefit fraud figures. So I think that on that count also the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, would perhaps wish to reflect on the wisdom of the amendment.
Amendment No. 101 proposes the annual reporting of fraud and a statement of annual targets. What it would achieve would be to drag back the system on which we are now making good speed. It would return us to old and ineffectual standards of measuring and tackling fraud. The proposal, with reliance on such yardsticks as the level of fraud detected and the number of fraud cases identified, represents precisely the system we have abandoned because it has not worked as successfully as it should. Under that

1119
system—the system the noble Lord wishes to resurrect—these were the only standards by which the Government could measure the levels of fraud and gauge success in tackling it whereby high rates of detection would lead to rewards.
There is an inherent contradiction here, and perhaps the noble Lord could help me. If the figure for detected fraud is up, what does this tell us? Have the investigators been doing a good job and should they be rewarded or have the gatekeepers, who should have prevented fraud from entering the system in the first place, been doing a poor job, enabling levels of fraud to rise? If we relied on detection rates for our measure, we would be admitting defeat before we started. We would be saying that fraud is endemic and cannot be beaten, and more and more we would find it after it had happened; we would be chasing after it.
These are not just my criticisms; they are the criticisms of the Public Accounts Committee, the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office. So I am surprised that the noble Lord seeks to resurrect a system which has been so comprehensively criticised by all the relevant independent agencies other than government themselves.
This is not our approach. We think we should be reducing fraud by prevention and deterrence as well as by detection, which is why we have introduced the Bill. That is why we have a singular indicator of success. The public service agreement sets a target for the reduction of fraud and error relating to the two major benefits of income support and JSA of 50 per cent by 2006. We measure progress towards that target not by levels of detection but by a programme of statistically-valid research—the area of benefits reviews. There will be estimates of the amount of fraud in the system produced by the Government's statistical service, not by the DSS, not annually but monthly. These reports show that we are starting to win the battle by a reduction of 6.5 per cent, and I should say that the National Audit Office has given its support to the approach of setting targets for reducing fraud and error based on this form of measurement.
We are extending the same methodology to housing benefit, and once the scheme is in place we fully expect to see a significant reduction in fraud and error. I could go on to speak of housing benefit and so on, but I hope the noble Lord will now agree that his amendments would take us back to the system that existed before the criticism was applied that we were rewarding people for detecting fraud, that we would go for annual measurement rather than regular and continuous measurement and for independent statistics whose timing could not be "arranged" to suit the convenience of politicians. I hope that in view of all that, the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: The replies of the noble Baroness during our debates have varied somewhat in quality. Some of them have been extremely good, because she has recognised the force of the argument in a number of cases and has agreed to return at Report stage to the
1120
most important set of issues that we have been considering. We shall look forward to seeing in exactly what form she produces amendments. As far as these amendments are concerned, I think we have had one of her better replies, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 not moved.]
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Commencement]:
[Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Remaining clause and schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Business
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as consideration of the Social Security Fraud Bill is now complete, this evening's Unstarred Question is no longer restricted to the one hour available for the dinner break. Instead, a limit of one and a half hours will apply. The change does not affect the time allocated to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, or that allocated to my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, but for each of the other speakers the time available is increased from four to seven minutes. However, if noble Lords have already prepared four-minute speeches and would prefer to avoid the inconvenience of extending them at such short notice, I can assure them that they will attract no criticism from these Benches.

Earnings Differentials
7.27 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what dangers they see in the widening differentials in earnings, and what steps they propose to take to address them.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in an ever more materialist world money has truly become our golden calf. One consequence is that people increasingly judge themselves, and are judged, by their earnings.
To some degree, 'twas ever thus, but because traditional ideologies, both religious and political, are ebbing or have disintegrated, and with them their values and beliefs, the money/esteem correlation has intensified. Though the impact is gradual, one day the old moral capital will run out unless replenished; but by what? That is our challenge.
Britain is also experiencing a simultaneous decline in traditional, organic communities which has no less an impact. They are being overtaken by highly selective ghettoes notable for their sameness of aspiration and lifestyle. The new settlements do not offer the involuntary experiential learning which is a gloriously unavoidable part of the knockabout

1121
traditional community—comprising people of all ages, types and circumstances—which perforce broadens horizons and sympathies
On top of all this, the high flyers now work under extreme pressure and competitiveness. Not before time. people have woken up to the fact that the extraordinary remuneration which hundreds of thousands currently enjoy comes at a very high personal— and societal—price. It is a world where enough is never enough.
Yet, segregated though the City in many ways is, it is no longer the secret garden which it was until well into the television age. Today, its excesses are trumpeted by the media and exalted by the TV soaps. Even the poorest and most excluded know that last Christmas, Morgan Stanley gave over 50 of its staff bonuses of £1 million each. Last year, around 50 Goldman Sachs partners received over £10 million on flotation. Literally thousands of legal, accounting and consultancy professionals now regularly earn over half a million pounds a year.
Perhaps I may turn to a key comparator with the most highly paid: schoolteachers. While the leaders of commerce, industry and the professions have gorged themselves over the past few years in particular, our schools—the very foundation of our future hopes— are desperately struggling, despite the committed efforts of David Blunkett. While the directors of major companies have seen their salaries soar over recent years, typically by between 15 per cent and 20 per cent annually, leaving the 1999 median figure for major public company chief executive pay at around half a million pounds with options worth around another 20 per cent, teachers have languished. When Douglas Houghton adjudicated on teachers' pay in 1974, his committee decided that their earnings should be 37 per cent above the national average. Today they are a mere 4.5 per cent above the average. Their recent 3.7 per cent pay settlement was little more than the national average and radically less than the 21 per cent awarded to Scottish teachers, spread over three years.
Although the Government admit to teacher vacancies of around only 1,000, the NUT calculates that the number of unfilled permanent posts is nearer 9,000 in London and 20,000 nationally. Even in my home county of Suffolk, which has many advantages, vacancies in maths, languages and CDT often attract no suitable applicants. That is a common predicament. Many teachers have to be imported from South Africa and other Anglophone countries. Many travel up from Wales every day to teach in London schools, some of which are now talking about a four-day week. Primary schools have also had to employ a sizeable proportion of temporary teachers from foreign lands. Supply teachers, like contract nurses, are at best stop-gaps.
On top of all this lies the bureaucratic overburden which demoralises the profession and which is intensified by the salary-related low esteem in which teaching is held—though not by parents—after years of media and political drubbing. What is true of teachers is no less true of social workers, nurses and health workers, the police and many other groups.
What of the poor? Some say that they have no further to fall, so what does it matter if the top dogs get ever bigger kennels? But resentment at life's disparities can become so acute that those who feel it are incited to aggressive and selfish behaviour which only acids to the crime statistics and general despair. It is no accident that aggression and selfishness are also key attributes of today's big earners.
Although some progress has been made—here I give credit to the Government for their determined attempt to get at the roots of social exclusion—we have a long, long way to go. In 1984 the difference between top and bottom earners was eight, to one; in 1994, 13 to one; two years later, 16 to one; and in 1999, 21 to one. Far too many millions are still trapped in deprivation—pensioners, single parent families and young, unqualified school leavers. I shall say nothing of secondary poverty.
One cannot, with 10 minutes on this subject, do more than pick and skim. I look forward to hearing the contributions from other noble Lords on these and many other aspects of this complex topic, not least about the continuing disparities between male and female employees.
Perhaps I may finish with some suggestions—I hesitate to call them proposals—for further discussion as regards ways to mitigate the widening gulf in earnings. First, although belief in prices and incomes policies, and indeed in taxation, as redistributive tools has largely dissipated, it seems to me to be indefensible that a Labour Government should not have done something to increase taxation on pay in its upper reaches, say, over £100,000 a year. It would be a valid symbol—not unimportant in politics. It would hardly touch the productive economy, and it would raise funds, for example, for teachers' salaries or simply for more teachers.
Although the Cadbury, Greenbury and Harnpel reports on executives' pay have been useful, consideration should be given to encouraging public companies to include on their remuneration committees at least one unconnected outsider with conceivably an employee representative as well. Companies should also be encouraged to develop and publicise top and bottom earnings ratios.
Section 309 of the Companies Act should be extended so that directors have regard not only to shareholders and employees and their interests, but to the communities of which their companies are a part, and to society as a whole. Capitalism cannot and does not deserve to survive in its present detached state. I say that in full knowledge of the excellent work of business organisations such as Business in the Community and the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum.
The public sector should also encourage a more holistic relationship between companies and society by withholding contracts from those which ignore their duties as corporate citizens. Perhaps I may add that some companies are now asking their solicitors what they do by way of pro bono work as one aspect to be considered in the award of contracts.
Some are even talking of putting an absolute cap on public company pay. That could well cause more problems than it solves, but it should be examined. However, no one, I think, resents the earnings of he or she who has taken great risks when starting up and running a new business. Boards of companies could be encouraged to assess their own performances in terms of softer performance indicators, along the lines of social auditing now being developed by forward-looking companies. Ethical investments, in which I repose great long-term hope, should be encouraged by every means, while sustainability in its widest sense should become the watchword.
The CBI, the TUC and the Institute of Directors might be encouraged to set up a joint monitoring unit for top pay, which could provide a much-needed and authoritative statistical pool, plus a focus for comparative critiques.
Noble Lords will have noted that few of these suggestions rest on legislation. That is no accident. It is increasingly apparent that government can do only so much. Ultimately, men and women in business and the professions must, in particular in the ethical sphere, shift for themselves—albeit with deft government encouragement.
I still believe in the parable of the mustard seed and the power of the individual exemplar, even in this intractable field. That is because no endeavour is more important for the fair and free society which I suspect we all yearn for than this.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised an extremely important subject. His speech was far more wide-ranging than I had thought would be the case. Given the inadequate time for our contributions, it will be difficult to tackle the issues which he has raised. Furthermore, this area is something of a minefield. However, perhaps I may begin by saying that I firmly believe that economic life must take place within a framework of equity and morality, as well as of opportunity. I am convinced that society comprises far more than merely a collection of individuals making their livings in labour markets. To think of society in those terms undermines our view of the society in which we live.
On the other hand, we need to be extremely careful about drawing conclusions regarding fairness from the behaviour of earnings differentials. Those are the result of a host of different factors relating to skills, occupation, risk-taking, changing technologies, shortages and so forth. In many cases, the markets are, quite simply, out there. I have served on the boards of around 10 companies. Over the past few years, I have become involved in the appointment of chief financial officers and chief executive officers. Frankly, if one wants someone who is good, one has to pay the market price. For a chief financial officer, that may be £250,000 a year. There is no way of getting around it because that is the reality of the market.
1124
I recognise that, over the past 25 years, we have seen a general trend towards the widening of differentials, but at the same time, average incomes have also been increasing. We have seen a remarkable increase in prosperity over the same period. I doubt whether we would have had that prosperity had we not had the increase in the differentials.
However, I recognise that there are dangers. I do not see a danger in simply looking at income or earnings differentials, but I see two particular dangers in the UK at present. First, there is the unacceptably large number of people who are employed in the services sector on relatively low pay, however one defines that. Secondly, there are specific occupations—I single out education and health—which are dominated by the public sector, in which differentials have moved, as the noble Lord said, against these professions so that many people feel devalued and rejected. I accept that and I accept everything that has been said about the statistics on teachers and the work done by Professor Smithers.
There are certain steps the Government can take to alleviate the situation, but what would not help would be a significant increase in the minimum wage. If that happened, one may well find unemployment rising among the very people one was trying to help. Further, I very much doubt whether having shareholders' meetings vote on compensation packages and long-term incentive plans for executives, which are very complicated, would improve the situation. One has to accept that executives should run the company. If you think they are doing a bad job, you should remove them.
The Government could do two things. First, in terms of low-paid jobs, it seems to me that the only way of increasing the compensation of the low paid is to increase their skills. Here I declare an interest as the chairman of two companies—one in the field of healthcare and the other in the field of property and services—in which we are trying to increase the skills of the low paid so that we can compensate them more. If the Treasury were to give greater tax breaks or incentives for individuals to invest in themselves, or for companies to invest in training, that would be a very positive move.
Secondly, in terms of education in the public sector, I spent 12 years teaching at university and I have always felt that there was an unholy alliance between teacher unions—including university teacher unions—and the Treasury. There was a narrowing of differentials. I doubt whether this area can ever be adequately tackled without radical reforms in both schools and universities. Much greater freedom should be given to individual schools to negotiate with individual teachers particular rates of pay. In order to bring money in, universities should be given endowments and much greater freedom to charge fees to students. Those are longer term, radical proposals, but, unless we do something of that nature, the problems that have been identified will remain with us.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Sawyer: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury for introducing this subject and for asking the Government to consider what is, undoubtedly, a challenging question. I also thank him for the constructive suggestions he outlined towards the end of his speech.
I hope that the Government see the dangers in the widening differentials in our economy. I accept that addressing such differentials is not an easy matter and, like the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I agree that legislation is not always an appropriate answer.
The big thing for the Government—and one of the reasons I am proud to be a member of my party and sitting on these Benches—is that they are committed to tackling injustice and inequalities. In the words of the new Labour lexicon, they are "a government for the many, not for the few". So this is a serious issue for the Government.
One the major steps taken by the Government has been the introduction of the national minimum wage. This was a flagship policy of the Government, widely opposed by the Conservative Party and by many people in business. It is now widely accepted by business. And it is official Conservative policy to keep the minimum wage should that party be successful in a forthcoming election. That is good. There has been a sea change in the way people think about tackling the problem of low pay.
There is need for the Low Pay Commission to keep the national minimum wage under review. I do not think that £3.70 is adequate; we should be moving towards £5 an hour. Although the minimum wage may have changed jobs and encouraged organisations and companies to re-train and re-skill, there is no evidence that it has destroyed jobs. We should be aiming towards a rate of £5 an hour. I do not expect my noble friend to agree today, but I certainly hope that he will comment on the matter in his response.
The working families' tax credit guarantees that all working families have an income of more than £200 a week. It has helped hundreds of thousands of parents find a new financial incentive to work. Measures of this kind to lift people out of the poverty trap and to give fair rewards for fair work must be ongoing. I expect my Government to keep these matters under continuous review.
In discussing differentials, it is right that we look at salaries and rewards at the top end of the economic spectrum. I am not against differentials; I accept and understand the need for differentials in industry. Nor am I against fair rewards for people doing tough jobs; I accept that that is absolutely necessary. Nor am I against successful companies making profits; that is the basis of our economic success and needs to continue. But I want all this to take place in communities where people can be housed together, where they can share schools and hospitals together and where they can share work and leisure together. I am frightened that if differentials become too wide we will not create the kind of balanced communities in which I would like to live.
1126
If, for example, the highest-paid director of Kingfisher plc is paid £2,062,000 per year while his employees are paid an average of £7,000 per year—a ratio of 269 to one—or if the highest paid director of Safeway earns £1,214,000 per year and the staff are paid an average of £9,000 per year—a ratio of 130 to one—I do not think we have balance. We have a gross imbalance. On the one hand we have corporate greed and, on the other, exploitation. I am not in favour of that.
My old friend, Rodney Bickerstaffe, the leader of Unison, used to say to me "How is it, Torn, that in order to motivate people to work harder, you have to pay the rich more and the poor less"? That is still a good question to ask in our society.
What can the Government do about fat cats at the top? First, they can make their displeasure known at the excessive salaries paid to company directors and point to the thousands of business and community leaders who work on reasonable salaries with a top to bottom ratio, not of 269 to one but of approximately six to one or 10 to one. I work in the housing industry, a business that spends £24 billion per year; £17 billion of public money and £7 billion raised on the private market. That industry has a top to bottom salary ratio of about eight to one. It does a damn good job and the people at the top are well rewarded and well satisfied. We can look at different role models in the economy and outline best practice.
Secondly, I would argue for the wealth of the nation and its businesses to be invested in the skills and development of the workforce, not in directors' salaries, a point made by the noble Lord opposite.
Thirdly, we should continuously improve the rights of shareholders to question and hold directors to account. This is on-going legislation that the Government need to keep in hand.
Fourthly, the Government can encourage wider share ownership. They can encourage a wider understanding among citizens and workers of the choices and decisions made in the boardroom about, for example, directors' pay and rewards, so that people are better informed, better able to comment, better able to pass opinion and better able to create a proper climate for public debate.
Fifthly, Cabinet Ministers and others in government can continue to argue for the kind of balanced and fair society that we expect from business. We can talk about how we expect business leaders to behave in future in terms of corporate responsibility.
Finally, the Prime Minister can continue his excellent leadership by example: by keeping Cabinet salaries at a level that will command wide public support, and by ensuring that, at the bottom of the parliamentary scale, we in this Chamber receive some decent remuneration.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, the whole House will welcome this debate. I thought it particularly appropriate that it should take place in this House, where we are paid nothing and therefore cannot be

1127
charged with advancing our own interests as "fat cats". However, I am told by my noble friend Lord Sawyer that that is not the case—therefore, I withdraw the idea immediately.
I prepared for the debate last night by reading Francis Wheen's biography of Karl Marx. The first obvious point one comes to when reading Karl Marx is that the revolution is taking some time to come because the "crisis of capitalism" appears to have been somewhat delayed. There is a more serious point. It is clear that we are not going to get the kind of crisis of capitalism that Marx believed would occur. There is not a decline in the return on capital, there is not an impoverishment of the workforce, and there is not mass unemployment—all of which Marx predicted.
However, that does not mean that there will not be a crisis of capitalism. A different kind of crisis can come over an economic system: it is not so much an economic crisis as a moral crisis. It can occur when a system becomes so far divorced from the moral sense of the people who make it work as to become inoperable. "Fat-cattery", as it has been described, is that threat to the system that we have.
In the time available, I cannot go through all the statistics referred to briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I commend Stephen Haseler's recent excellent book, The Super-Rich, which indicates both the scale of the sumptuory incomes now being enjoyed and the speed with which they have increased over the past two decades or so.
The defenders of capitalism recognise this threat. Its serious defenders have worried much more about the moral threat than about the economic threat. Von Hayek, who wrote The Road to Surfdom, said that as soon as one interfered with capitalism in any way, one was losing liberty, which was a worse moral outrage. There are those who advance the theory of "trickle-down" to point out that capitalism is a moral system. These are threats that capitalist defenders themselves recognise as being the most serious. Therefore, it is right to take them seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, in a most interesting speech, referred to the role of market forces. It is true that there are reasons in market forces as to why there is more "fat-cattery" today. Let us suppose that for example, the best chief executive is capable of making 10 per cent more out of a company than the second-best. If that company is a £10 million firm in one area of one country, as perhaps it would have been 30 years ago, the extra money involved is quite small and the extra reward that he can command by being that bit better is, therefore, quite small. However, if it is a global company worth perhaps hundreds of billions of pounds, simply to bring about that edge in performance, from the point of view of purely capitalist logic, it is worth giving the chief executive very large amounts of money. That is what accounts for the huge bonuses and share options in the City of London.
There is also the point that global products tend to concentrate rewards. When a Manchester United footballer could appeal only to a man who got on the
1128
Wythenshawe tram, that limited his earnings. When his performance can be seen and charged for world-wide, he is able to command the vastly greater salaries of today's footballers. So there are global forces that are making for fat-cattery. We should recognise them, and recognise that they limit what can be done about them.
But it is not a question of being helpless. If we compare this phenomenon across countries, we see that it is not universal. I discussed the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who is not presently in his place. In Germany, no director of any firm would dream of paying himself the kind of money that we in this country are prepared to pay. The United States has been the most extreme over-payer. The most shocking thing has been the speed with which Britain has moved from being a country that was rather continent in these regards, to being one that is extremely incontinent in the amounts it pays. The 1980s were littered with the names of people who went just too far for their time. Noble Lords will remember Cedric Brown and Mr Dick Giordano of British Oxygen, who was stopped. Now, there seems to be practically no limit. I lay some blame for that on the philosophy of the previous government. I am sorry that it has not come more speedily to an end with the advent of this Government.
We used to apply crude mechanisms such as an incomes policy in the hope of dealing with the problem. They are limited in the effects that they can have in a global economy. If we tax the very well-off too heavily, they will go and find somewhere else to work. That is well known—although that, too, can be exaggerated, as the noble Lord, Lord Plant, showed in his excellent taxation report for the Fabian Society the other day.
I merely make this one point, knowing that I am to be followed in this debate by a Bishop. Moral disapproval has a role in all this. If people feel good, if they can go about their lives feeling that they are good people despite the fact that they are enjoying sumptuory sums of money at some cost to other people, they will pay themselves those sums. No mechanism of law, politics or economics will stop them. If society is still prepared to make it clear that it disapproves of such activities, it can to a considerable extent mitigate them.
We are understanding more and more that capitalism does not stand as an economic system on its own, separate from the society in which it exists. In the same way, if capitalism tries to stand outside a society which is demanding basic moral limitations on the greed of human beings, capitalism is doomed and Marx will be proved right after all. I do not want Marx to be right. Therefore, I hope that, even now, we can learn these lessons and do something to change the moral atmosphere in which we exist.
7.57 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for initiating this short but important debate. I entirely accept that an

1129
element of differential in earnings is highly desirable. But pay differentials are undesirable if they are so great as seriously to undervalue certain types of work as against others.
The reasons for regulating differentials are both moral and psychological. From a moral perspective, do salaries reflect the true worth of occupations to society; or do market forces, as emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, result in a distortion of their worth? When we are ill, we know how much we value good nursing. When it comes to the education of our own children, we know how much we want them to be taught by able, well-trained teachers. Traditionally, people have been drawn into such occupations by a sense of service. Alas, that is not what it once was. But even if it were, it would be quite wrong for society to exploit that sense by paying people in certain professions poorly by the standards of society as a whole. Decent salaries do make a difference.
I remember a time in the 1970s when I chaired a comprehensive school in London. For a short period the salaries of teachers compared favourably with those of doctors. For every post that was advertised we had a good range of able, well-qualified applicants whom we would have been delighted to appoint. That is far from the case now, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, rightly emphasised. It is contradictory to value certain professions when we ourselves are in need. or when it comes to our own interests, and as a society to under-value such occupations by rewarding them poorly, and increasingly poorly in relation to the widening differentials in pay to which this debate calls attention.
From a psychological point of view, excessive differentials can harm both those who are highly paid (do they really think they are worth it?) and the lower-paid. For it can be undermining of those doing a solid job of work, day after day and week after week, for comparatively little reward to see people shooting ahead in the salary scale. It can breed resentment and cynicism. Even worse, it can undermine a person's sense of the worth of what they are doing and the "worthwhileness" of working to the best of their ability. Moreover, that is undermining for society as a whole because it devalues that particular occupation.
I recognise that we cannot go back to the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, those earlier concepts of "a just wage" and "a just price" remind us that the economic sphere, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, emphasised, is not autonomous or value free, as some used to suggest. There is an ethical dimension, whether people recognise it or not.
The most persuasive advocates of the market economy, of all political persuasions—including, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Fforestfach, in his earlier writings—have long argued that a successful market economy depends upon the recognition of certain moral values. In short, an unbridled capitalism erodes the moral foundations on which a successful market economy in fact depends. One aspect of that moral dimension is a shared sense of the fairness of things. People recognise that it is fair that if people
1130
work hard, have undergone a long training or have exceptional abilities, they should receive commensurate rewards. Of course, there can be a legitimate debate about what is an acceptable range of salaries. A maximum salary that is five times the median salary of manual workers has often been touted in the past, although it is now nowhere near reality, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, emphasised. The point, however, is not what judgment should finally be reached but that there should be a widespread sense that the judgment that is reached is, by and large, fair. Widening differentials destroy that shared sense of fairness. As the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, emphasised, that can create a sense of gross imbalances and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, it can bring about a sense of moral crisis.
As we know, the world is dominated by a market economy. I accept that a market economy is the worst possible economic system in the world—except for all the others. We therefore need to make it work for the benefit of everyone, not just a minority. Because that market is part of a global economy, any concept of capping salaries is, of course, fraught with difficulties. As has already been said, people who can command more and who want to earn more can simply relocate to a country that does not cap salaries or which has a lower rate of taxation.
There are real difficulties in this context, and there is not an easy or obvious solution to the problem. Central to this issue is what we might call the lure of the City, where people do indeed work very long hours, but whose salaries—and, even more, their bonuses—have a distorting effect on every aspect of our national life. I remember a few years ago, for example, when I was Dean of King's College, London, being saddened by people who were coming to the end of their research for a doctorate in science—they had spent eight if not 10 years specialising in science— deciding to go into the City rather than to pursue a scientific career because of the comparative rewards.
We read that million-pound bonuses in the City are commonplace. That has a distorting effect on every aspect of our national life, not least on the housing market in the South East. We need to recover a sense of jobs being done and of occupations being pursued because they are important in their own right and because they are a way of serving society as a whole, as well as a source of personal fulfilment and financial reward. I once lamented to the headmaster of a famous school that the school no longer produced ordinands for the Church of England in the way it once did. "Oh, Richard", he said, "It's not just ordination; the whole concept of service has gone". So a moral and spiritual revolution is necessary.
As to what steps society as a whole should take, whether through legislation or other means, to close the widening gap in differentials, I honestly do not know. I have listened with great interest and attention to some of the suggestions that have been made in this debate, and I shall listen to others. What I do know is that if that gap continues it will be to the material, as well as the moral, spiritual and psychological, detriment of society as a whole. Important

1131
occupations will be under-valued and people's sense of the "worthwhileness" of what they are doing will be undermined.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is right to be concerned at the high earnings in the City and the low earnings of teachers. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, suggested that that is an indication of a dynamic and growing economy. However, a polarised economy is manifestly unjust. Is it inevitable that we have to sacrifice social justice and a more equitable society for a dynamic and growing economy? The answer is definitely no. Social justice and a more equitable society are part and parcel of a dynamic and growing economy. A healthy economy is a moral economy.
In order to study pay differentials, I did not look at the fat cats; I agree that they are a distortion. I turned to Social Trends. Chart 5.16 on page 103 of that publication illustrates very well what is happening, although it refers to household disposable income. Twenty years ago, a household in the 10th percentile earned £110 a week. In 1998, the same household earned £140 a week. A household in the 90th percentile earned £360 a week in 1981 and £560 a week in 1998.
What is the reason for that? The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, touched on the answer. Economists such as the noble Lord, Lord Layard, have shown that during that time the demand for skills became much greater. Globalisation and technology increased the demand for skilled labour and reduced the demand for unskilled labour; hence the differential in wages in the private sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, asked what the Government propose to do about that. I think that steps have already been taken. The measures have been described by Robert Reich as a three-legged stool: business flexibility, workforce agility and macro-economic policy. Together, those legs provide a firm economic base.
By business flexibility, Robert Reich meant the ability of businesses to set wages and to hire and dismiss their workforce with relative freedom and the flexibility to decide where and how to do business. That freedom may have destroyed quite a number of jobs but it has also generated a large number of new ones, particularly in small and medium-sized enterprises.
That first leg is balanced by the second leg of Robert Reich's stool; that is, workforce agility. That allows employees and workers to move continuously to better jobs—a kind of upward mobility. Of course, education, job skills and training are absolutely critical. Some might say that wage differentials will force people to get skills. That is both unacceptable and untrue; hence schemes such as the New Deal.
All that is not enough without the third leg, which consists of an economic policy that generates a steady and even demand for all the human resources—skilled and unskilled—in our society. Part of that, of course,
1132
is the minimum wage, but so is taxation policy. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was right: in Britain, the distribution of original income is highly unequal. I return to Social Trends, which tells us that in 1998, the average income of the top quintile group is 17 times greater than that of the bottom quintile group. But after payment of cash benefits and the deduction of direct taxes, that ratio is reduced to 6:1. That is quite a reduction.
Of course, we cannot run a modern economy merely by rewarding the fortunate few. It must be achieved by spreading much more widely the opportunity for employment, increased earning power and education. Equal opportunity is central to that. But the right to equal opportunity applies at every economic level. That is why equal opportunity also means dismantling vested interests, restrictive practices and other forms of economic privilege which limit the scope of opportunity for others.
I believe that in that way the state can be an active counterweight to growing differentials in earnings while, at the same time, securing a healthy, growing and moral economy.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Layard: My Lords, it has been suggested that widening inequality is the price of increased prosperity. I believe that that is wrong, and I wish to illustrate why with two facts. Let us compare the earnings of German and British workers. Among those in the top 40 per cent, the Germans earn hardly any more than the corresponding British workers. However, among those in the bottom 40 per cent, the Germans earn half as much again as their British counterparts.
Therefore, where does our lack of prosperity come from? It comes directly from low productivity and the low earnings of people at the lower end of our workforce. If we had dealt with the problem of prosperity, we would have dealt also very largely with our problem of inequality.
Why are our earnings at the bottom end of the scale so low? If we are concerned about inequality, I believe that that is the main question we should consider. As has been said, it is a matter of skills. However, I want to stress that we are experiencing a crisis. It is not a situation that we will survive; it is one that will worsen because the impact of technology constantly reduces the demand for low-skilled labour.
That may seem obvious. However, every week I attend a meeting where someone states the opposite by pointing out a job where a machine has removed the skill from the task or an unskilled occupation which is growing such as domestic service or some form of low-grade service occupation. Therefore, that person will ask, "What is all the scare about?" I believe that such a view is completely wrong. The examples are right, but the aggregate of the labour market is going in exactly the opposite direction.
Countless researches show that the demand for skilled labour is constantly increasing while the demand for low-skilled labour is falling. That does not

1133
depend on where one takes the cut-off point for skill; it is true wherever one chooses the cut-off point. And it does not depend on which country is studied; the same applies in every country. It is the inexorable result of technical progress and, incidentally, it does not have much to do with globalisation. Therefore, the situation will continue.
There is a race between the growing demand for and the supply of skilled workers. The latter either keeps up, goes ahead or falls behind. Over the past two decades in Britain and the US the supply has fallen behind the demand. That is the chief force which has brought about the growth of inequality in those two countries. Inequality is growing more quickly there than on the Continent precisely because on the Continent the supply of skill has kept up more easily with the increase in the demand for it. As a consequence, inequality has grown less on the Continent than it has in the Anglo-Saxon world.
We see that occurring in the educational policies of the Continent, where much more emphasis is placed on minimum standards, and we also see it in the outcome, as has been mentioned previously in this House. One in five people is functionally illiterate in Britain and the US. However, on the Continent, that figure is less than one in 10.
Therefore, with regard to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, as to what is to be done, I believe that it is clear that the great leveller must be education. There must be more and better education for the less academic half of the population. It is extraordinary—we accept it automatically in Britain—that the academic half receives essentially five years' tuition virtually free of charge beyond the age of 16 while most of the other half receives almost no education beyond that age.
We should not be happy with the thought that the biggest educational proposal with which any party enters an election is to expand higher education to half the population. I am not against that; it is a terrific idea. However, the main question should concern what we do about the other half.
Obviously that must be tempered by considerations of expense. Therefore, it is natural to ask what pay-off society would receive from implementing a proper system of vocational education beyond the age of 16 for the second group of people. Fortunately, so far as we are able to compute meaningful social rates of return from different types of education, the answer is that those rates are at least as good in relation to vocational education as they are in relation to A-levels and university education. Therefore, society would receive a pay-off of approximately 8 per cent from each type of education. Therefore, for the time being, more education for the group about which I am concerned is fully justified on pure efficiency grounds.
However, I want to face the situation. Let us suppose that we did those people proud. At some point, we would probably run into diminishing returns. Then another issue would arise. Is it better to help less able members of society by income transfers or to do so by enabling them to earn a better living for
1134
themselves? I believe that economists have done quite a disservice to this type of debate. If there is any question of inefficiency arising from any form of investment, they have tended to advocate income transfers. I believe that that completely underestimates the moral point which has been made in this debate by many speakers.
There is a strong presumption in favour of people earning their own living rather than living on a transfer—even a partial transfer—because it is so much more dignified and also, of course, less open to the disincentives which arise from income transfers. Therefore, the conclusion which I draw about what the Government can do is that they should implement a concerted programme—it will take 10 years—to make all youngsters sufficiently productive to pay their own way and earn a decent living.
I have concentrated on the problems of poverty because I consider them to be more serious than the problems of riches. I conclude by turning to the question of people with unusual gifts. As has been said, there is bound to be a market-determined wage and there may not be too much that we can do about the pre-tax earnings of such people. However, as my economist colleagues here know, in economic terms the earnings of those kinds of people largely come from rents. Those earnings are much higher than is necessary to motivate them to do their work. Surely we can tax those rents more seriously than we do at present. Currently the standard rate of tax for most people is 32 per cent, including national insurance. Yet the highest rate of tax paid by the fattest cat is 40 per cent. I cannot see how we can possibly justify that.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for introducing this interesting and, as it has turned out to be, most stimulating debate. I had not intended to address the question of the dangers. However, as several speakers have pointed to some of the moral issues, perhaps I may say a word or two about those.
First, it seems to me that the general level of capitalism or the market economy must be embedded in a type of moral foundation. Equally, the motivations of the market economy, which largely are those of self-interest, can erode those moral foundations, and it is difficult to see how self-interest can repair or regenerate them. I believe that that is a real dilemma. That point has been noted by many thinkers and, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, it may well lead to a type of moral or cultural contradiction in capitalism. It requires a moral framework which it cannot itself engender.
In more immediate, practical terms, associated with high differential salaries is the problem of trying to include the affluent so that they do not detach themselves from common experiences and common forms of provision of goods and services in society, and so that society is not divided between those who are able to afford all kinds of private provision, and the rest of society who have to do other things. It is entirely

1135
their right to afford those things, but nevertheless it undermines the sense of social solidarity. The answer is to find a way to include the affluent. Those are two definite dangers, in my view.
In the last 50 years of the last century there were two approaches to the issue of income differentials. One was the classic, social-democratic view, perhaps associated with Tony Crosland, who said that we should be concerned about relative positions in society, and that the job of government is to seek to diminish inequality by using the fiscal dividends of economic growth to improve the relative position of the worst off, while maintaining the absolute position of the better off, because, otherwise, the better off will not vote for social-democratic governments. That is a levelling up, not a levelling down. On the other hand, the neo liberal or economic liberal approach stated that inequality is a good thing and a necessary feature of a dynamic market economy; and, not only that, but dynamism in the economy is in the interests of the poorest members of society, including the low-paid, because of the trickle-down effect. The strategy is to improve the real wages of the poor, the absolute position of the poor, while increasing the differential between the poor and the rich, as a result of the dynamism of the market and the resulting necessary inequalities. That is the echelon advance view, which is almost the exact opposite of the social-democratic approach, for the reasons that I have given.
Both of those approaches now seem to be flawed. The social-democratic approach incorporated many good ideas about how to compensate for the consequences of inequality, but it was not so good at explaining the causes of inequality, or suggesting how to remedy the problem of low incomes. Equally, the major problem with the trickle-down theory, the economic liberal theory, is that people have to be equipped to take advantage of the trickle-down mechanism. They have to have skills that are needed in the economy. One of the problems with economic liberalism is that it assumes that the trickle-down effect will occur almost mechanically. The state is prevented from adopting a view that would regard investment in skills, despite the fact that they lead to an individual level of return, as a public good that should involve large public funding. The economic theory seems to run counter to the political theory that the trickle-down effect requires a state to equip people to make use of the trickle-down mechanism, through skilling not just once in life but throughout life, because of the vagaries of the economy; and yet the view of the state inhibits that process.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Haskel and Lord Layard, who stressed the fact that the problem has to be tackled in terms of the skills of the worst paid members of society. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Layard, that the decline in demand for unskilled labour may well be the result of technology. There are those who think that it is globalisation, but it does not matter much in policy terms, because the solution is the same: you will only get around the problem if you increase the skills of the individuals,
1136
and you have to do that throughout their lives. It is partly a question of the skilling agenda, but it is also partly an issue of reduction in the rates of taxation at the lower end of the income scale. We now have the lop rate, but there is also the Government's tax credit programme.
All of those features fit very much with the diagnosis and the prescription. I am not opposed to the idea of raising the basic rate of tax, in line with the recommendations of the Fabian commissions I have chaired, using that money to take very large numbers of people at the lowest rates of pay out of the tax bracket. Nevertheless, the most necessary fundamental step at the moment is to concentrate on skills and reduce the tax burden on those who are in work but who receive the lowest pay, as the Government are doing at the moment.
The moral issue is being addressed, but it is very difficult to address it in an open market and in the setting of the global economy. However, it is important to work from the bottom up, rather than to put the cap on the top down.
8.28 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, my noble friend vividly drew our attention at the beginning of this notable debate to the inexorable and dangerous increase in the gap between rich and poor and indicated some of the moral problems raised by this phenomenon. The debate has been notable because it has been full of speeches of high academic and moral quality, which is gratifying. It is not necessarily always the main focus of our attention during debates.
I regret that I cannot follow in that line; I will do something different and talk about poor people, about poverty, about who form the poor, and in particular the problems faced by women due to the gender inequality in remuneration and income.
I recall that when I first came back to this country in the 1980s, having lived first in the United States and then in the third world, I was struck forcefully by how much the country was beginning to reflect the third world syndrome. It is not just a question of private wealth and public squalor, to which a good deal of attention was drawn at the time, but also the growing gap between the rich and the poor, which was perhaps less vivid at that time but, as my noble friend has said, has marched inexorably onwards.
It is curious that in a first world country we have almost adopted or been driven to a characteristic which is a major characteristic of a third world country. Of course, the gap is not so great, and I do not pretend that it is, but in many ways the poor in this country are as deprived. relatively speaking, as they are anywhere, although they may be richer in absolute terms than the poor in less developed places.
I turn now to the disparity between men and women. My thesis is that this gender differentiation is not only bad in itself but it contributes to the financial problems of many families and of whole areas of economic

1137
disadvantage. In the time available, it is not possible to lay out the whole statistical justification for this claim and therefore a few facts will have to suffice.
More than half of all women, compared to a quarter of all men, have income from all sources in the two bottom quintiles of the gross income tables. At the other end of the scale, 30 per cent of men, by comparison with only 10 per cent of women, have incomes in the highest quintile of incomes—gross income from all sources. Those are general figures and they have to be taken with care, but it is part of the general picture. It is supported by a mass of evidence on the earnings gap—not the income gap—between women and men. Six million women work part-time because of their family responsibilities. You may say that it is understandable that they earn 40 per cent less than men in full-time work—"They would, wouldn't they?" However, it is also the case that because of family responsibilities, women reach their earnings peak between the ages of 25 and 29, whereas men reach their earnings peak between 45 and 49. That illustrates the broken nature of women's work. On the other hand, single women with no children earn approximately the same as everybody else.
Those differentials appear to be grounded in several persistent factors. A recent EOC report, Women and Men in Britain, concludes that gender segregation in the work place and between different sorts of work, including part-time working, is a major culprit. As the EOC puts it:
"Gender rather than individual skills and abilities continues to be a major determinant in individual economic prosperity".
The predominance of female employees can reduce the salary scales of a whole profession: consider teaching and nursing. Yes, men and women teachers are paid almost the same, but as several noble Lords have pointed out, the whole profession is not paid enough. Graduate teachers are leaving the profession at quite an early age because by the time they have worked for five or six years the disparity between their earnings and those of their contemporaries is too great to be tolerated.
There is also compelling evidence that employer pay discrimination is a contributing factor influencing unequal pay. As we all know, that discrimination takes many forms: placing female employees at the bottom of salary ranges when men are placed along the range; job evaluations that discriminate against jobs held predominantly by women; and discrimination in the way in which women are assessed under performance-related pay schemes.
Perhaps it is not surprising that since the 1980s the pay gap has stuck stubbornly at around 20 per cent. Government research indicates that gender stereotyping still influences choices made and advice given when girls are deciding on their future work. That may include the decision whether to stay at school, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Layard.
My view is that the disparity between women's and men's earnings is an important part of the wider disparity to which my noble friend has drawn our attention. It reinforces family poverty; it reinforces
1138
ideas of women's secondary status; but it does nothing to create that sense of fairness within the community to which so many noble Lords have referred tonight. It also results in the high proportion of women pensioners who live in poverty, because if one is not paid enough, one does not have a private pension and one has to depend entirely on the state pension.
A large number and a wide range of solutions to the problems have been suggested. I welcome the Government's efforts to deal with the problems of low pay such as the national minimum wage, better skills and improved compensation through state benefits. I should add the pension uprating which my own party has been promoting: £5 for all pensioners; £10 for those over 75; and £15 for those over 80.
However, I do not believe that those kinds of solutions will ever constitute the whole answer. I end by joining all noble Lords who have called for a lead from government and from society to emphasise how wrong, how immoral and how unfair can be the gaps between the earnings of one group and another. I hope that the Government's new interest in poverty and in gender equality is not a flash in the pan. It must be a commitment for the long term.
8.34 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I start by referring to a brief remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, when he referred to the salaries that Manchester United pays some of its players. I am tempted to ask whether one wants to return to the bad old days of the maximum wage. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Burlison, is still in the Chamber. He will remember the days of the maximum wage. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that it would be a mistake to return to that form of self-imposed industry regulation of wages just as it would be bad to return to any form of incomes policy.
I am sure that all noble Lords will also agree that what is true for the entertainment industry—football, music, or whatever—should also be true for the City. We should be wary of trying to castigate certain categories of industry as being wicked fat cats, whereas others, because they earn their living in the entertainment industry, appear to be allowed to earn whatever sums they like.
I have two relatively brief points to make. First, it would have been helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in introducing the debate, had argued that relative poverty has risen substantially under this Government in sharp contrast to the proud promises of that now abandoned campaign song, "Things can only get better".
Many noble Lords will have seen the recent Rowntree study that showed that the number of people living below the so-called "poverty line"—that is, on half the national average income—has risen to 14.25 million over the past two years. That is 1 million more than in the early 1990s.
My second point relates to the key advances that the Government have claimed that they have introduced in terms of attacking the problems of poverty. I refer to the points made by the noble Lord. Lord Layard.

1139
He said that he wanted to concentrate on poverty rather than on the earnings of those at the top. First, I believe that the immensely complex working families' tax credit increases dependency because means testing is extended over a far larger range of incomes. It seems scarcely credible that people on over £40,000 a year may be brought into the welfare system, as I understand is the case. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will address that matter. I believe that the Chancellor is creating a new poverty trap in which middle-income families who are promoted or earn overtime will be heavily penalised.
The Government's other boast is the national minimum wage, to which my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach referred. Fortunately, it was introduced at a level lower than originally threatened and therefore has been less disruptive than many feared. Although a future Conservative government will not seek to repeal the national minimum wage, we do not believe that it is a well targeted device for the relief of poverty. We remain concerned at the compliance costs for business and will seek to improve its administration.
This Government do not appear to mind complication, either in the tax system or in the social security system. They appear to be obsessed with the desire to make people feel grateful to the Chancellor. While pledging to "make work pay", the Government have fundamentally reduced the amount that "work pays" by increasing the tax burden. That has fallen particularly severely on those least able to cope with higher petrol prices and the whole range of the Government's other stealth taxes. The latest figures show that the tax burden on the poorest 20 per cent of households is up from 37 per cent of gross income in 1997 to 40 per cent. We all know that previous Labour Chancellors paid for their public spending excesses by squeezing money from the rich. We all remember the noble Lord, Lord Healey, when he was Chancellor. Under this Government, a typical working family is paying £670 a year more in tax. Labour will never address the divide between rich and poor unless they ease the burden that they have placed on middle-income people and poor alike.
We on this side of the House have always believed that the best cure for poverty is not a growing welfare state but a growing economy in which we can all share. That is the difference between us and the Government in this debate. Fundamentally, we on these Benches believe that jobs and enterprise best tackle poverty and deprivation. That is why, when we return to government, we shall keep taxes down and invest in key, vital services to help the poor, while spending only what the nation can afford. We shall cut the burden of regulation through regulatory budgets and exemptions for small businesses. We shall abolish taxes on savings for all but higher-rate taxpayers. I believe that that is the way to spread opportunity for all and to help the poor and the middle-earners alike.
8.41 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have to confess that since I was a child I have always had an idiosyncratic view of widening differentials. I have always thought that those who have the most interesting jobs should be paid less than those who have the most boring, difficult, dirty jobs. I still believe that our earnings differentials are entirely the wrong way round. However, I recognise that no society in history has ever taken that view. I recognise that Marx did not take that view; I think that William Morris came close to it. As my children grew older and went into the job market, I told them, sadly, that my ideals did not accord with the way society worked, that they should obtain better skills and earn more money, in which case they would have more interesting jobs. Whichever way round the causal connection operates, that is what it is about. That is the received wisdom.
Faced with the issue of widening differentials, which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has properly introduced to the House, I considered the next part of his question, which is, "What can the Government do about it?" I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not talk about fat cats or about reducing even the relative income of the very rich. I prefer to talk about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, namely, how best we can make available a large cake in which everybody can share. I should also like to talk about skills and education and about the Chancellor's passion for the reduction of poverty and the elimination in the long term of child poverty.
There has not been much disagreement about the nature of the problem. As economies become more developed and shift their emphasis to producing goods and services that demand more highly skilled labour, it is possible that the wage gap between the high skilled and low skilled will increase, leading to wider income inequality. In that connection, the noble Lord, Lord Layard, referred to the important role of technology.
Throughout the OECD the employment rate of low skilled and poorly educated workers has fallen since at least the early 1980s. In the United Kingdom, job prospects for those without skills have declined dramatically. What we are seeing— and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for drawing attention to it—is a version of part of Marx's prediction made more than 100 years ago. It is true that we have not experienced the crisis of capitalism. However, we have experienced continuing pressure towards relative impoverishment of the workforce.
We know from the social and economic policy of the whole of the past century that if this issue is neglected, differentials will increase. We have seen over the past 20 years not only the relative impoverishment of the poorer parts of our society hut, in some cases, and certainly in the United States, an absolute increase in poverty. That means that social and economic policy must very firmly and deliberately be directed towards dealing with that problem. In the United Kingdom, the demand for unskilled labour has been reflected in a fall in the relative wages of unskilled workers. In this country wages have been rising for all points in the

1141
earnings distribution, though not in the United States, but the lowest paid have seen only a small increase in real terms. The rise in wage inequality in the United Kingdom since the late 1970s has been one of the fastest of all developed countries.
One could say that it does not matter if people face only short periods on low pay and have a good chance of mobility into higher paid jobs; but that is not the case. There is evidence that many individuals move between low pay and unemployment, rather than better paid jobs, and that significant numbers are trapped in low pay throughout their working lives. Therefore, our primary emphasis must be on economic stability as the basis of our policy.
As we outlined at the beginning, the central objective of the Government is to achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment to fulfil Britain's national potential, and to build a stronger economy and a fairer society, to which everyone can contribute, thus benefiting from a share of greater prosperity. I believe that even those who fiercely criticised the way in which we approached this matter almost four years ago will acknowledge that these policies have been remarkably successful. That means that we are able to respond effectively to the challenge imposed by an increasingly global economy, ensuring that all individuals are equipped with the skills necessary to share in global prosperity.
The argument for greater emphasis on skills is that we cannot compete internationally through low wages. We are committed to encouraging a high skilled, high wage and high productivity economy. That is the only way in which we can compete successfully in the world economy, taking advantage of the fact that some developing countries will naturally have an edge where low cost, relatively unskilled labour is important. If I had the time, I could continue at length on the theory of comparative advantage.
The noble Lords, Lord Griffiths and Lord Layard, have emphasised that we must ensure that people in the workforce have good basic skills—literacy, numeracy, communication and IT skills. There is a high correlation between those who lack basic skills and unemployment. Even those in employment are likely to earn far less than people with higher skills. We should also ensure that access is available to lifelong learning, so that people have the skills to adapt to changing circumstances and the opportunity to progress up the earnings ladder.
I do not have time to deal with the range of education and skills programmes—the Excellence Challenge, the Connexions partnership, the strategy for adult basic skills, and, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, who rightly referred to lifelong learning, the individual learning accounts that will be available to one million of the workforce by March next year. It can be said that, in addition to what has been done in traditional school education, the emphasis of this Government has very heavily been on the skills that are necessary for employment in the 21st century.
1142
We have also implemented reforms to make work pay. Those cannot be seen individually. If we are to consider the danger of poverty, which the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, rightly emphasised, the reforms must be seen as a package. We have set ourselves the target of increasing the earning power of the lowest paid workers so that they will be in a position to become financially independent and escape poverty. Even low paid jobs will improve employability, and they can be a stepping stone to higher wages.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, rightly emphasised, the national minimum wage removes the worst case of exploitation, promotes greater decency and fairness in the workplace and underpins the Government's reforms to the tax and benefit system. The national minimum wage, which we introduced almost two years ago, has benefited between 1.2 and 1.5 million workers. The average increase for those paid less than the national minimum wage prior to its introduction is approximately 20 to 30 per cent. I can update the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Henley.
By removing the worst excesses of low pay, the national minimum wage has been a significant factor in bringing about the reversal of the trend of the past two decades when higher gains in pay went to the highest paid. Increases in pay across the earnings distribution for the year to spring 2000 show that earnings of the bottom 10 per cent increased almost twice as fast as the top 10 per cent.
The national minimum wage has been particularly valuable in low-paying sectors such as retail, hospitality, cleaning and security. I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that it has been particularly important for women workers, who make up three-quarters of its beneficiaries. In the year to April 1999, the gap in the average hourly pay of women relative to men narrowed by a full percentage point. That is the largest amount for a decade.
The noble Lords, Lord Griffiths and Lord Henley, believe that if we were to increase the national minimum wage we should be risking serious job losses. That is exactly what was said before we introduced the national minimum wage. I shall not speculate on future government policy, but I want to record the fact that during the past two years the fears of the Conservative Opposition about the effect of the minimum wage have been effectively disproved.
The national minimum wage is part of the Government's overall strategy to make work pay. With the working families' tax credit, which is the next part of the policy, it guarantees to every family with children and with at least one person in full-time work a minimum income of £214 a week, or more than £11,000 a year, from April this year. Together, the tax and benefit reforms underpinned by the minimum wage—if we did not have it the taxpayers would pay and not the employers—enabled us to do more than we could ever have done by individual policy.

1143
The noble Lord, Lord Plant, rightly drew attention to the fact that tax credits are the most effective way of tackling poverty. They can be targeted at low-income households; they can be varied according to family circumstance; and they do not raise the direct cost of low-wage workers to employers. In other words, we could not use the national minimum wage alone and we could not use tax credits alone but the two of them together are immensely powerful. They make low-paid work more attractive to the unemployed and work rather than benefit a more attractive proposition. If we did not have the national minimum wage, employers would take advantage of workers by lowering wages. The national minimum wage ensures a level of fair remuneration in the labour market.
The 10p rate of income tax is the lowest starting rate since 1962–63. The basic rate is the lowest for 70 years, worth between £60 and £150 a year, with the largest gain for the low paid. In addition, we have increased the threshold for paying national insurance contributions, which means that 1 million low-paid workers no longer pay NICs. Let us add to that what
1144
is planned for the next two years. By 2001; a single person on the minimum wage will be £300 a year better off as a result of the tax and national insurance cut. In 2003, we are extending the principles of working families' tax credit to those without children. The employment tax credit will help to support working people without children as well as helping to tackle in-work poverty.
I acknowledge that I have not talked about high pay. I have followed the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Plant, who said that it is important to bring up the earnings of those at the bottom rather than to bring down the earnings of those at the top. That attack on poverty is the thrust of the Chancellor's economic policy and has been ever since he took office.
I do not believe that many people in this country realise the moral passion which enthuses the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his hatred of poverty and inequality. The more that that is recognised, the more it will be recognised that we are indeed attacking the problem, so rightly drawn to the attention of the House by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
House adjourned at five minutes before nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill
Tuesday, 6th February 2001.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I remind your Lordships about the special provision of having no Divisions at Committee stage as set out in Hansard on the first day. If there is a Division in the Chamber, I ask any noble Lord or noble Baroness who is speaking to sit down immediately and we shall adjourn for 10 minutes.
Clause 13 [Accessibility strategies and plans]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 12, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) In preparing their accessibility strategy, each local education authority must include the estimated costs, at current prices, of the implementation of such improvements, and must if the cost cannot be found locally, forward to the Secretary of State these estimated costs with a request for capital grant to cover those costs for the years in question.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 114, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 120, 129, 130, 131, 192, 193 and 194. Clause 13 requires the local education authority to prepare what is called an accessibility strategy. That is to be a forward plan as to improvements to be made to the fabric and environment of all the schools for which the authority is responsible in order to improve the accessibility of those schools for pupils with disabilities.
The requirement simply refers to planned improvements and that such a plan should be updated constantly. There is not a requirement to make those changes, as we heard from the Minister. There is no requirement necessary to make structural changes but there is a requirement to plan for improvements and regularly to update the plan. Nowhere is there included an assessment of costs for such a plan.
If there are to be improvements, they are going to cost money. A programme of improvements to all schools to improve access to and the environment within schools for disabled pupils will cost money. My amendment requires the local education authority to include the estimated costs, at current prices, of the implementation of such improvements of that accessibility strategy, which seems only reasonable. The authority, the local taxpayers and the Secretary of State all need to know how much it would cost.
Furthermore, the amendment would require the local authority to forward the plan to the Secretary of State with estimated costs included and to include a request of the Secretary of State for a capital grant to
CWH 212
undertake the work over the years in question. By implication, if there is no capital grant, the work cannot be done.
Honesty in planning and feasibility should be watchwords for those who will have to draw up these plans. Amendment No. 120 applies to independent schools. Having made it a duty upon the local education authority to prepare an accessibility strategy, whether or not funds are forthcoming, Clause 13 goes on to require the same thing of maintained schools and maintained special schools, all the independent schools and those independent special schools which are approved by the Secretary of State. The only difference in that part of the clause is that the accessibility strategy is called an accessibility plan when it is applied to all schools.
Again, it places an unqualified duty upon the governors of those schools to implement that accessibility plan. No respite is allowed, even if it cannot be afforded.
As for local authorities, I wish to add a further provision which requires this plan for schools to include the estimated costs and to invite, but not demand, the governing body to forward those estimated costs to the Secretary of State.
I move on to Amendment No. 129 which, as before, throws an obligation to fund back upon the Secretary of State rather than on the local education authority. Again, it is important that the obligation should be for government to pass on the duty to the local education authority.
Amendment No. 130 is to emphasise, yet again, that the governors of independent schools do not usually have a pot of gold to implement the Bill as it applies to them. Therefore, the accessibility plan must include some information as to whether or not the money is available, so that they have some notion that they are doing the Government's bidding. Therefore, a view must be taken about what the resources shall be and from where they shall come.
Amendment No. 131 again throws back to the Secretary of State the need to fund what could be extensive additions to schools. In practice, the governors of a county school would presumably funnel any such request through their maintaining local education authority. The governors of a voluntary school would make a direct request to the Secretary of State, supported by the local education authority. The governors of an independent school would have to make a request for a grant, not a loan, directly to the Secretary of State.
Amendments Nos. 192, 193 and 194 would amend Clause 40, which contains the customary financial provision that the costs arising from the Bill will be met by money provided by Parliament. Interestingly, the clause is titled:
"Expenses of the Secretary of State".
It does not refer to the expenses of local authorities, schools or colleges. In other words, the Secretary of State should fund his own Bill.
The amendments would place the financial responsibility firmly on the Government, who are the proposers and sponsors of the Bill. It is for the Government to explain how LEAs—and, in their turn, schools—throughout the maintained and independent sectors will be able to meet all their obligations under the Bill if the money is not forthcoming from central government. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I admit that I am not totally familiar with every word of the amendments, but the principle of making sure that resources are available to do the job seems reasonable. How will the Government calculate whether expenditure is reasonable?
Lord Northbourne: I support the principles behind the amendments, which are crucial to the success of the Bill. Many of us are concerned that the outcome of the Bill will be rather like the previous Government's care in the community policy, under which many establishments for people with mental difficulties were closed, but there was no care in the community because there were no resources with which to pay for it. Sending more young people to mainstream schools will save the Government or the local authority a lot of money, but we must ensure that the provision will be there in the mainstream schools to support those children.
Lord Davies of Oldham: As the noble Baroness has said, Amendments Nos. 114, 120, 129 and 130 would require responsible bodies to estimate the costs of their accessibility plans and to seek additional resources if necessary. Amendment No. 131 appears to go even further, by moving the costs of the planning duty on to the Secretary of State and providing that duties have to be complied with only to the extent that he has provided the resources.
Amendments Nos. 191, 192 and 193 would amend Clause 40, which authorises any expenditure required under the provisions of the Bill. The Bill currently makes no provision for expenditure. Clause 40 is drafted only in terms of expenditure under other Acts. The only possible need for the amendments appears to be that they are linked to the provision of resources by the Secretary of State in relation to the planning duty. The Government contend that the amendments are unnecessary and that those relating to the planning duty would place new burdens on responsible bodies.
In preparing their strategies and plans, LEAs and schools should take into account the anticipated resources to be made available to them over the planning period. The duty is clearly to plan within the resources available to the responsible body. That is realistic and common sense. To link the implementation of the duties to the provision of extra funding ignores the resources that are already available to responsible bodies, and would, I fear, merely give some bodies an excuse for not acting as quickly as we would want them to.
CWH 214
The Government are making £220 million available through the schools access initiative over the next three years to ensure that LEAs, in partnership with their schools, have the support to improve access by disabled pupils. We are supporting capital funding of £2 billion in total next year. These are some of the sources of funding that LEAs and schools will take into account when drawing up their plans.
The proposal that responsible bodies should forward their estimates to the Secretary of State is excessively burdensome and smacks of a great deal of sentimentality. It seeks to take away the initiative from LEAs and schools and to make their planning dependent on central government decisions.
The planning duty is not intended to make all schools accessible immediately. There are 25,000 schools in the mainstream sector in England alone and we recognise that accessibility will take some time. We also acknowledge that different schools require different amounts of work to make them accessible. Defining what needs to be done is not a job for the Secretary of State, but for planning at the LEA and school level.
It would not be right to link so directly the implementation of the new duties to resources from the Government. As I have explained, responsible bodies will already plan within the resources available to them and those resources are growing. To allow any exemption from the duty would give an excuse to slow the pace at which we are now making schools accessible to disabled children.
I therefore hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and her colleagues will withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Blatch: I was interested in what the Minister had to say about what will be required of schools. Clause 13 refers to the physical environment of schools for which they are the responsible body for the purpose of,
"increasing the extent to which disabled pupils are able to take advantage of education and associated services provided or offered by the school".
This is not the status quo, but each school starts from the base that it is required to produce plans which increase. That is what Clause 13 states. There is no flexibility for governors of a school to say that they have done all they can and need do no more. They are not free to say that. Clause 13 requires that the purpose of the planning is to increase the extent to which schools are able to make provision. It would be helpful to have clarification.
In the real world, the Minister is right to say that not every school can do so overnight; we know that. From the day this legislation becomes operative every school and LEA will be subject to the provisions of the Bill. So every school will have to provide plans to effect an increase in the provisions they make for young people with disabilities. Again, in principle, nobody is arguing with that. However, having to prepare and produce plans is burdensome. The plans have to be available for inspection. Someone has to judge whether they are acceptable. It is not enough simply to say that this will

CWH 215
be the cost of these plans because to plan in a financial vacuum would be irresponsible. If they are going to make substantial changes, particularly structural, curricular or staffing changes, then clearly there has to be some costing of those changes, and the governors of those schools will have to make a judgment as to whether or not they can so plan.
In reply to my amendments, the Minister said the governors would have to plan within the resources they have available. It does not say that in the Bill. It does not say that the planning should be limited to what is believed to be affordable. I presume that the Secretary of State will have a view about what can or what cannot be afforded, but it would be helpful to know what will happen in practice. A school may decide that either it cannot afford to do more because it does not have the flexibility within the budget, or it may decide that it can do more but only if it has additional funds to do it. Not only would it like to do more but it probably needs to do more. It would be helpful to know what happens to either an LEA and/or a school in those circumstances.
I do not have to remind the noble Lord about the teachers' pay award because he will have been quite busy over the weekend spinning out the news about that. This morning, I met some members of local authorities who are absolutely desperate because they do not have the funding to cover the pay award. They are talking already about having to use the standards fund money—which presumably was never provided for pay awards for teachers—in order to meet the pay award that has just been announced by the Government.
Already local authorities are in some very real difficulties. The Minister has to say a little more than merely that schools do not have to make the required changes very quickly; that there is not necessarily any requirement on them to do so; and to argue against what t believe are the words on the face of the Bill. It would be helpful if the noble Lord—I think he has had enough billets-doux passed to him from his officials—would give me a very full answer as to how schools and LEAs will manage in those circumstances.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Members of the Committee will appreciate that my French is a little rusty, but I would not define these as billets-doux under any circumstances. I shall attempt to respond to the points which the noble Baroness has made.
The thrust of my response to the amendments is that they are not acceptable because they change responsibility with regard to the plans in terms of direct expenditure and authorisation by the Secretary of State. The burdensome quality about that is in relation to that sense of its dimension as regards the development of the plans at LEA level and individually within each school.
Of course we recognise that schools and local authorities are always under pressure in relation to the best way to manage their resources. They have a whole range of obligations placed upon them as regards the
CWH 216
pay of qualified staff within the schools. We all know that schools have to make a judgment about their budgets in order to provide the effective education of students within the context of the legal framework in which they work.
Clearly this particular Bill provides a fresh part of the framework within which they work. It is clearly envisaged that the movement towards improving access and reducing what we know to be the value of the full implementation of the policy will take place over time. It is a progressive duty against the background of the resources which are made available. In my earlier reply I gave the Government's very clear identification of additional resources at this stage which they can foresee are required in order to implement the provisions within this Bill. Significant sums are being devoted to that objective.
We need to recognise that some changes will be able to be implemented very rapidly indeed once the Bill has become law, because they involve very limited costs. Other changes will take place over time as resources become available. We can all think of schools and institutions which vary enormously in these terms. I can recall one school a few years ago which had been built on an extremely attractive architecturally designed terraced principle: but it meant that every single movement in the school involved steps. The significant change required in that school—much of which has already been implemented—was much greater than most other schools would have had to face because of the particular design of the school. The flexibility in relationship to this matter surely rests with the governing bodies of the schools and with the LEA.
When it comes to the question of how far people are falling short of the requirements of the Act and whether progress in some areas is being made as rapidly as it ought to be, the noble Baroness will appreciate that the provisions of the Act will be part and parcel of the inspection requirement for schools and LEAs. We have a structure to ensure that, over time, schools and LEAs make adequate progress on the overall provisions of the Act.
Baroness Blatch: What the noble Lord has described is no different from what happens at the moment. For many years—certainly since the 1986 Act—schools have been doing what they can to improve accessibility for those with disabilities. The Bill builds on existing legislation. The Minister, referring to Amendment No. 131, said that planning does not cost very much. Local authorities might take issue with that, but Amendment No. 131 is not just about planning. If the noble Lord cares to read it he will see that the responsible body may make a request to the Secretary of State for such extra resources as are necessary to implement the accessibility plan. It is about the implementation of the plan, not just the plan itself.
It has been useful to flesh out some of the issues with the Minister, but the underlying point is that as the Bill goes through Parliament, we are raising the hopes of many people. My concern is that those hopes will be dashed when it comes to reality. The Minister gave the

CWH 217
game away in his first response to the amendments when he said that we were are talking about planning. We are not. We are talking about delivery of a service in schools to people with disabilities. At the end of the day what will really matter is whether the service improves as a result of the Bill. Planning for the improvements will be part of that. I am concerned that we should be realistic.
Rumours are abounding that the Bill will receive very cursory attention when it gets to the House of Commons. I hope that that will not be the case. I hope that there will be an opportunity for it to be fully considered in Committee and that the process is not truncated, unless an election is called and it has to be dealt with in the sweep-up. That, of course, could not be avoided. My understanding is that this is one of the Bills at the top of the priority list and that it will be shunted through with very little debate. I hope that that will not happen, because such matters need to be considered by both Houses of Parliament. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 12, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) An inspection under section 38 of the Education Act 1997 (inspections of local education authorities) may extend to the performance by a local education authority of their functions in relation to the preparation, review, revision and implementation of their accessibility strategy.").
The noble Lord said: This is a group of Government amendments relating to the duty on schools and LEAs in England and Wales to plan to increase, over time, the physical accessibility of school premises and the curriculum for disabled pupils and prospective disabled pupils. The amendments are technical in nature, but make the planning duty more rigorous. The Minister wrote to the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Sharp, to explain their effect, but I am happy to explain further to the Committee if that would be helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: Sadly, the Minister did not take the precaution of writing to me. I particularly want to question him on Amendments Nos. 146 and 146A. This is an odd bit of the Bill. New Section 28D imposes a duty to prepare plans on maintained schools, independent schools and special schools approved under Section 342 of the 1996 Act. I thought that special schools under Section 342 were independent schools, but I would be happy to be enlightened on that. I thought that they came under the heading of independent schools in a general sort of way. Then at the top of page 14 in new Section 28E(5)(b), the Secretary of State has a right to see the accessibility plan prepared by an independent school. For some reason, he does not have the right to see a plan prepared by a special school under Section 342 and I do not understand why not. He does not have the right to see a plan prepared by a city academy and I do not see why not. He certainly does not have a right to see a plan prepared by a maintained school. It does not
CWH 218
appear that the local education authority has that either, so I do not particularly see what is going on there.
On page 20 new Section 28M(1)(a) refers to powers conferred on a responsible body under new Sections 28D and 28E. I cannot see any sign of powers conferred by those sections on responsible bodies; they are all about duties. I cannot see what happens to, say, an independent school which is subject to the sanctions under this section. I can see how directions may be enforced through Section 31 of the Supreme Court Act but I do not know what reasonable level of appeal that gives. The Secretary of State is here taking power to force an independent school to make a plan and then to carry that plan through. There are no financial limits on this that I can see. I would like to know how an independent school which is subject to a direction under this section deals with that, whether it has a right of appeal that is a fair and open right of appeal, or whether it is just a case of judicial review and you have to put up with what the Secretary of State says. I cannot see how the amendment adds anything to what is already in the Bill.
New Section 28M(1) refers to a "responsible body", which includes those in subsection (1)(b). Presumably the bodies mentioned in subsection (1)(b), city academies and special schools, are already subject to the duties in new Section 28M(1). I do not see what subsection (1)(b) adds to that and why you are getting anything extra and that it is necessary to impose extra duties on special schools and city academies under Section 342. If that is necessary, why are they not taken out of new Section 28M(1)?
In Section 28M(5) there is a power to enforce directions under the Supreme Court Act which is not, so far as I can see, being extended to subsection (1)(b). I do not know why not.
Later on we shall discuss Amendment No. 147 which attaches to this clause. I am not sure whether it should have been grouped with the amendments we are discussing but it seems odd that the Welsh Assembly can give directions but cannot enforce them. I shall be grateful to know why, in the context of this general discussion, the Welsh have to be disempowered in this way.
4 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord has ranged widely over the amendments which I have proposed. The amendments provide for the normal inspection frameworks for schools and LEAs to cover their functions which relate to their accessibility plans and strategies. We will put in place a robust system for monitoring the planning duty. This will include using the normal inspection framework for schools and LEAs. As regards independent schools, the inspection frameworks may also cover inspection of the preparation, the revision, the review, the implementation and the publication of schools' plans, including the aspects relating to the Bill.
We might be asked why the proposals in the amendments were not included in the Bill from the beginning. They reflect the discussions that we had

CWH 219
about the issues at Second Reading and are designed to make more explicit the relevant powers under the Bill. I hear what the noble Lord said about his anxieties but I assure him that the amendments are an attempt to improve the Bill in the light of our discussions. I believe that they meet his objections.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, what do those who may have been representing independent schools feel about the amendments? What discussion has there been with them and what was their response? Secondly, if, in the opinion of the department the inspection reports of the independent schools do not meet the Secretary of State's satisfaction, what sanction can be imposed?
Lord Davies of Oldham: If independent schools consider that the Secretary of State is proposing something that is unreasonable, they can go to judicial review and seek a judgment against that direction. I understand that the amendments result from widespread consultation. The Secretary of State at the end of the day can enforce directions in court if weaknesses are identified in the response to the Bill on the part of independent schools. Discussion took place in full with the independent schools joint council and I understand that it is happy with this section and with the entirety of the Bill. However, we do respect the probing of noble Baronesses and noble Lords on these issues.
Lord Lucas: I do not believe that the Minister answered a single one of my questions. I have no difficulty with the earlier amendments in the group; it seems entirely reasonable to extend the inspection, as suggested, and I am entirely clear about what is being proposed. I understand that I asked a number of detailed and technical questions for which the noble Lord may not have been briefed and I shall be happy to receive the usual letter.
However, what the Minister said about judicial review raises a large question. If judicial review is really what is being talked about under new Section 28M(5)(b) and if that is the process at which we are looking, it is a process in which the dice are heavily weighted in favour of the department, which could demand extremely large expenditure from an independent school without any effective redress on the part of the independent school because it would have to prove that the Minister was acting entirely unreasonably. I suspect that when the matter concerns the Department for Education, that is unlikely.
I do not know that that is the case but it seems from what the Minister said that it may well be. I should therefore be grateful for answers to all the questions I asked, if not now, then later. It is a very odd collection of powers to direct at different groups of schools referred to in different ways. I should like to understand how they all mesh together and what scope independent schools in particular have, because they do not have resource to Government money, to appeal against and deal with unreasonable demands made of
CWH 220
them by the Secretary of State. I should also like to know why the Welsh are being disenfranchised in this. I am happy to wait for answers, but, please, I want answers to all my questions.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I shall write to the noble Lord to clarify those aspects which he regards as being unclear. We shall have further opportunities to consider these issues. I hope that for today he will accept that I have expressed in good faith the intent of the amendments. My reference to judicial review was naturally very much the end game where difficulties have occurred. He will recognise that there are i n fact stages prior to our reaching that final point on the unacceptability of the decision of the Secretary of State.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone)The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone) moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 12, line 11, leave out ("(7)") and insert ("(7A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 12, line 23, at end insert ("and must prepare further such plans at such times as may be prescribed").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 1.21:
Page 12, line 28, at end insert—
("(7A) An inspection under the School Inspections Act 1996 may extend to the performance by the responsible body of its functions in relation to the preparation, publication, review, revision and implementation of its accessibility plan.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 121A:
Page 12, line 28, at end insert—
("(7A) In the case of an independent school, the accessibility plan shall state that the Governors are expected to take reasonable steps over a period of years to ensure that disabled pupils and adults can gain access to the principal parts of school buildings, but that they shall not be under any requirement to make all parts of their premises accessible to disabled people.
(7B) In the case of an independent school, accessibility plans and strategies shall not oblige a school to alter or adapt their premises in ways that would change or damage features of their building which have historic or architectural significance.
(7C) In the case of independent schools, accessibility plans and strategies shall not impose any requirement to alter or adapt their premises until at least 20 years have elapsed from the date on which the plan was prepared.
(7D) In the case of independent schools, accessibility plans and strategies shall be based on recommendations made by the Independent Schools Inspectorate.").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 121A and 131 A were debated last Tuesday. Therefore I shall not move them. I speak to Amendments Nos. 128B and 129ZA.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble Lord will be able to do so when we come to the amendment. There are other amendments before it.
[Amendment No. 121A not moved]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 122 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 123.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 12, leave out lines 31 to 35.
The noble Baroness said: I should prefer to see something on the face of the Bill and, if necessary, in a schedule to the Bill rather than requiring yet more regulations. It is, thus, an argument to cut down bureaucracy as well as the secondary regulations that follow from a primary Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: We need to clarify what is education and what are associated services for the purposes of the planning duty. The face of the Bill is not the right place to do that, so we need regulations, as that would be more appropriate.
We have already discussed the regulation-making power in Clause 10. We need a separate regulation-making power for the purposes of Clauses 10 and 13, because the coverage of the two duties will be somewhat different. The services covered by the planning duty will be narrower than the anti-discrimination duties since the planning duty is limited to improving the physical environment of the schools. It would be unrealistic and indeed unreasonable to expect LEAs and schools to plan for activities that take place away from schools' premises, over which the LEA and the school have no control.
When speaking to a similar amendment on Clause 10, I said that the regulation-making power will allow us to clarify the position where there are grey areas as to whether a service constitutes education or whether it is an associated service. These regulations underpin the planning duty and will make sure that LEAs and schools are clear what that duty entails. In the light of this, therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I have no choice but to withdraw the amendment. I am concerned about the plethora of information and regulation. If the Government have done the work on this—it is a Bill that will go on the statute book very quickly—they will be aware of the distinction between associated services and education. In view of some of the earlier debates in Committee, it will be difficult to have a defining line between the two. We need to make a distinction between associated services and education to avoid the real danger of grey areas. For many children, education is more than just the teaching of English, mathematics and science. We
CWH 222
have given many examples of that. I am sorry that that cannot be done in the Bill or a schedule to it so that we could all see it now. I have no choice but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 123 and 124:
Page 12, line 31, leave out ("The Secretary of State may by regulations") and insert ("Regulations may").
Page 12, line 39, leave out subsection (11) and insert—("(11) In relation to Wales—
"prescribed" means prescribed in regulations; and
"regulations" means regulations made by the National Assembly.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 13, line 3, leave out from ("to") to end of line 11 and insert ("the arrangements and facilities available and planned for the assistance of disabled pupils").
The noble Baroness said: The last part of Clause 13 lists what the governors of a school have to include in their annual plan of work to be done to make the school more accessible for young people with disabilities. Such a list makes the Bill excessively bureaucratic and the items in it will inevitably become the only information given in the report.
Rather than attempting to list some of the information that is expected to be included in the annual plan, it is better to make a general requirement to cover all the arrangements and all the facilities available and planned for the assistance of disabled pupils.
My amendment follows the same thrust, but its aim is to reduce bureaucracy and to make the requirement to meet obligations for disabled people more understandable and more flexible in terms of the particular needs of the young people and the particular provision to be made by schools and LEAs. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: We are competing with the elements and I am not sure that I heard everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, but I think I got the gist of it.
The clause amends Section 317 of the Education Act 1996 to impose an additional duty on maintained schools to include information on the accessibility plans they have prepared under the planning duty in their governors' annual report. Maintained schools are already required to include certain information about what they have done for disabled pupils.
We are confident that the provision is clear as it stands. Changing the wording would probably cause confusion for maintained schools.
There is a fine balance to be struck between placing duties on schools and reducing burdens on them. I recognise and sympathise with the point made by the noble Baroness. We do not want to add undue extra burdens. Maintained schools will simply have to include their accessibility plans—which will have already been drawn up—in their governors' report.

CWH 223
We must ensure that we get the information we need. Being vague about the information to be included in the annual report will probably be unhelpful to schools. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Accessibility strategies and plans: procedure]:
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 126:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
REPORTS BY CHIEF INSPECTOR
(" . Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools shall report to the Secretary of State on—

(a) the quality of the provision made by schools for children with special educational needs and disabilities;

(b) the extent to which schools have used their delegated budget to meet the needs of children with special educational needs and disabilities;

(c) the quality of policies drawn up by schools under section 317(5) of the Education Act 1996;

(d) the extent to which the objectives for schools' policies are achieved;

(e) the quality of the plans drawn up by schools under section 28D of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and

(f) the extent to which the plans drawn up under section 28D of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 have been implemented by schools."

The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 127 and 128. These three amendments come from the Special Educational Consortium. Initially they look remarkably similar. However, they would fulfil three different purposes. Amendment No. 126 ensures that Ofsted monitors aspects of the school's performance in respect of its duties to children with special educational needs and disabilities.
The second amendment, Amendment No. 127, is to ensure that the LEA monitors the school's provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Amendment No. 128 is to ensure that Ofsted monitors the performance of the LEAs and reports to the Secretary of State on what the LEA is doing in respect of children with special educational needs and disabilities. It also creates an additional duty to draw up regulations to monitor LEAs in this respect.
I should like to take a little time to explain the amendments at greater length. A number of concerns lie behind Amendment No. 126. The first is that Ofsted should report from time to time on how well schools are doing in meeting their responsibilities to children with special educational needs and disabilities. Secondly, the special educational needs and disabilities issues should be addressed together. Thirdly, there should be greater clarity about the use of schools'
CWH 224
delegated budgets in relation to special educational needs. We touched on that issue in discussing the first set of amendments.
The first concern, that Ofsted should report from time to time, and that school accessibility plans should be inspected by Ofsted, is addressed by government Amendment No. 121, which we have now accepted. We welcome this amendment and the recognition that this aspect of schools' work needs to be inspected.
The second concern that this amendment is designed to address is that of the separate structures around special educational needs and disabilities which will lead to duplication of effort. The aim is to find a range of ways to bring together approaches to special educational needs and disability issues.
It is hoped that by bringing the monitoring of schools' responses to special educational needs and disabilities together in national inspection, Ofsted would support a more integrated approach to the two aspects of work, and report from time to time on how schools are doing nationally.
The remaining concern that underlies this amendment is the lack of clarity about the special educational needs element in the school's delegated budget; namely, how much it should be and what it ought to be used for. Schools have a statutory duty to set out in their special educational needs policy how they allocate resources to work with children with special educational needs. A study in 1995 by the University of the West of England highlighted the fact that many schools were not addressing this aspect of the policy adequately; some were not addressing it at all. Work arising from a more recent study in education with the evaluation of parent partnership services suggested that there was currently little change in the situation.
I know that the Government have been consulting on the revised code of practice on these issues, and that they are also consulting at the same time on the revision of the Special Educational Needs (Information) Regulations. Changes had been proposed that would require greater clarity in relation to the budget that is delegated to schools for SEN work and what it should be used for. However, many people who saw the draft code of practice did not see those changes in the proposed regulations, and there has been no mention of these since. There is no reference to them in the SEN update published in December 2000 which sets out, the Government's response to the consultation process on the code of practice.
I am looking for a reassurance that the Government are proposing to go ahead with proposals for the revision of these regulations, which would be welcomed, as well as some detail about what the revised regulations would require.
I turn to Amendment No. 127. Section 127 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 sets out the statutory framework to the code of practice for securing effective relationships between local education authorities and maintained schools. Many of the frameworks developed by the local education

CWH 225
authorities under this code of practice are focused primarily on the national curriculum key stage outcomes for children at the schools. Some LEAs include indicators of school effectiveness in meeting special educational needs. However, the concern underlying the amendment is to ensure that special educational needs issues are addressed as a matter of course within those responsibilities.
The second concern is that disability issues should be addressed within the same framework and at the same time. This second concern is a theme for the Special Educational Consortium throughout the Bill; namely, that if special educational needs and disability issues are not addressed side by side in the same clauses, they will become separated and efforts made to address those issues will be duplicated unnecessarily.
In tabling Amendment No. 127, we seek a reassurance that the special educational needs code of practice will, when the revision is completed, reflect the monitoring duties of the LEA and make explicit reference to the importance of including special educational needs and disability measures of school performance within the monitoring framework developed under the School Standards and Framework Act. Secondly, we seek a reassurance that the code of practice for securing effective relationships between the local educational authorities and maintained schools will in future make reference to the need to monitor school performance on special educational needs and disabilities.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 128A. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that Ofsted monitors the performance of local education authorities in respect of their duties to children with a disability or with special educational needs; to ensure that Ofsted reports its findings to the Secretary of State; and to create a duty to draw up regulations to monitor the performance of local education authorities in the performance of their duties to children with special educational needs or a disability.
Part of the purpose of the amendment mirrors that of Amendment No. 126; namely, to ensure that Ofsted inspects the local education authority's accessibility strategy. That purpose is now being met by the Government's Amendment No. 115. We welcome the amendment and the recognition that that aspect of the work of LEAs needs to be inspected.
The second subsection of this clause, however, seeks to establish performance indicators relating to the performance of LEA duties on special educational needs and disability. Currently, the Audit Commission uses two indicators of how LEAs are performing on special educational needs: first, the number of statements maintained by the LEA; and, secondly, the percentage of statements drawn up within the statutory timescales.
While those two indicators are of interest, they are quite inadequate to reflect the wider work of the LEAs on this issue. We should like to see LEAs monitored on a much wider range of issues, to include measures of
CWH 226
parental satisfaction, measures of success in meeting SEN in the early years and other indicators such as the information provided for schools and for parents, indicators on the allocation of resources to SEN and indicators on the outcomes for children with SEN or disabilities. Such monitoring would not necessarily have to be undertaken by Ofsted or the Audit Commission but we know that there has been some consideration of those issues within the department and we should like it to be considered as a prerequisite for these purposes. We want to know what is the Government's thinking on the monitoring of LEA performance in special educational needs duties and to seek some reassurances that that work is going ahead. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I rise briefly to support the noble Baroness. Dropped into my box this morning was a copy of Local Education Authority Support for School Improvement. Page 42 states:
"Overall, provision for SEN is the weakest aspect of the work of LEAs".
The figures here show that the schools which were adjudged unsatisfactory were greater in number than those which were judged good or satisfactory added together.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendments Nos. 126 and 128A, which I shall take together, would place specific duties on Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to report to the Secretary of State on the accessibility plans for children with disabilities and the policies and provisions for SEN drawn up by schools and LEAs, and require the Secretary of State to monitor the performance of LEAs against specified indicators. So it is the Government's view that these amendments are necessary and I hope that I can give the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, the reassurance that she seeks. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools already has the power to advise the Secretary of State at any time on any matter related to the provision of education and a duty to provide advice and support on such matters as the Secretary of State specifies in a request to him. Ofsted inspectors evaluate and report on the quality and range of opportunities for learning provided by a school for all its pupils, including those with SEN and disabilities. They also consider a school's policies and plans, including its SEN policy, which will include information on how resources are allocated among pupils with special educational needs.
The Secretary of State can use his powers under Section 2 of the Schools Inspections Act 1996 and Section 38 of the Education Act 1997 to require a report from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools on any school or LEA functions relating to education. Noble Lords will remember that I gave a commitment last Tuesday that, once the Bill is enacted, the Government will ask him to look at the impact on inclusion of the provisions of new Section 316(3), to be inserted in the 1996 Act by Clause 1. We will expect Ofsted to take account of how schools are implementing the guidance contained in the revised SEN code of practice in future inspections.

CWH 227
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector already has the power to inspect LEAs. SEN is one of the core activities of an Ofsted LEA inspection. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has said that it may not currently be one of their strongest areas. We hope that this Bill will rectify this and lead to improvements.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has already said, Government Amendments Nos. 116 and 121, which have just been agreed, will provide for the normal inspection framework for schools to cover functions that relate to accessibility plans. That includes their preparation, their quality and their implementation. Amendment No. 115 would secure a similar effect for inspections of LEAs. I hope that having heard my reassurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
Amendment No. 127 would impose a specific duty on LEAs, when carrying out their duties under Section 127(6) of the School Standards and Framework Act, to take into account the same range of factors as in Amendments Nos. 126 and 128A. Again, the amendment seems to be unnecessary.
The duty imposed on LEAs by the School Standards and Framework Act to promote high standards of education for all pupils covers children with special educational needs and disabilities. LEAs already take the factors set out in Amendment No. 127 into account when carrying out those duties. They will be able to do the same in relation to the new duties under Clause 13, when they come into effect. On request, a school must provide any information required by the LEA to discharge its functions. LEAs have the right to inspect any of their maintained schools to enable them to exercise any of those functions, although they would generally be able to obtain the information they needed without using that power.
Maintained schools are accountable through their governing bodies to their maintaining authority and to parents. The noble Baroness was concerned about the allocation of resources in schools for special educational needs. However, school governing bodies have to use their best endeavours to ensure that children with SEN get the help called for by their learning difficulties. They must report to parents on how they do that and publish comprehensive information about their SEN policies, including how resources are allocated for children with SEN, as well as how they evaluate the success of the education that they provide for those children.
LEAs have statutory duties to identify, assess and provide for children with SEN and to keep their arrangements under review. They, too, are required to publish a range of information about their SEN provision. We propose that it should be enhanced by information on their SEN policies and plans for providing SEN support and the arrangements of what schools might be expected to provide from their budgets for SEN.
Perhaps I may go back to what I said in addressing the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. There will be improvements of this kind. Of course I sympathise with the aim of promoting better
CWH 228
monitoring and accountability. However, I believe that this will happen and I do not think that we need add to the statutory framework to achieve that.
We propose to enhance the guidance in the final version of the revised SEN code of practice, to which the noble Baroness also referred, to bring together, highlight and provide guidance on the strategic roles and responsibilities of both schools and LEAs for children with SEN, including their responsibilities in relation to funding.
We will cross refer to the separate duties they will have for increasing the physical accessibility to school premises and the curriculum to people with disabilities, and highlight the role played by other partners. This should provide a better understanding, particularly among parents, of who is responsible for what, as well as helping to secure greater monitoring and accountability for SEN.
I hope that in the light of these reassurances the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for her full reply. She spelt out a good deal more of the Government's thinking underlying monitoring and inspection of the special educational needs and disability provisions. I am also glad to have her reassurance that with the revision of the special educational needs code of practice we shall have cross-reference between the two codes. That will be extremely useful.
I do not think that the Minister mentioned the Government thinking on special educational needs information regulations. I wondered whether anything could be added to that. The noble Baroness may like to write to me about that issue. We shall look carefully at what she said and thank her very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 128 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 128A not moved.]
Clause 14 [Accessibility strategies and plans: procedure]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No 128B:
Page 13, line 24, at beginning insert ("in the case of a maintained school,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 128B, I speak to Amendment No.129ZA.
Amendment No. 128B is a paving amendment. However, I wish to take advantage of the reference to maintained schools by asking the noble Baroness one question. Would it not be more efficient in the maintained sector for an LEA, with a group of schools in one area to allow some schools to specialise? Some schools might be allowed to specialise in children with mobility problems or others in children with audio or visual problems. That seems a less expensive and

CWH 229
demanding way to get this programme off the ground, rather than to insist that every school to provide accessibility contemporaneously.
Amendment No. 129ZA relates to independent schools. The Independent Schools Council is not entirely happy about the aspects of this Bill which relate to accessibility. I set down several amendments in that context last Tuesday.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a number of questions. This is a probing amendment. First, may independent schools charge for extra services which are supplied? The independent school with which I am familiar has a considerable reputation for dealing with children with dyslexia and Asperger's syndrome. The school could not cope with 30 per cent of that kind of pupil unless the parents could pay for the extra teachers for dyslexia whom the school employs.
My second question is this: who will pay? Most independent schools are non-profit making organisations. Therefore the reality is that, however one looks at it, if the parents of children who have the problem are not paying, the other parents will have to pay. While it is reasonable that other parents should be asked to make a donation or a voluntary contribution, I am not sure what is the position in relation to human rights if other parents are forced to pay the cost of what might be expensive alterations and so on, or extra staff.
I realise that the noble Baroness may not be able or want to answer all these questions immediately. I hope that she will write to us if that is not possible. I am not trying to be unreasonable.
Does any of the £220 million to which the noble Lord referred for the schools access initiative go to independent schools? Finally, what sanction is there against independent schools if they fall behind in carrying out their access policy? Who would that hit? Would it hit the governors, the parents or the children? Who goes to prison? That is the ultimate bottom line. That is a question to which I do not know the answer. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I appreciate the very reasonable way in which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, proposed the amendments. I shall try to reply in kind.
The clause joins local authorities with their responsibilities. Of course, independent schools do not have those responsibilities. The amendments are therefore misplaced in that respect.
Lord Northfield: Clause 14 states:
"In preparing their accessibility strategy, a local education authority must have regard to"
and, of course, the strategies also apply to independent schools.
Lord Davies of Oldham: This part of the clause relates to the question of the maintained schools. I was not intending to make a point over the location of the amendment because I was seeking to reply to the questions raised by the noble Lord.
CWH 230
On the general principle, it is clear that we are seeking to make progress in increasing physical accessibility to children who attend all schools and therefore we expect the independent schools to be no exception. They must plan within the context of their anticipated available financial resources as part of the same framework that we expect in the maintained sector.
I turn now to some of specific points raised. I was asked whether there can be a charge for extra services. In some specific circumstances, it will be made clear that these are resource charges and that will be permitted. More generally, the position we seek to achieve is that all children who attend independent schools benefit from the school's provision for its community. That does not mean that they all partake equally of all the facilities available. A child can go to an independent school and be a poor sports person and therefore not take advantage of the school playing fields, but no one would decry that provision being made by the school for others. Likewise there would be an expectation that the school should provide adequately for all those who attended and many students who went along with some disability would be expected to be included within that, with the proviso that in special cases there might be special charges.
On the question of sanctions, we are not anticipating anyone going to prison, to use the graphic phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. However, the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to take action against the proprietor. I know that that is not a term as it stands at present which is beloved by some sides of the Committee, but it is the legal term. The Secretary of State would have the power to direct the proprietor to take appropriate action where, quite clearly, the school provision was outwith the requirements of the law of the land, as would be the case once this Bill was enacted.
It is the case that the schools access initiative is directed at the maintained sector, but that does not preclude the possibility of the independent sector participating in certain projects and grants from which it would benefit. However, the main provision clearly relates to the maintained sector.
I hope these are adequate replies, and where I have been deficient, I shall write to the noble Lord about the matter.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord makes light of the possibility of anyone going to prison. I know why he has done that because it is a rather extreme resolution of a problem. The noble Lord will need to be more specific in relation to the question that has been posed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and in fact was posed by me on an earlier amendment.
What are the sanctions? The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, lightly dismisses the fact that someone may go to prison, but nevertheless follows that up by saying that, as the noble Lord suggested, at the end of the day the Secretary of State can take the proprietor to court. If that happens and the school is found guilty, what are the sanctions? What happens then?

CWH 231
The second part of the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which is most pertinent, is that in most independent schools, the sole funders of the school are the parents of the children who attend the school. Therefore, any penalty on the school or indeed any action taken on the part of the school may well have been taken with the full agreement of the governing body, and/or the parent body. If the parents and/or the governor, as well as the owner of the school, are culpable, who bears the brunt of the sanction? At the end of the day, what can happen to a school? Simply because the school did not meet its obligations under the Act, could the Secretary of State effect the closure of the school?
It is important to know who is at the end of the line. Simply to use the word "proprietor" is not good enough. We have had a long debate—and we shall have another in a moment—about the word "proprietor". Very often the schools are owned by the parents or at least, the only reason the school is in existence at all is because the customers, that is the parents of the children who attend, are the sole funders, and therefore the school exists simply because of the governing body and the head teacher and teachers who run it.
Lord Northhourne: I am most grateful to the Minister for his helpful and constructive reply. The only point I should like to make is that he referred to the same financial framework as for the maintained sector but it is not the same financial framework. The maintained sector is financed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the taxpayer; private schools are not. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, the proprietors are trustees because almost all those schools are companies limited by guarantee. The proprietors have no possibility of gaining financially from the success of the school, and equally they are not liable for the failure of the school. They are merely liable for the direction of the school. The money comes from the parents, and reasonably, belongs to the parents. We need to look more closely at this aspect which we cannot do now, in Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 129 and 129ZA not moved]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 129A: Page 13, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) In preparing guidance under subsection (1)(b) or (2), the Secretary of State (for England) and the National Assembly for Wales shall consult the Disability Rights Commission.").
The noble Baroness said: I hope that it is self-explanatory and that the Minister will be able to say that this will in fact happen, but it is important to put it on record that that will happen as a matter of right. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Addington: I think that the noble Baroness is right and it should happen. I echo her again in saying I hope that the Government will agree to this.
Baroness Blackstone: I can be helpful. I can give the Committee a commitment today that we will consult
CWH 232
with the DRC when preparing planning duty guidance for LEAs. I can also make that commitment on behalf of the National Assembly, who confirm that it will also do so.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for that answer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 130 to 131A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 14, line 1, leave out ("proprietor") and insert ("governing body").
The noble Baroness said: I have re-read the response by the Minister to my suggestion that the word "proprietor" should be replaced by the words "governing body". Absolutely nothing in what I have read convinces me that my amendments are any less valid. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has just said that the word "proprietor" is not the most appropriate word. The people concerned are trustees and governing bodies and it seems to me that to use the word "proprietor" is an anomaly in the Bill.
I have gone over the arguments which I will not repeat but I feel just as strongly about the matter and it is something to which we shall return again and again. I have reflected on what has been said since we last met. I hope that the Minister may also have done so and will come up with a more encouraging reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I feel I am not going to be any more encouraging but I admire the noble Baroness for her persistence. I have some sympathy with her about the use of legal terminology that is not consistent with everyday use. However, I have given up the battle whereas she goes on fighting.
I can only reiterate what I said when we discussed this on an earlier day in the Committee. The term "proprietor" covers those responsible for the management of schools, including independent schools, whether profit-making or non-profit-making. The definition was originally set out, as I believe I implied but was not sure about last time, in the 1944 Education Act. We want all schools—including all independent schools—to be covered by all of the new duties. These amendments, I am advised, would prevent this.
During Committee stage on Monday last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that independent schools had governing bodies and that was the reasoning behind her amendment. But I understand that that is not the position. However, every independent school will have a proprietor within the legal definition contained in the Bill
The Bill uses the definition of proprietor in the 1996 Education Act. This will cover all the arrangements that exist in all independent schools. A tribunal will be required to use the definition contained in the Bill and

CWH 233
it would make for lots of legal difficulties if it simply consulted a dictionary and used a dictionary definition. I hope that that is a little more helpful.
Baroness Blatch: The tribunal will only have to use the definition because that is the definition that the Government will make sure is in the Bill. That does not make it right, nor does the fact that it appeared in the 1996 Act, and certainly it does not make it right that it appeared in the 1944 Act. If one looks up the dictionary definition of "proprietor", it does not fit the description of people we are talking about. I believe that that is wrong. I will continue to fight for a change in the Bill but I will not labour the arguments which, at this stage, do not bear repetition. I do not believe it will be fruitful to return to this issue at this Committee stage but we shall return to it. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Baroness Wilkins Baroness Wilkins moved Amendment No. 135:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
ACCESSIBLE INFORMATION POLICIES
(" . In the 1995 Act, insert the following section—
"Accessible information policies
28EA.—(1) Each local education authority must prepare in writing and in accessible format a policy (their "accessible information policy") for ensuring that all written information available to non-disabled children and parents is available to disabled children and disabled parents in their preferred, accessible format, at the time they need it.
(2) Each local education authority must appoint a named officer to be responsible for implementing and monitoring the accessible information policy including planning localised production of information in accessible format and disseminating advice and information to schools, disabled parents and disabled pupils.
(3) It is the duty of each local education authority to implement their accessible information policy.
(4) It is the duty of each local education authority to publicise their accessible information policy to disabled children and parents.
(5) Each school must prepare in writing and in alternative formats a policy (their "accessible information policy") for ensuring that written information available to non-disabled pupils and parents is available to disabled pupils and parents in their preferred, accessible format, at the time they need it.
(6) It is the duty of each school to implement their accessible information policy.
(7) It is the duty of each school to publicise their accessible information policy to disabled children and parents.
(8) Guidance under subsections (1) to (7) may be issued—

(a) for England, by the Secretary of State; and

(b) for Wales by the National Assembly.

(9) "Written information" includes correspondence, curriculum information, reading materials required to support a child's learning and any other type of information which is otherwise made available to pupils or parents.
(10) "Accessible format" means information in large print, in braille, in Moon, on tape, on disc or in another electronic format, on video, in easy English or in any other format designed to be accessible to disabled people who have difficulty reading standard print.
CWH 234
(11) "School" means—

(a) a maintained school or a maintained nursery school;

(b) a pupil referral unit;

(c) a city technology college, a city college for the technology of the arts or a city academy;

(d) an independent school; and

(e) a special school not maintained by a local education authority."").

The noble Baroness said: I speak to Amendment No. 135 which would add a new clause to the DDA requiring each local education authority and school to prepare, implement and publicise an accessible information policy. The amendment, which has the support of the RNIB, seeks to ensure that disabled pupils and parents have access to written information in their preferred format at the time they need it. The purpose is to make sure that sensory impaired and other print-disabled children have access to the same information as their non-disabled peers. Without such access to essential curriculum information and reading materials, they cannot have real educational equality.
"Print disabled" means anyone with a cognitive, physical or sensory impairment who cannot access standard written information. Such children have a variety of information needs. For example, in the case of blind and partially sighted children, information is required in large print, braille, moon or on tape. It is also becoming increasingly important for visually impaired children to be able to access information from the Internet.
A recent survey of 1,000 blind and partially sighted children and young people published in Shaping the Future by the RNIB in 1999 found that information—class handouts, study materials, books and test and exam papers—was often not available to these children when they needed it. For instance, more than one in three secondary pupils and a quarter of parents of primary school children said that they usually had to wait for handouts, and only two out of three mainstream pupils usually received their school books in the format they required.
There were particular difficulties with tests and examinations. One in four of the pupils questioned did not always get test or answer papers in the right format; one in five pupils said that test or exam papers had not always arrived on time.
Clearly, these findings have implications for how well blind and partially sighted children and young people achieve at school, college and university. This evidence shows that current requirements of LEAs and schools to provide for disabled children's needs in this respect are wholly inadequate. It is not that accessible information cannot be provided but rather that there is insufficient awareness of accessible information issues and a lack of strategic co-ordination.
A duty to develop and implement accessible information policies would enable teachers, SENCOs and LEAs to meet needs for accessible information in a more coherent, planned and effective way. The role of the named officer would be the linchpin of this new, holistic approach. Very often teachers face huge difficulties in obtaining appropriate curriculum

CWH 235
materials, establishing which books and papers are available in alternative formats and where one might go to get prompt, high quality modification and transcription. The named officer's role is to help provide solutions to such problems—to plan localised production and disseminate information and advice.
The problems relating to accessible information are well understood by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment who is keen to make progress on the issue. Ensuring that print-disabled children and parents receive information in their preferred format at the time that they need it will happen only when LEAs and schools are under explicit statutory duties to develop and implement accessible information policies. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to help on this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: This amendment is one of the better proposals. It deals with a very real problem and, very properly, includes parents. If the parents are to have a full input into a child's education, they must have information about what is going on in the classroom. Many of the suggestions made under subsection (10) of the amendment are good practice. A local education authority that does not have such access is breaking virtually all current law. So it must be taking place—unless we have one of the world's worst education authorities hiding somewhere. We must ensure that it takes place. Other groups will also benefit from this. I have received briefing related to those with eyesight problems. Dyslexics and other groups would benefit from this service. Those with hearing disabilities may well be assisted by some of the proposed formats.
We must make sure that there is provision in the Bill. The noble Baroness puts forward an amendment which I like and can read easily. That probably means that it is not legally or correctly drafted. That is the rule of thumb that I have usually applied to everything since I have been in this Chamber. However, we must make sure that this matter is covered and I look forward to the noble Baroness's answer.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I support extremely briefly and very warmly the amendment that the noble Baroness has moved so well and so comprehensively. It seems an entirely sensible and practical way of going about it to ensure that disabled children and their families, for example, dyslexics and the visually impaired, are in fact included. We cannot talk about inclusion unless we make sure that they know how to be included.
Baroness Blackstone: Whilst of course we are sympathetic with what lies behind this amendment, I have to tell the Committee that this new clause is extremely wide-reaching. It seeks to require LEAs and schools to ensure that disabled pupils and their parents have access to material in their preferred alternative format. This is rather impractical, however. Their preferred alternative format might be either extremely expensive or indeed extremely rare. The duty seems to be absolute: the new clause has no concept of
CWH 236
reasonableness within it. In the context of disability discrimination legislation, the concept of reasonableness is well understood and in practice works well for disabled people. To abandon that test would undermine all existing disability discrimination legislation which is certainly not something that the Government wish or indeed are willing to do. This new clause would also impose a significant additional burden on both LEAs and schools, a burden not considered necessary by the Government. In particular we do not consider it appropriate to require LEAs to create a specific post and appoint a member of staff to fill it.
Putting to one side the absolute nature of this new clause, it does raise the issue of alternative format material in more general terms. Children who need to access material in alternative formats in order to allow them to access education will almost certainly have a statement of special educational needs. That statement will set out the support and help that the child needs and could well include the need to provide material in alternative formats.
An additional safeguard for pupils is provided by the inclusion statement of the National Curriculum Handbook—"The Access for All Statement" of the equivalent document in Wales—to which all teachers must have regard. The curriculum guidelines provide similar guidance for teachers in Scotland. The handbook sets out a number of requirements in respect of disabled pupils which include: enabling the fullest possible participation of pupils with disabilities and making provision, where necessary, to facilitate access to activities with appropriate support, aids or adaptations; using texts that pupils can read and understand; and using visual and written materials in different formats, including large print, symbol text and Braille.
I turn now to parents. Part III of the DDA is relevant here since services offered to parents are caught by the provisions of that part in relation to access to goods and services. That means that information about those services may have to be provided to parents in alternative formats, where it is reasonable for the school to have to do so. For example, it may be reasonable for a school to have to provide a letter to a disabled parent about a school trip in an alternative format. I hope that in the light of what I have said my noble friend feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am extremely surprised at the comments of my noble friend. In fact, I am astonished because this amendment is most constructive. When the Minister suggests that there is no provision for the word "reasonable", she should offer to insert the word "reasonable". We are here to discuss the issues as quickly as we can. To say that because the word "reasonable" is not in the amendment, ergo we cannot accept it is quite nonsensical. It is said that the measure would be expensive. This is the whole purpose of spending money. If a blind child cannot have Braille and cannot see what needs to be learnt, that child has no

CWH 237
education. The Minister's point of view would prevent that difference from being provided. If a deaf child needs a hearing aid or some assistance, they are having no education either. Will my noble friend think again about the issue? I recognise what she said about the other provisions and the other means of tackling it. The amendment is wrong, but the Government should accept the point that has been made and address it on Report. I should like a warm response from the Government.
5 p.m.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister responds may I support the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, and add children with learning disabilities to the list of children with hearing impairment and children with visual impairment.
Lord Addington: I agree that if proper provision is made, most of the requirements that have been mentioned will already be met. The problem is that we do not know how to pin that down. Could some guidance be given to parents? As I have said a dozen times, all the voluntary bodies spend ages tracking down such information. That is one reason why people are so keen on having it. The eternal paperchase, form-filling and waiting in corridors is one of the major problems.
We might make progress if Ministers give us more guidance or show us where we can find these things. Perhaps they could amend the Bill to bring the information closer together.
Baroness Blackstone: I am happy to write to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and others about where such guidance for parents is available. The Government are unhappy with the amendment not just because it has no concept of reasonableness in it—although that is a very important problem—but because all the other safeguards for pupils, in particular those who need access to alternative formats that would be provided in the statement, make it unnecessary. All children who are blind or have serious visual impairment will have a statement setting out their need for an alternative format. The schools and LEAs concerned are responsible for providing that. It goes a little beyond what my noble friend, Lord Ashley of Stoke, was saying.
In the light of that further explanation, I hope that my noble friend Lady Wilkins feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wilkins: I thank noble Lords for their strong support for this amendment, and I thank my noble friend the Minister for her rather disappointing response. I would be grateful if she would be willing to meet me and other noble Lords to thrash out any possibilities for change. I shall read carefully what she has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Residual duty of education authorities]:
[Amendment No. 135A not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 136
Page 15, line 36, after ("281") insert (", 28K(1)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and the others in the group are technical government amendments. The last time I used that phrase it provoked an extensive debate, so I use it slightly more guardedly this time. I hope that the Committee will welcome our concession and that it will help to ensure that the debate is precise and limited. Amendment No. 202 is a technical amendment to Clause 42 to allow for different commencement dates for the different parts of the duties on post-16 providers under Clause 27 to take reasonable steps to ensure that a disabled student is not substantially disadvantaged in comparison with students who are not disabled.
We have listened carefully to the points on post-16 implementation which were made at Second Reading and in Committee. We believe that it is reasonable for implementation of the post-16 duties to be so staged that those which can be brought in sooner should be, but institutions and LEAs have a reasonable but not excessive period to plan and implement those which take a little longer.
We said in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill that the duties not to discriminate and to make reasonable adjustments to non-physical arrangements such as policies, practices and procedures would be implemented by September 2003. We want to do better than that and we have looked again at the timetable. Subject to the Disability Rights Commission being able to get the necessary codes in place in time, we hope to bring these provisions into force a year earlier, in September 2002.
We also said in the Explanatory Notes that the duties to make reasonable adjustments to physical features and provide auxiliary aids and services would be implemented later, by September 2005.
At Second Reading, a number of noble Lords proposed that the physical features duties should be brought forward to 2004, to bring the date into line with the long-planned implementation date for physical features adjustments for service providers under Part III of the DDA. We are not in a position to accede to that, but we believe that having reviewed the timetable we can identify one important area where there is scope to accelerate this timetable. I refer to the area of auxiliary aids and services, which includes equipment such IT and braille printers and services such as note takers, signs for deaf people, and so on.
A great deal of that is provided in post-16 learning. The additional costs are likely to be less than those of adjustments to buildings, and the lead times required for implementing them are self-evidently shorter. We believe that by September 2003 sufficient of the additional government resources will have come on stream to make it reasonable to expect LEAs and institutions to meet their duties in respect of auxiliary aids and services.
We therefore propose to bring forward the proposed date of implementation to September 2003 while retaining September 2005 as the implementation date in respect of adjustments to buildings. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to welcome this change and accept that the other amendments are technical ones. That was conveyed to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, by my noble friend in a letter of 15th January. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I have two questions. I have gone through each of the amendments and am looking for the specific dates. Am I to understand from the Minister that those are dates that the Minister intends to bring in the proposals? The year 2002 does not appear to be written into any of the amendments. Do the Minister's remarks subsume my Amendment No. 198 and the amendment supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, which include bringing forward Sections 13 and 14 to 2002?
Lord Davies of Oldham: The dates will be included in the orders which need to be made to implement the legislation. I referred to the dates in the Explanatory Notes outlining the background to the Bill. It is not the case that what I have said today covers Sections 13 and 4.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunal]:
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 16, line 27, after ("parent") insert ("or with the leave of the Tribunal, the child").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 137, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 143. Before moving these amendments, I should like to say that when I was unwell last week, I was most grateful to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for moving the many amendments I had tabled and for reading my speeches to the Committee. I hope that the Committee did not find them too boring but I was grateful and regretted that I could not be present for those amendments.
As we have already dealt with the principles underlying these amendments—that is, that the child should have a right to participate in issues relevant to his or her future, especially with Amendment No. 90, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—I do not propose to say very much. There is nothing more boring than repetition, unless that be very long speeches! I will make just one observation, namely that Amendments Nos. 137 and 143 would enable a child to take a case under the DDA if the tribunal agreed, regardless of the parents' wishes. The amendments are important because it needs to be acknowledged that parents and children often disagree. At least, my children often disagree with me but because I am so soft they usually get their own way, but that may not happen in every family. We want what is best for the children and that applies as much to disabled as to
CWH 240
non-disabled children. The parents should not be able to veto the wishes of the child, much as some of them would like to do so.
At the very least, the wishes of the child should be considered by appropriate bodies. I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would agree to give a warm response to this amendment and, if not, that she will consider it.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I was in much the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, in that I was unable to move my first amendments to this Bill and he very kindly spoke most ably to them on my behalf. I am extremely grateful to him. I now support the two amendments that he has put forward and one of my own, Amendment No. 141.
My party is particularly keen on giving the children concerned as far as is possible and sensible—and it very often is extremely sensible—a say in their future. These amendments will go a long way towards that and I hope that the Government will see their way to accepting them.
Baroness Blackstone: I was very sorry that my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke was unwell last week. We missed him and I am glad that he is better today. Previous discussions in this Committee illustrate all too well how difficult an area this is; it really is very tricky. However, the parent's right to bring disability discrimination cases in relation to school education is the best way to assure an effective determination of a child's rights. Parents will have a better chance than the child of identifying discrimination and challenging it. In cases where there is a difference of opinion between the child and the parents, it would be very unhelpful to exacerbate that difference.
Even in the informal environment of the tribunal an unassisted child is likely to be at a disadvantage which may lead to increased use of representation generally, affecting in turn the informality of those proceedings. Different rights of access could also lead to confusion between SEN cases and disability cases before the tribunals, especially where there is some overlap between the two. My noble friend is probably not suggesting that children should be given an unfettered right to bring their own cases to the tribunal but even allowing children that right in specified circumstances risks adding significantly to the length, the cost and the complexity of hearings.
However, we think it important that the views of children and young people should be taken into account. That commitment has led us to propose very important changes in relation to the procedure of the existing tribunal. These will strengthen the rights of the child in relation to hearings and formalise the tribunal's established procedure whereby they already accept evidence from the child. Formalising it is crucial here. It is our intention that the equivalent regulation for disability cases at the reconstituted tribunal should reflect those for SEN cases, so that they benefit from the practical experiences of the operation of the SEN regulations and facilitate the hearing of joint SEN and disability cases where this is appropriate.

CWH 241
I hope that, in providing this explanation of the extent to which we are strengthening the rights of the child, this will persuade both my noble friend and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that what we are doing is establishing improved rights of the child. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: We have touched on this aspect of the debate before but where a young person, particularly of upper secondary school age, is aggrieved by the provision that has been made for him and wishes to pursue that, we have already said it is inconceivable that the school will take action against itself, or that the LEA would support an application to the tribunal against itself. The young person may well have parents who are no longer in loco parentis, because of intervention by the courts, or the young person may have no parents and may simply be orphaned. In that case, who speaks for the child?
It seems to me that there needs to be some facility whereby the child's interests can be championed and, if not by an adult who would have a very real vested interest in not pursuing a case to the tribunal, it should be possible to have access to a third party, or, in the event of a particular grievance and—I believe the caveat is in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke—with the leave of the tribunal; in other words, the tribunal should be in a position to make a judgment as to whether it believes that the competence of the young person is sufficient to sustain a complaint to the tribunal.
Baroness Blackstone: In the case of an orphan, I assume that the child's guardian would bring the case. I do not think that any child under the age of 16 who is orphaned is without a guardian. However, if the child is in care, the local authority rather than the LEA has the responsibility. So it is the social services department of the local authority that would bring the case on behalf of the aggrieved child. Then, of course, it is up to the tribunal to decide, taking into account as objectively as possible all the views that are heard, who is right and to make the appropriate provision available.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry but it is fanciful not to accept that, because the LEA is not technically the authority, or the authority is not technically the LEA, they are all of the authority. Certainly, in court an LEA is often regarded as the local authority in a particular aspect of a case. Therefore, a local authority to would, in effect, be taken to court by itself. I wonder about the independence and the proper interests of the child being respected if the carer of the child is the local authority and the local authority is caring for the child under domestic arrangements but the child, when at school, is the responsibility of the LEA. At different parts of the day he will be a local authority subject and also an LEA subject. There needs to be some facility for a child who feels aggrieved, especially one of
CWH 242
secondary school age, to have their case heard if the people in the children's home will not take the case, the school will not support the case and the LEA or the local authority will not support the case against itself.
Baroness Blackstone: We should be a little careful about describing a tribunal in the same terms as a court. The tribunal is set up to ensure a proper discussion in an atmosphere somewhat different from that of a court when there is a dispute.
I understand that some social services departments have brought SEN tribunal cases against their own LEA, so the noble Baroness is not right to suggest that that could never happen and that a local authority is one body for that purpose. I expect the social services departments to act appropriately and to bring a case on behalf of a child who is aggrieved and unhappy.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I thank those who have supported my amendments and I thank my noble friend for her response. I will make a bargain with her. I will take account of the advances made by the Government, as she suggests, if she will take account of the strong feeling of the Committee. Let us reflect on how we can go forward to help each other on this important issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 16, line 37, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 140. I hope that we agree that if a tribunal establishes discrimination, the priority should be the welfare of the child who suffered the discrimination. That is the purpose of the amendment.
New Section 28I(3)(b) permits—that is the operative word—the tribunal to make an order if it finds that a claim about discrimination is well founded. The amendment would require—not just permit—such an order to be made with a view, in the convoluted language of the Bill, to obviating or reducing the adverse effect of the discrimination on the child. That is very appropriate. I would probably have used different language—perhaps "to deal with"—but I put the exact wording to the Committee.
It may not always be possible to remedy the damage caused to a child by discrimination, especially if it is severe. There may be serious psychological effects or the child may have left the school concerned. The damage is then done. That strengthens the case for putting pressure on the tribunal to make an order that will help the child. It should be a requirement, not a possibility. For example, if a child leaves a school because of a hostile or unsympathetic attitude or because of bullying, they may need personal tuition or counselling or both. The Bill should put pressure on authorities to provide such remedies when they are clearly necessary.
The purpose of Amendment No. 140 is to enable tribunals to order the payment of compensation—perhaps one of the more controversial issues in the Bill. I know that many people are unhappy with the idea of compensation for discrimination.
As drafted, the Bill bans the tribunals from awarding compensation. That ban is entirely unreasonable and it should go. We seem unanimous on education remedies—and of course education remedies are crucial. We are all agreed that we must have education remedies. But some noble Lords, including myself, believe that compensation should be paid not as an alternative to education remedies but as an addition and as a powerful incentive for the prevention of discrimination.
Disabled youngsters suffering race or sex discrimination may obtain compensation. It is observed that the same children should have it refused to them as regards similar provision in education simply because it is an education remedy. In addition, it is possible that any education remedy may come too late to prevent damage to the child's development or self-esteem. As I mentioned a moment ago, the child may have left by the time the damage is done.
That would be very unjust. A child receives no compensation from the tribunal simply because it is not allowed to award compensation. Going to court is not a satisfactorily, readily available option. We must look at what motivates authorities. I have no doubt that the payment of financial compensation in education, as in every other field, would provide an incentive to authorities to prevent discrimination. What could be better than that: justice for the child and pressure to prevent discrimination. That would be particularly true if the number of discrimination payments were regularly published in the form of a league table.
I am well aware of the argument that payment of compensation would divert money from providing education remedies which could benefit many children. That argument is relevant and would apply only if excessive compensation were paid—many thousands or millions of pounds—as in those crazy cases where celebrities go to court and receive a few million pounds because someone said they were an idiot or frivolous. I do not have that in mind. I have limited compensation in mind, rather like the small claims court—limited, but not so limited that it has no effect on the authority. The maximum amount could be laid down in regulation. Above all, the individual has a right to some benefit if discrimination is established. I see nothing wrong in that.
It would be tedious and costly if compensation could be awarded only by the courts. As the tribunal has to take account of all aspects of the case, it is likely to throw out any compensation. I hope that my noble friend will begin to meet me for once. Any compensation awarded by the tribunal and not by the courts should be because the tribunal has taken account of all aspects of the case. I beg to move.
Baroness Wilkins: I wish to support Amendments Nos. 138 and 140 moved in the name of my noble friend. I do so mainly because the threat of being forced to pay compensation concentrates the minds of recalcitrant authorities so that they do not discriminate in the first place. If schools or LEAs face
CWH 244
the prospect of paying out a sum in compensation, it is hoped that they may be more inclined to spend those resources to prevent the discrimination taking place.
The fact that a person under the age of 16 will not receive compensation while someone over that age might win a case for exactly the same injustice seems grossly unfair. Moreover, as my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke pointed out, if a young person is discriminated against on the grounds of sex or race, he will receive compensation. It is discriminatory in itself that it should not be the same in relation to disability. There will be exceptional cases where it is not possible to get an educational remedy for an act which has taken place which has put the child at a substantial disadvantage, for example, the child who is not allowed to go on a year six school trip or is not allowed to take part in the end-of-year school play. In those cases compensation is the only means to address the hurt to that young person. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reconsider and include financial compensation in the SENDIST armoury.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I speak to my Amendments Nos. 155 and 156. My Amendment No. 155 is being moved following the receipt of briefing material from The Law Society of Scotland, the consortium Children in Scotland and RNIB Scotland. This amendment is relevant to the Scottish situation. The proposal to exclude financial remedies in cases of discrimination against school pupils may possibly be appropriate in the English and Welsh context, where the SEN tribunal scheme is already well-established but seems to me a rather poor graft on to the Scottish system; that is, that these matters are dealt with in the sheriff court. There is indeed some doubt that this was adequately consulted upon in Scotland.
The sheriff court is an admirable institution, but it is not a cosy place. I was very much at home as a social work department court duty officer. However, most citizens do not look forward to a visit to the sheriff court. The sheriff court always has the powers of a financial remedy. It is odd to try to deny the sheriff court its usual powers, especially as the rural and remoter areas are most likely to produce cases for which there is no educational remedy.
There are at least three issues behind the amendment. The first is that already spoken about, the powers and traditions of the sheriff court. The second is the fact that discrimination against school pupils is not being dealt with as seriously as discrimination against older students. The third is that the treatment of school age discrimination will not be dealt with in line with other equal opportunities legislation.
Because I believe that Scottish children deserve to be treated before the law in the same way as adults in educational matters, I believe that the Bill should give the sheriff the opportunity to force the issue with education providers. They must be focused on their task of providing what they should provide, and not just be able to walk away without doing anything,

CWH 245
muttering some feeble excuse. In any case, they must live up to the duty set out in Section 15 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 to provide a mainstream place on request in most circumstances.
Finally, and very briefly, I speak to Amendment No. 156. This amendment clarifies that damages for discrimination will be equal under Chapter I to those in Chapter II of the Bill. The amendment clarifies that injury to feelings is a substantive reason for damages in both chapters.
Lord Addington: I support the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and my noble friend in these amendments. I have always felt that the fact that there should be no compensation in educational matters is unacceptable. As I have already said—and I believe I said it at Second Reading—if one followed the logic that the money might be better spent on somebody else that would mean that every single claim that is laid against hospitals would be invalid. I feel that this is something of a slap in the face for the whole principle of inclusion.
Baroness Blackstone: The Bill provides a wide right of redress for disabled pupils in school who have experienced discrimination. It will echo that for children with SEN, with an emphasis on remedy by educational means rather than financial compensation. That might involve allowing a pupil to participate in a theatre visit, for example, or to take part in a lesson or other activity from which he or she had been unfairly barred. If the discrimination resulted in the child missing education, a school might be ordered to provide additional tuition to allow them to catch up. The tribunal may require the school to change its policy on bullying in order to meet the needs of disabled pupils. Alternatively, it may order the school to offer the child pastoral support to come to terms with the effect of the discrimination. All of that should put the child's education back on track, which is what we are concerned about.
We are mindful of the reasons for the DRTF's recommendation that the jurisdiction of the SEN tribunal should be extended. The DRTF was impressed by the work of the tribunal in hearing SEN appeals, particularly the less formal nature of the process, which reduces the need for parents to pay for formal legal representation.
Allowing for the payment of financial compensation would undermine the ability of the tribunal to be informal and user-friendly, as we want it to be, and to base its decisions on what is best for the individual child in educational terms. It might well create a culture of litigation, resulting in the process becoming more formal, more adversarial and possibly more acrimonious. It would certainly encourage greater use of paid advocates, which we want to avoid. The Committee surely does not want to jeopardise all that is good about the tribunal for the sake of what in many cases would be a very small sum of money. Financial compensation paid to parents of disabled children who have suffered discrimination may soothe feelings, but
CWH 246
it misses the point that the child has been denied an opportunity to learn and it takes the focus away from the child's needs.
I shall not pretend that financial compensation is a simple issue, though. There are clearly precedents in sex and race discrimination cases, as the noble Earl said. We are proposing financial compensation as a means of redress for cases of disability discrimination in non-school further and higher education settings. However, the sex and race discrimination legislation was introduced 25 years ago, when there was no alternative to redress through the courts. If that legislation was being enacted today, a different forum for redress might be considered appropriate. The fact that there is no financial compensation does not mean that there will be no costs for LEAs and schools that discriminate. If the tribunal orders a remedy, there is likely to be a cost to the school or LEA that has discriminated. However, the money that they spend will go directly towards improving the educational experience of the child. That is the right approach.
The same arguments apply in Scotland. Educational remedies are paramount for a disabled child who has suffered discrimination in school. It is important that disabled children in Scotland, England and Wales have the same rights.
We have consulted across the whole of England, Wales and Scotland on the Bill. We commissioned the University of Edinburgh to support the consultation exercise in Scotland to ensure proper coverage. We want the same provision across Great Britain because the issue of equal rights is a matter reserved to the UK Parliament. There is no reason to have a different approach in Scotland from that in England and Wales. A disabled child who is discriminated against suffers an educational loss whether he lives in Stirling, Sunderland or Swansea. I know that strong views are held on the issue, but, having heard what I have said about the importance of educational remedies, I hope that my noble friend and the noble Earl will not press their amendments.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps I may make two comments about the response of the noble Baroness. First, it is important that some public mark identifies the local authority as a discriminator. That the local authority has had damages awarded against it is a better headline. Everyone knows what has happened.
Secondly, by not having a financial remedy it is perhaps too easy for education authorities in difficulties just to walk away.
Baroness Blackstone: The whole purpose of the Bill is to prevent LEAs from walking away in these circumstances. As far as publicising the findings of a tribunal, I accept what the noble Earl says: that it is right that it should be made known if an LEA has discriminated. But I do not believe that there is anything to prevent that happening.
Baroness Blatch: I ask the noble Baroness to provide to the Committee the rationale. Why does a child in a

CWH 247
school who has been discriminated against not have the availability of compensation, yet a non-school based child or person also discriminated against does?
Baroness Blackstone: It is rather more difficult to specify precise educational remedies when talking about further and higher education than it is for children in schools. The circumstances are rather different. For those reasons the Government reached the conclusion that it is right with respect to school children to have a clear educational remedy to support that child's educational future. However, if a university has been found to discriminate and it has already damaged the opportunities of a young person in relation to his future career, a slightly different approach is right. Indeed, that is exactly what was recommended by the DRTF.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. I thank the Minister for her response, although I do not agree with it. She said some interesting things. She mentioned the educational remedies. I said that we all agree with the need for an educational remedy. When a child has suffered discrimination, the permanent need is for the educational remedy. But I want a payment of compensation in addition. When talking of the educational remedy, my noble friend said that that is what we are about. It is not what we are about. We have agreed on the educational remedy. This amendment is about the payment of compensation. That is specified in the words of the amendment.
My noble friend said she wants a user-friendly tribunal in the interests of the children. I cannot imagine any child becoming unfriendly when compensation is paid to him. This will make it more friendly. If some people who have discriminated get cross because they have to pay compensation, that is just too bad. They deserve that. They have asked for it. They have to pay compensation instead of being let off with a smile. Discrimination damages disabled people. It is a very serious thing to do. It can undermine their self-respect and self-esteem. I am very sorry that my noble friend cannot accept the amendment.
She says that, if my amendment were accepted, at tribunals we shall have paid advocates. I am not condemning the role of solicitors and barristers but some of them receive very good salaries. I cannot see many solicitors and barristers going to tribunals for the small amounts of money I have in mind. They go for the top jobs and not the little jobs. So I do not think that my noble friend need worry about these well-paid advocates spending weeks arguing about disabled children. If her arguments are valid that we should not pay compensation for discrimination, she should go to the race and sex commissions and say "It's all nonsense. Don't do it." It makes nonsense to pay compensation for such things if her arguments are valid. I recognise that we can discuss this matter later on Report. I am sure that the Chief Whip wants at all costs to avoid Divisions when we reach that stage. We
CWH 248
shall try to reach an amicable agreement if we can. I thank my noble friend for her response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins Baroness Wilkins moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 16, line 40, after ("relates") insert—
("( ) may in particular take account of—

(i) any personal hurt experienced by the person concerned:

(ii) any experience denied the person concerned because of the unlawful discrimination; and

(iii) any necessary changes to accessibility strategies and plans to ensure that the unlawful discrimination does not happen again;").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 139 is a probing amendment that has the support of the Special Educational Consortium. It seeks to test out the limits of the Government's interpretation of remedies and whether the redress will effectively deter those authorities that fail to respond to the Bill's goals. However, I should point out that the SEC recognises that this would stop short of financial compensation.
As the Minister said on Second Reading, the Bill seeks to establish certain rights and a means of redress and sets a framework which encourages a change of attitude. In order for the Bill to achieve its purpose, therefore, it is important to ensure that the means of remedy is effective. As presently drafted, it is unclear whether Clause 17 will achieve this. My concerns are in relation to the limits of discriminatory practice on which the Bill offers redress and whether the redress offered effectively compensates those discriminated against or deters offending authorities from continuing to discriminate.
For instance, would the tribunal be able to offer an effective remedy for the personal hurt to a child for the discrimination he or she has suffered? Let us take the case of a disabled girl who was prevented from inviting her classmates home in the holidays because the school's SENCO thought that the other children were not ready to be friends with her. That deeply upset the child, who never had the confidence to take the initiative again. When asked, she said that she had no friends in the school, because they had been taught that she could not think. If it was found that that was unlawful discrimination, how could the deep hurt of the child be put right?
Would the tribunal be able to offer remedy to a disabled pupil who had been denied an experience such as taking part in the school trip or end-of-year play because of discrimination? For example, one wheelchair user was told that he could not go on the geography field trip with his classmates. He therefore not only missed the trip, but he missed also the opportunity to do the field work needed for his GCSE. A child was excluded from taking part in the school play "Hello Dolly" because, being a wheelchair user, she could not join in the dance scene. If it was found that that was unlawful discrimination, could the school be ordered to include a child left out of a school

CWH 249
trip or activity? Could that be done in time? If it could not be done in time, what could be done to put right the hurt afterwards?
Lucy Mason, a disabled teenager, says that she has often been excluded from activities. The two things that she most wants are for someone to say "Sorry.", and that she can be confident that it will not happen again. If it was found that there had been unlawful discrimination against her, could the tribunal order someone to say "Sorry.", and could it order a school to draw up a plan to ensure that the discrimination did not happen again?
Could the tribunal order the school to amend an existing accessibility plan to achieve the same end? The Bill's notes helpfully suggest that the tribunal might be able to make an order regarding staff training or offer additional tuition. Those seem inadequate to the many circumstances and different forms of discrimination that may arise.
Those children not only need this legislation to offer them rights in education, but also to give them effective redress. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how these concerns might be met, especially if the right financial compensation is denied. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, I believe that my Amendments Nos. 140A, 142, 144 and 145 deal with a completely different subject. Therefore, in fairness, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, should have her amendment considered on its own.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am quite happy to reply to my noble friend Lady Wilkins. I very much appreciated the way in which she moved the amendment. The Bill already provides that on a successful claim of disability discrimination, the tribunal can make any order which it considers reasonable. The Bill also provides that, in deciding on the type of order it will make, the tribunal may, in particular, grant a remedy which will negate or reduce the adverse effects of the discrimination.
The first two factors which the amendment of my noble friend Lady Wilkins seeks to insert are already provided for in the Bill. A remedy taking account of personal hurt might be a written apology to the child. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, identified a case which seemed to be quite straightforward. The tribunal might say that an apology to the child was what was necessary, because the young person in that case was being discriminated against. A remedy might take account of the experiences denied to the child by offering additional tuition to help the child catch up on lessons missed due to discrimination. We believe that the Bill provides for several of the instances which the noble Baroness identified to us today.
The difficulty we have with the amendment is in the third part of it which asks the tribunal to do something which it does not have the power to do. It is suggested that it should have the power to order LEAs or schools to make changes to their "strategies and plans".
CWH 250
Enforcement of the duty to plan, as we discussed earlier this afternoon, lies with the Secretary of State in relation to England, and the National Assembly for Wales in relation to Wales.
It is right that that should be the case because the duty to plan is strategic, and it would be an enormous task for the tribunal to review the full range of evidence in the detail required to make findings and orders in relation to breaches of the duty in these respects. If the tribunal had to do this as part of a disability discrimination appeal, it would make it impossible to maintain the speed of disposal which is so important in these individual cases, and certainly would be important in the three cases which were used as an illustration this afternoon. It would add greatly to the length, formality and complexity of the hearings when the whole concept behind the tribunal is that it should be composed and be arranged in such a way that it can give effective remedy as rapidly and sympathetically as possible.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wilkins: I thank the Minister for his response which I shall read carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Procedure]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gardner of Parkes): I should warn the Committee that if Amendment No. 140A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 141 to 145 inclusive because of pre-emption.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 140A:
Page 17, line 1, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) The Tribunal shall establish the procedures to be followed on a claim of unlawful discrimination under this Chapter, and shall take into consideration any advice on procedure offered by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 140A, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 142, 144 and 145.
Clause 18 continues with the procedure to be followed by the tribunal in hearing claims of discrimination. The opening subsection to Clause 18 sets out that the Secretary of State can make regulations as to the proceedings of the tribunal and as to the procedure required for making a claim.
The second subsection is a long one and provides what those regulations may include. In effect, it tells us what the present Secretary of State wishes to include in the regulations that he intends to produce.
The tribunal was established under previous legislation and is already in existence. We must assume that competent people have been, and will continue to be, appointed to the tribunal. They are not to be simply ciphers of the Secretary of State doing whatever he tells them to do. They are responsible people who are

CWH 251
capable of establishing the best procedures to be followed in this additional duty of hearing appeals relating to discrimination on the grounds of disability.
The tribunal has demonstrated its ability to manage its own affairs. The fact that it has established the procedures that it and the advocate have to follow greatly adds to its authority and competence. The tribunal will naturally take note of any advice that the Secretary of State may offer, but it should not have to be subject to the heavy hand of regulations from the Secretary of State about how to run its affairs.
The first two amendments in the group would remove the provision for regulations and replace it with the competence of the tribunal. The second, which follows on from the first, would delete all the possible regulations listed in subsection (2).
New Section 28J(7) says:
"Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996 does not apply to proceedings before the tribunal".
However, the Bill goes on to say that regulations may be made covering such proceedings and that those regulations will correspond to some or all of the provisions to be found in Part I of that Arbitration Act. In other words, as I understand it, the Arbitration Act does not apply, and yet the Secretary of State may have second thoughts and produce regulations for all or a part of that Act to apply to all hearings of the tribunal.
Again, the Secretary of State must make up his mind whether the Arbitration Act shall apply, rather than leaving it open to some future regulation. We all know that regulations are subject to much less scrutiny than primary legislation. I have already argued that the tribunal ought not to be over-burdened with regulations anyway. Its members are competent people—or if they are not, competent people must be appointed to it.
My Amendment No. 144 would leave in the provision that Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996 should not apply, but would remove the provision for regulations. However, it would give the Secretary of State the power to direct that certain parts of the Arbitration Act should apply if there is a need to take cognisance of all or part of it in a very difficult case.
Amendment No. 145 would make a similar amendment to subsection (8) of Clause 18. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for separating this issue from the previous one, because I agree that this is a difficult enough issue without being complicated by an additional debate. The provisions that the amendments desire to remove are virtually identical to those in Section 336 of the Education Act 1996, by which governors proceed to the tribunal and the SEN appeal. We believe there is an advantage in the two procedures being identical. We have chosen, as far as we can, to replicate for disability cases the existing provisions governing the tribunal's procedure.
CWH 252
There are a number of reasons for that. First, it would facilitate the joining together of SEN and disability cases where appropriate. That can be a great advantage to the individual concerned. Secondly, LEAs and those who support and advise parents are growing in their familiarity with the existing procedures. We are worried that new ones would cause unnecessary confusion. Thirdly, the SEN procedure is now proving itself. It has been tested and is working. That is why we are seeking to replicate it as closely as possible.
On the issue of the regulation-making powers, I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness had to say. The powers in fact give a framework within which the tribunal can operate in an independent and impartial way, without interference. It is imperative that there should be a universal procedural framework applicable to those bringing claims before the tribunal. I cannot see how two separate ways of formulating procedural rules for the same tribunal would be in any way helpful.
Although the noble Baroness has stated that this would happen only in exceptional circumstances, giving the Secretary of State the power to make procedural directions in cases that were already live and under consideration before the tribunal would add delay and bureaucracy. It might also be thought that it could compromise the judicial independence of the tribunal because the Secretary of State would be acting upon the scene on which they were seeking to reach judgment. It is conceivable—not under our present Secretary of State, of course—that the DfEE itself could be joined to the party in a particular case where an LEA or school is accused of discrimination and its defence is that it merely followed departmental guidance. The Secretary of State should surely not have the power or be seen to have the opportunity to make procedural directions that could affect the outcome of such a case. We have sought to keep the tribunal as independent as possible from such a possibility.
Amendments Nos. 144 and 145 would trigger the provision of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, requiring consultation with the council on tribunals prior to the Secretary of State issuing directions. This could introduce considerable delay before individual cases could be heard. There is no doubt that with regard to the operation of the tribunal, we are all seeking for it to be as prompt as possible in considering potential and malpractice so that the remedy should be available as quickly as possible.
I hope that in the light of both comments, the noble Baroness might feel able to withdraw her amendment.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister's answer was more than convincing—certainly the second part. I accept that I may have fallen into the trap of interfering with the independence of the tribunal. I acknowledge that explanation. I am trying to avoid what seems to be cumbersome. Again, I am never impressed by saying that it happened in a previous Act—although l may well have been part of government when it happened.

CWH 253
It seems unnecessary to say in one part of the Act that,
"Part I of the Arbitration Act does not apply",
and then provide a regulation power to apply it in part or in whole depending on whether the Secretary of State at some future date deems it appropriate. First, I do not think that the Secretary of State has used that power in the 1996 Act. We are now entering 2001, it has not been used, so perhaps the provision need not have been there. It would seem far better—having listened to the convincing answer of the Minister—to say that Part I of the Arbitration Act shall apply where appropriate. That leaves the tribunal entirely independent and free to use, refer to or take into account Part I of the Arbitration Act where appropriate. It would then not have to rely upon making a case to the Secretary of State and waiting for an order to come before Parliament to introduce the use of that part of the Act. I remain unhappy about the wording on the face of the Bill but I am totally convinced by the arguments made by the noble Lord to my particular amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 141 to 145 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Roles of the Secretary of State and the National Assembly]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 20, line 20, at end insert—
("(1A) Subsection (I B) applies in relation to

(a) special schools which are not maintained special schools but which are approved by the Secretary of State, or by the National Assembly, under section 342 of the Education Act 1996; and

(b) city academies.

(1B) If the appropriate authority is satisfied (whether on a complaint or otherwise) that a responsible body—

(a) has acted, or is proposing to act, unreasonably in the discharge of a duty which that body has in relation to—

(i) the provision to the appropriate authority of copies of that body's accessibility plan. or

(ii) the inspection of that plan, or

(b) has failed to discharge that duty,

it may give that body such directions as to the discharge of the duty as appear to it to be expedient.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 146A to 153:
Page 20, line 21, after ("(1)") insert ("or (1B)").
Page 20, line 26, leave out ("appropriate authority") and insert ("Secretary of State").
Page 20, line 32, leave out ("it") and insert ("he").
Page 20, line 33, leave out ("it") and insert ("him").
Page 20, line 34, after ("(1)") insert (", (1B)").
Page 20, line 35, leave out ("appropriate") and insert ("directing").
CWH 254
Page 20, line 38, leave out ("appropriate") and insert ("directing").
Page 20, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) "Directing authority" means—

(a) the Secretary of State in relation to a direction given by him; and

(b) the National Assembly in relation to a direction given by it.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Enforcement procedure: Scotland]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 154: Page 21, line 6, leave out ("57 or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 not moved.]
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 157 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 23, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) "Accessibility strategy" and "accessibility plan" have the meaning given in section 28D.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Discrimination against disabled students and prospective students]:
[Amendments Nos. 159 and 160 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 25, line 6, leave out ("1(5)(b)(iii)") and insert ("1(5)(b)(ii)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Meaning of "discrimination"]:
[Amendments Nos. 163 to 166 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Disabled students not to be substantially disadvantaged]:
[Amendment No. 167 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 167A:
Page 26, line 43, at end insert (", and
( ) in relation to any qualifying requirements or examinations needed for or facilitating engagement in a particular profession, whether set by the institution itself or by an external qualifying body, and which are adopted by the institution, disabled students are not placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with students who are not disabled").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to impose on further and higher educational institutions a duty to ensure that, as far as possible, when students sit professional or other examinations, disabled students are not put at a disadvantage vis-à-vis other

CWH 255
students. It links up with Amendment No. 191 which addresses more directly the issue of behaviour of professional bodies towards disabled students.
There should be a presumption of ability and equal opportunity rather than a presumption of exclusion. The purpose of the two amendments is to bring this section of the Bill and the DDA in line with the sex and race discrimination legislation by giving disabled people protection against discrimination by professional and qualifying bodies, and to comply with the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force on qualifying bodies. We feel strongly that at the moment professional bodies lie completely outside discrimination law and that this is unacceptable.
Amendment No. 167A deals specifically with examinations and entrance requirements for a profession. The qualifying bodies often have a direct educational role because they can restrict the activities of educational bodies. They may conduct examinations or other assessments as a prelude to admission to the profession; they accredit courses undertaken by bodies, including universities and further education colleges; and they may undertake courses themselves.
They often place conditions on taking examinations at institutions—they may, for instance, stipulate what kind of exams should be taken—and sometimes they control or at least influence entry to courses either by setting the criteria for admission to the vocation or by offering sponsorship to particular individuals. Where there are a limited number of places, this effectively presents disabled people from joining a course.
One example I can quote is that of Ali who had dyslexia and applied to do a course with a view to joining a profession allied to medicine. The university was happy to offer him a place but thought it wise to check first with the professional body. The professional body advised the university that it would be unlikely to register Ali, even though at that stage it knew only the briefest facts about his dyslexia. As a result, the university felt obliged to reject Ali's application.
Amendment No. 191 deals more generally with the professional bodies. They can directly affect the usefulness of education received by deciding whether or not to admit a student to the relevant professional association. The piece of paper they offer may be much more useful than the degree itself. The amendment seeks to prevent the professional bodies operating blanket exclusions on disabled students without considering the real issues. There should be a presumption of ability and equal opportunity rather than a presumption of exclusion.
An example of a professional body is the Law Society which regulates entry to professional legal training such as the legal practice course available at some universities. Such organisations need to start taking responsibility for facilitating opportunities for disabled people. Without Amendment No. 191 the professional bodies may remain untouched by the new
CWH 256
law and continue to bar disabled students from many of the professions which they are well suited to join. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I support the amendment strongly but briefly. It is surely quite wrong that professional bodies should remain outwith the law, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, says, untouched by the DDA. Many professions are well suited to people with disabilities who may be debarred or stopped before they can start on a course.
6.15 pm
Baroness Blackstone: I understand the wish to make sure that the requirements set by professional bodies are caught by disability duties, but the Bill is not the right vehicle. We are already committed to action in a much wider way in relation to public sector bodies as I will explain.
Amendment No. 167A seeks to place duties on institutions not to discriminate against disabled students in qualifying requirements or examinations for entry into a particular profession, whether set by the institution or a qualifying body. The Bill already places universities under a duty to make reasonable adjustments to their examination arrangements where they place disabled students at a substantial disadvantage, so to that extent the amendment is not necessary. But the qualifying requirements for a profession are set by the professional body, not the educational institution. The most effective way to catch these is to deal with those bodies.
Although there is no specific provision in the DDA dealing with qualifying bodies, they will be covered by Part III of the DDA where they are providing a service to the public. Whether they are doing so will be determined on a case-by-case basis. I must admit that this is a very grey area of law.
Where qualifying bodies are covered by discrimination legislation, they are covered by employment provisions—as in the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act—rather than the education provisions. This Bill deals with the education provisions of the DDA. It is significant that the Disability Rights Task Force included a recommendation on qualifying bodies within its employment, rather than its education, chapter. That is an important issue and its implications need further consideration and, in due course, consultation.
Amendment No. 191 seeks to require professional bodies to promote equality between disabled and non-disabled people. The Government agreed, in the equality statement of November 1999, that public bodies must take a lead in promoting equal opportunities, and we committed ourselves to putting that obligation into legislation as soon as parliamentary time allowed. We have already done that in relation to racial equality through the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. That places a duty on public bodies, when carrying out their duties, to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between people of different racial groups. We shall take similar action on disability and sex equality too.

CWH 257
The DRTF recommended that public bodies should be under a duty to promote equality of opportunities for disabled people. Given our commitment to legislate, we shall be responding to that recommendation when we make our formal and public response to the DRTF report at the end of this month.
We have already asked the DRC to consider, with the other equality commissions, the scope for including voluntary guidance or mechanisms in advance of legislation. That will help guide public bodies in the lead up to such obligations becoming law.
In the light of these explanations, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: The Minister said that it is an employment question, not an educational question, but in the case of Ali, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, quoted, the professional body had a great influence and he was prevented from pursuing his chosen course. Surely that was an educational question, in Ali's eyes anyway.
Baroness Blackstone: This Bill is not the right place to amend provisions that are made by professional bodies of this sort. The right place to do that is in future legislation that relates to employment, since professional bodies are about preparing people for particular occupations and particular careers. Educational institutions will, under the legislation—through proper examination procedures, for example—already have to make sure that they do not discriminate against disabled students.
Lord Addington: Further education is often seen as practical training. Surely that is very similar to professional qualifications.
Baroness Blackstone: Further education provides a whole range of vocational qualifications, and in making that educational provision, further education providers will not be able to discriminate under this legislation. In dealing specifically with professional bodies, we need to legislate in a different context.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply to this, and I am heartened by what she said. We had some difficulty placing this particular amendment, and came up with this format which indirectly sought to put pressure on the qualifying bodies by trying to make it an act of discrimination if the colleges and the universities themselves did not take action to facilitate it. I am heartened by the fact that already within the legislation both the colleges and the universities will be acting discriminatorily if they pursue the sort of action that Ali experienced here. It is important that this will be in Hansard and people will recognise that this is implicit in the actions that they have to take. I am also heartened by the fact that the Government propose to come back with legislation in response to the Disability Rights Task Force proposals. I know that at the moment the whole issue is something of a grey area
CWH 258
and that there are great difficulties in bringing cases under these sorts of provisions. That is partly the reason that we tried to introduce this under the Bill. We look forward to seeing what is proposed by the Government and for the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 26, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations may make provision, for the purposes of this section—

(a) as to circumstances in which it is reasonable for a responsible body to have to take steps of a prescribed description;

(b) as to steps which it is always reasonable for a responsible body to have to take;

(c) as to circumstances in which it is not reasonable for a responsible body to have to take steps of a prescribed description;

(d) as to steps which it is never reasonable for a responsible body to have to take.

( ) In order to comply with its duty under subsection (1), a responsible body may in particular take steps to—

(a) adjust premises;

(b) adjust course content, including work placements;

(c) adjust teaching arrangements;

(d) provide or arrange transport to and from a further education institution:

(e) provide or arrange additional teaching;

(f) provide or arrange communication support or services;

(g) provide or arrange materials and information in alternative formats;

(h) provide or arrange staff training;

(i) employ support workers;

(j) change policies, practices and procedures.").

The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendment No. 168 tabled by me and my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth.
Clause 27 brings disabled students within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act and naturally we welcome that inclusion unreservedly. The clause is part of a cluster of clauses that explain what discrimination against a student or prospective student means. However, this part of the Bill is rather thin on the detail of how inclusion of these students can be made to work. Indeed, it seems at times a little more forthcoming on the considerations which might tell against catering appropriately for the disabled student.
Lest the imagination of the responsible authorities should fail, we have sought in this amendment to remind them of what might be appropriate. Clearly, not everything can go into the Bill, so we have paved the way for regulations and provided some broad indications of what may be useful. Even though we are in the Moses Room and have recently suffered a storm of biblical proportions, I cannot claim that the list is the list of Solomon, but it may help to reassure any authority disposed to imagine all sorts of adverse consequences for other students in meeting the needs of disabled students.
It is wrong that disabled students should have to face not only the normal strains of college life, but the hazards of their disability and, in addition, a battle to get the support that they need. RNIB experience suggests that students all too often have to find out what is available or what could be available if greater effort were made and then to fight a battle to get what the) need. The amendments are designed to help to move the responsible agencies towards taking the initiative and sparing the student unnecessary hassle and the need to keep asking—especially when, as sometimes happens, grudging responses give the impression that charity is being sought.
I am sure that we all want to extend the rights agenda for disabled students. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I warmly support my noble friend. I hope that the Minister will agree to put a reference to regulations in the Bill and in particular that transport and support workers should be included. Transport is a major problem for disabled students in further education. Lack of transport can prevent a disabled student from pursuing his chosen and otherwise accessible course.
In higher education, a big problem is the employment of support workers such as interpreters, note-takers and personal assistants. The legal and financial responsibilities of an employer and having to train personal assistants are a lot for a student to take on. This all takes time and energy, both of which might be in short supply. It would be relatively easy for the institution, which is already an employer, to set up an employment agency. I am told that some do, but it is not very common. There would then be the added benefit of a pool of workers in its employ who could provide useful back-up when a support worker is ill. I hope therefore that the Minister will respond positively.
Baroness Blackstone: I understand that in proposing that the Government should take regulation-making powers of this type, the noble Lord's intention is to promote clarity for both providers and learners. We are proposing similar powers in respect of corresponding provisions for schools.
However, it is important to look at all proposals to take regulation-making powers on their merits. We are not persuaded that the arguments are as strong for similar powers for further and higher education, which has a more diverse group of providers, catering for a predominantly adult population, many of whom attend quite short courses.
In that context, it is less apparent that the Government can sensibly determine sets of circumstances that are or are not reasonable, or which adjustments are always or never reasonable. That is more properly a matter for guidance, through the DRC's code, and for sensible interpretation of such guidance by institutions and, if cases are brought—which I hope they will not be—by the courts.
The amendment lists the steps that responsible bodies may take to comply with their duties under the clause. It is a helpful and uncontroversial list, but the
CWH 260
most appropriate place for such lists and the examples to illustrate them is in the code that will support this provision. The list of steps that an employer might have to take to comply with his duty to make reasonable adjustments was included in Part II of the DDA. However, circumstances have changed. In 1995, the concept of reasonable adjustments was new and the government of the day felt it right to put an illustrative list on the face of the Bill.
We consulted on the basis that the provisions in respect of further and higher education would be accompanied by a code. That approach has been widely supported. We take the view that we should not try to put provisions that are clearly suitable for such a code on the face of the Bill unless there are compelling reasons to do so. There do not seem to be such reasons in this case. The list is helpful and reasonable—indeed, it is one of which Solomon would have been proud. It accords with the wide duty we have put in the Bill in respect of further and higher education, which does not limit the reasonable steps that an institution might have to take to avoid substantial disadvantage. We will pass on our understanding of that to the DRC, which will develop the code.
Perhaps I may say a few words to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth on the subject of transport. The Bill will place a duty on education providers to make reasonable adjustments to policies, practice and procedures or to any arrangements for services that place the disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in comparison to non-disabled persons. They will have to make sure that in operating their transport policies they do not treat disabled students less favourably than the non-disabled. They will also have to consider reasonable adjustments to ensure that disabled students are not put at a disadvantage relative to non-disabled students. That will apply to transport. I hope that provides some reassurance to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: Before my noble friend decides what to do, I thank the Minister very much for her comments. Does she also agree that the question of support workers is vital for those in HE Perhaps institutions might be willing to take on—
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, of course I accept that support workers are terribly important in this sector.
Lord Rix: I welcome the fact that the Government want the same things as we want, except that they are not prepared to put them on the face of the Bill in the same way. The Special Educational Consortium has pressed me on these amendments. It will no doubt speak to ministerial officials in due course. I hope that we may be able to approach the issue from a slightly different angle on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 169 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 170 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 171 and 172 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 27, line 23, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I return to this theme; I referred earlier to a paragraph in the Bill. This really is sheer gobbledy-gook. Clause 27 (4) states:
"In determining whether it is reasonable for the responsible body to have to take a particular step in relation to that person in order to comply with its duty under subsection (1), regard shall be had to the extent to which taking the step in question is consistent with compliance with that request".
I believe that that is otiose. The Bill will not lose anything by having the provision removed. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sorry that the noble Baroness thinks this is gobbledy-gook. I admit when she reads it out that it does not sound entirely clear but I wish to reassure her that it is.
It is important for students who may benefit from the right of the Bill to have the ability to keep their disability confidential if they wish. We want to make it absolutely clear to institutions that when discharging their duties under Clause 27 to make reasonable judgments, they should take into account the need to maintain confidentiality in respect of an individual student if a request has been made by a student. Subsections (3), (4) and (5) are meant to provide the clarity on this point that both individuals and institutions need. I do not know whether, in the light of the assurance I have given, the noble Baroness will feel satisfied. That is the purpose of those subsections. If we were to cut them out, I do not believe that that clarity would be there, particularly for institutions.
Baroness Blatch: The one defence I would not use for keeping the provision in is clarity. As an analogy, it is rather like saying that when determining whether to teach reasonably young people English one shall have regard to the extent to which the school taught English adequately. It is such a convoluted contortion of a paragraph. The explanation given by the noble Baroness has not helped me. However, no doubt we shall return to the issue on the Floor of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Right of redress]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 28, line 22, leave out from ("made") to end of line 24 and insert ("to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal in England and Wales and to industrial tribunals in Scotland").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 174, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 175, 177, 209 and 211.
The aim of this series of amendments is to move the enforcement of disability rights in further and higher education out of the courts and into tribunals which are more accessible and would have greater relevant awareness and experience of disability issues. We were talking a little while earlier about the difficulties of going to court on disability discrimination issues and, because of the difficulty of taking such cases to court with all the costs and complexity that this entails, many disabled people do not pursue this course of action. The switch proposed in this series of amendments would ensure that the new rights of disabled learners in further education and higher education were much more readily enforceable.
The amendment has been supported by the Royal National Institute for the Blind and in a recent study they have pursued called The Price of Justice: Towards Effective Enforcement of the Disability Discrimination Act, they have documented the very considerable barriers to disabled people in bringing discrimination cases before a county court. At autumn 2000 only 25 cases had been brought to the county or sheriff courts under Part III of the DDA as against over 5,000 similar cases to employment tribunals.
The barriers to bringing cases into courts were shown to be the costs involved, the complexity and the lack of disability awareness on the part of judges. The conclusion that the RNIB derived from this was that under the present system disabled people's rights of access to goods and services are virtually unenforceable. The recommendation was very firmly that all disability discrimination cases should be commenced in a tribunal.
The Independent Review of Anti-Discrimination Legislation carried out by Professor Hepple and his colleagues at Cambridge University, for similar reasons, recommended that discrimination cases should be heard in tribunals. A good deal of concern was expressed on the Disability Rights Task Force about the suitability of county courts for dealing with cases of discrimination, and similar concerns were expressed by the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission in their recent reviews of anti-discrimination legislation.
A SENDIST tribunal is already being established. The aim would be that it would be appropriate to establish a separate division of that tribunal in order to cater for the differences which exist between school and post-school cases. The tribunal would, by and large, be a far more suitable place to hear such cases. There is a precedent for this in the field of social security tribunals, and the feeling is that it would be a good idea to go forward in that direction. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I have to say I am a bit worried about this amendment. Is it not very important that discrimination on the grounds of disability has the same profile as that against sex and race? I think it should not be marginalised into a tribunal. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said that there is a difference between school and post-school anyway, so that this would be something new

CWH 263
for any tribunal to sort out. I should prefer it to be given the same profile as that in relation to sex and race. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Not half as interested as the Minister was to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, had to say, because I agree with her completely. She has effectively presented the basis of the argument that we have unleashed as to whether the tribunal or the courts should provide redress and effective action. Here we are dealing with the relationship between students and their institutions. It is very different from the relationship within schools and pupils under the age of 16, where it is clear that one of the merits contained within our proposals, as the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, indicated, is that it keeps the disability issues four square with the issues on race and sex discrimination. The institutions expect to meet any failure on their part in the courts of the land, rather than with a tribunal, which is designed for a different purpose from the relationship between students and institutions.
The difference is that in the case of the student, it might be that some aspect of real expense and compensation was involved in the discrimination against them, with which the courts would be able to deal, We have already discussed this afternoon why it is inappropriate for the tribunal to be dealing in that way with regard to students under the age of 16.
The nub of the Government's position has been exemplified in the discussion in the Committee. I understand the intent behind the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and her reservations about the way in which the courts may have acted in the past.
There is an ongoing process under my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine at the present time of modernising the civil courts in order that we can see more effective redress of grievances across the range of cases brought before the civil courts. Therefore, if there are anxieties about the way the courts have dealt with race and sex discrimination in the past, then that is where change needs to be effected, and any such benefits of course would obtain also in relation to disability. However, we do not believe that the case has been made for putting the position for students beyond 16 and their different relationships with their institutions full square with pupils in schools. That is why we ask the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply. I should point out that there is a precedent here in relation to employment tribunals. He is right to say that there is a different relationship between students and their institutions and between schools and their institutions. I take that on board, and this is why what was suggested was a different division of the same tribunal.
However, there are other areas where tribunals are used, certainly as a first port of call in cases of dispute, and as I pointed out from the evidence that is available,
CWH 264
people are more ready to take a case to a tribunal than to a court. There is some concern that the DDA s not working in that respect and that it is too difficult to take cases to court. Again, going back to our discussion earlier on the qualifying authorities and the examination authorities, he courts have not proved to be totally satisfactory.
I accept for the moment what the Minister says. We shall consider these issues and perhaps return to them later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 175 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 28, line 28, leave out ("injury to feelings") and insert ("any personal offence caused").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 29 seeks to extend protection for the disabled student by providing that if the student claims that he has been discriminated against, contrary to the provisions of the Bill, then he can pursue that claim for damages through civil proceedings. Under such civil proceedings the court might award compensation to the student. Subsection (2) of the clause states that included in any such compensation for damages, the court may include compensation "for injury to feelings".
The intention of this subsection is obviously to assert that as well as compensation for, for example, loss of teaching time or education provision, or financial loss, the court may order compensation for any emotional hurt caused to the disabled person.
"Injury to feelings"—the term used in the Bill—is a very difficult concept and not easily defined or measurable. To try to improve on the phrase "injury to feelings" and to make it something more measurable and which any tribunal or court could assess, I recommend in my amendment that the words "injury to feelings" should be replaced by "any personal offence caused". That is much more direct, to the point and more likely to be the case. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: We are in areas of considerable subtlety here. The Bill refers to "injury to feelings". The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, has her views on the matter and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, in Amendment No. 139 had the phrase "any personal hurt experienced". We are all trying to define as accurately and as effectively as we can the problems against which a grievance can be identified.
The basis of the Government's position with regard to its phrase "injury to feelings" comes under Parts II and III of the Disability Discrimination Act. Therefore, there is a great deal to be said for consistency in those terms.
I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch., says about the different ways that the question could be phrased, but that is the basis for the choice. Our anxiety is that if the amendment were accepted, the difference in wording between identical provisions in this Bill and the rest of the Disability Discrimination Act could cause confusion.

CWH 265
I recognise that the parliamentary draftsmen may not always have quite as subtle an approach as others who are having a second shot at it. However, that is the basis of the phrase in the Bill before the House.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry again that the intellectual rationale offered by the Minister is that the wording has been used before, so the Government are being consistent. There is more than half a point in the noble Lord's statement that this is being compared with a very recent Act of Parliament. However, injury to feelings is a difficult concept to measure. There are many situations in which one might have hurt feelings. If any personal offence is caused by the specific activity that is the subject of the case before the tribunal, that is a far more direct description. However, I shall not press my amendment further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 177 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 28, line 35, leave out ("(as the case may be)") and insert ("(in Scotland)").
The noble Earl said: Here we have a selection of Scottish amendments, starting with Amendment No. 178, which would remove any ambiguity about the remedies that will be available in Scotland under this section. It says that the remedies will be those available to the Court of Session.
Amendment No. 206 would extend the period in which a complaint about possible discrimination may be laid. The extension is very reasonably made, to allow a complaint to be made after whenever the discrimination is noticed or realised rather than just within six months of the start—or is it conclusion?—of the discriminatory action. It is surprisingly easy for the subjects of decision-making to be unaware of the unsatisfactory nature of decisions handed down to them. Six months may well be a very short time in which to come to a conclusion that a complaint is substantive. Similarly, finding some advocacy support and insight can be difficult for many people.
Amendment No. 207 is identical to Amendment No. 212. They are focused on the use of the correct legal terminology in Scotland. I am certain that the Committee would wish this to be both clear and accurate. The words "sufficient evidence" are the correct words when the value of evidence is being determined in Scots law. This is a very straightforward amendment.
Amendment No. 208 is similar to Amendment No. 213. They are both aimed at remedying the position of certificates of evidence. For this amendment, I must confess my indebtedness to the briefing of the Law Society of Scotland. The amendment would remove the presumption that a document purporting to be a certificate of evidence is a certificate unless it can be disproved by the other side. The amendment would
CWH 266
require the person who relies on a document as a certificate of evidence to prove its authenticity if challenged. The other side ought not to be required to prove that the certificate of evidence is not genuine. The amendment would rightly place the duty to establish the genuineness of evidence on the person relying on it. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I have dreaded this moment ever since the Chief Whip a fortnight ago prevented me from going to a Burns supper where I could have received some elucidation on these matters and made me stay in the House to deal with English and Welsh matters instead. The noble Earl will recognise my limitations in responding to him on aspects of Scottish law. I will deal with each of the amendments as precisely as I can.
First, on Amendment No. 178, as the High Court in Scotland is a supreme court and the Court of Session is a term specific to the Scottish legal system, we are not quite clear why any aspect of confusion should arise.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps I might respond immediately. Those briefing me were unhappy about the use of the words "as the case may be" and felt that their removal and the substitution of "in Scotland" would make the position as clear as possible.
Lord Davies of Oldham: In which case we shall look at that aspect again.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 207 and 212, the provisions in the Bill mirror equivalent provisions in the DDA. The problem with the amendments is that they would introduce an inconsistency with references elsewhere in the DDA to the precise term "conclusive evidence". Furthermore, the term "conclusive evidence" seems to work equally well whether used in Scotland, England or Wales, although I heard what the noble Earl said about the aspect of sufficient evidence.
Legal confusion in these issues is of no benefit to disabled people north or south of the border and our search for consistency with the DDA across the whole of the UK except Northern Ireland is the basis of our position and why we feel that the introduction of the distinctive and different phrase suggested by the noble Earl would not be wholly appropriate.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 208 and 213, the provisions in the Bill which the noble Earl seeks to amend mirror equivalent and non-controversial provisions in the DDA. There is nothing sinister about provisions of this nature; they are there simply for reasons of administrative convenience. Let me explain what I mean.
The Bill as drafted ensures that a respondent to a claim of disability discrimination will have a defence if the act was done to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of any enactment. A respondent will be able to prove this defence by producing an appropriate certificate to which the noble Earl referred. This does not mean that the person bringing the claim cannot

CWH 267
challenge the authenticity of a document purporting to be such a certificate but it ensures that a challenge will only be made where there are genuine grounds for suspecting the certificate's authenticity.
Amendments Nos. 206 and 210 relate to Schedule 2. Amendment No. 206 has the same effect for the schools provisions of Schedule 2 and the tribunal as Amendment No. 210 has for further and higher education and the courts.
I understand why the amendments have been put forward but they are not necessary. Circumstances could indeed arise in which an act of discrimination had taken place but which the complainant could not reasonably have known about at the time or within the six month period during which proceedings may be brought before the tribunal or the courts. But under paragraph 10(3)and paragraph 13(3) inserted by the schedule the tribunal and the court respectively may consider any claim which is out of time if, in all the circumstances of the case, they consider that it is just and equitable to do so. That the complainant could not reasonably have known about the discriminatory act at the time it occurred will be among the circumstances of the case that the tribunal, or the court as the case may be, may properly consider. With those reassurances in mind, I hope that the noble Earl will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. On the point about attending Burns suppers, that is an excellent remedy for the problem.
We have already dealt with Amendment No. 178. On Amendment No. 207, the Scottish legal system understands the odd occasion when English legal words end up being dealt with in Scotland. As regards the words "conclusive" or "sufficient", if this were a Scottish Act the word "sufficient" would have been used, but it is a United Kingdom Bill and we have more than one legal jurisdiction, so I suspect that we shall have to live with the position.
On Amendment No. 208, I shall be interested to hear what those briefing me have to say about the noble Lord's response. I suspect that they will persist in the view that proving a certificate of evidence is the wrong way round. However, I shall say no more on that because I am dependent on briefing on that point.
On Amendment No. 206, I am more than heartened by what the noble Lord said as regards the six-month cut-off period; namely, that consideration may be given to a later period in exceptional circumstances. He explained that point very well. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Occupation of premises by educational institutions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 30 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: Unless I have read the Bill wrongly, I regard this as one of the most important provisions in terms of property and alterations to buildings.
CWH 268
In Clause 30 the Bill is entering dangerous waters and I invite the Government to leave it out altogether. A college of further or higher education is most likely to comprise many different and separate buildings. The college may own the freehold to some of them and some of the land, but, especially in the case of some colleges in inner cities, it is also likely that some of the premises used will be leasehold, rented in some form or another from the owner.
Where the college is the tenant in some form of leasehold for some or all of the premises that it uses, Clause 30 gives the college rights over the landlord in pursuit of compliance with the provisions of the Bill. In other words, it allows the college to make physical alterations to the premises in order to improve accessibility for the disabled student and to do so in spite of opposition or even objection to the changes from the landlord.
Clause 30 permits the landlord to impose some conditions. However, overall this is a dangerous precedent. It should not be within the purposes of the Bill to impose alterations to the terms of leasehold or tenancy. It should be left to the college to negotiate with the landlord within the existing legislation on tenancy and leasehold on both existing leases and proposed new leases. In such negotiations the college will need to secure the agreement of landlords that any physical additions or alterations to the premises that may become necessary in order to conform with the Bill's provisions on accessibility can be carried out. No doubt the landlord would insist that any such work is done at the expense of the college rather than that of the landlord. He might also insist that any additions and improvements are ultimately the property of the landlord. The terms of the lease need to be voluntarily entered into between college and landlord and should not be imposed by the Bill.
I hope that I have read the Bill wrongly and that the Minister is in a position to say that this will not happen. However, if I was the owner of such land and for years a college had leased it from me, then suddenly, on the basis of negotiation, but without my consent, alterations could be carried out to my land and buildings in order to comply with the law, I would consider that draconian and extreme. This would require much further consideration. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Clause 30 amends the DDA by inserting a new Section 28W and a new Part III to Schedule 4. Without the clause, many educational institutions occupying leased premises may be unable to comply with the duty under new Section 28T to make reasonable adjustments to physical features that place a disabled student at a substantial disadvantage. These provisions mirror those in Sections 16 and 27 of the DDA which apply to employers, trade organisations and providers of services who occupy premises under lease. They are not in that sense new or different from what is already enshrined in the Act.
The effect of' this clause as a whole is that, where the lease of a property occupied by a further and higher education institution forbids an occupier from making

CWH 269
the alterations needed to comply with new Section 28T or puts conditions on those alterations, the occupier can none the less make the alterations required under the Bill if—and this is an important condition and I hope that it helps the noble Baroness—he has the written consent of the owner/lessor; but he must apply to the landlord in writing if he wants to make the alteration. If the occupier does apply in writing, the landlord cannot refuse consent unreasonably, although he can attach reasonable conditions to the consent.
I hope that that answers the noble Baroness's question. I feel sure that she would not want to prevent institutions occupying premises under a lease from making the alterations needed to comply with new Section 28. Of course, the institutions have to seek consent of the owner in writing.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the Committee will accept that Clause 30 should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: No, I do not accept it. Owners of the land may not wish their property to be altered—perhaps permanently because some of the alterations are not reversible. Consent should be secured from the owner. If it is not, and given that the person is only renting the property, the college or institution should look round for premises which are suitable and an owner who is receptive to the notion of having alterations made.
When was ownership usurped in this way? I find it extraordinary. If I am the owner of a building I am happy for someone to rent it on my terms for particular purposes. Why should I be compelled under the law to have alterations made—floors taken out, stairs put in or holes put through floors? I do not want them and they may affect seriously the value of the property. Who is compensated for that? Is the owner compensated for alteration to a building which makes it less saleable when the lease runs out or the renting arrangements come to an end? It is a draconian provision and I do not accept what the noble Baroness has said.
Baroness Blackstone: I do not have much to add to what I have already said. I do not think the clause is draconian, because the landlord is able to make reasonable conditions on any alterations that should be made. That provision appears in legislation passed by previous Government and it does not seem to have led to serious difficulties in the DDA.
I stand by what I have already said. It would be wholly undesirable if a disabled student in a wheelchair who happened to be doing a course in a leased building were unable to continue that course because a landlord unreasonably withheld consent for a ramp to be put in.
Baroness Blatch: If we were talking just about a ramp, this would not be an issue, but there is no limit on the extent to which the building may be altered. As I understand it, the Minister is saying that if the owner
CWH 270
refuses to give his consent because the proposed alterations are so great as to destroy the character of the building and no conditions that could be put on the changes would make them acceptable to him, the Bill provides the power for the tenant to press ahead irrespective of what the owner feels.
Baroness Blackstone: I have already made it clear that it would not be irrespective of what the owner may have to say, because the owner can impose reasonable conditions. One of those might be that the changes should not destroy the character of a building. However, that does not seem very likely.
The noble Baroness also suggested that the value of a building might be greatly diminished as a result of alterations if the landlord wanted to sell it when the lease was up. In fact, making a building more user-friendly for a person in a wheelchair might add to its value. Any employer now has to make similar changes under the DDA where it is reasonable that they should do so. I emphasise also that educational institutions are asked only to make reasonable adjustments. Nothing unreasonable would be required.
Baroness Blatch: It would be helpful to know the limitations on alterations. I shall come back to the issue on Report, when it would also be helpful to know what rights the owner of a property has if he believes that he is going to be seriously disadvantaged either financially or in the way in which that building can be used in future. Ramps are a relatively straightforward access issue. Any building designated for public use has to have ramps. Not even the owner of a public building can escape that requirement. However, all the other alterations that might be needed could destroy the character of a building. If the Minister is saying that the fact that an alteration might destroy the character of a building constitutes a defence against it, I would like to consider that. I am not satisfied with the answer, but we shall return to the issue on Report.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Validity and revision of agreements]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 29, line 44, leave out from ("substitution") to end of line I on page 30 and insert (", for paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2), of "under section 28V".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 30, line 14, after ("employed") insert ("in respect of that research").
The noble Baroness said: I need not take long on this amendment, which is a question of definition. Under Clause 32, a student is defined as a person who receives education at an educational institution. In particular, it includes a person who carries out research under the supervision of a member of staff and is not employed by that institution.
Many research students in universities are now employed. Some of them are employed as full-time research assistants, and in those cases they are employees of the institution. But many others do the odd hour of teaching; sometimes they work in the bar and things like that. The question is whether, in those circumstances, it is fair that they should not benefit from the terms that we agreed here as a disabled student and receive the benefits of being regarded as a disabled student. Where they are employed, I take it that the normal terms of the DDA hold in relation to employees. In this regard, where does an employee start and where does a student stop? We look for clarification from the Minister.
Baroness Blackstone:: This is a helpful amendment, and it has led us to look again at the definition of "student".
However, I am afraid that this is a complex area and we cannot accept the amendment as it stands. The effect would be that someone being educated at a higher education institution in a research capacity, perhaps undertaking a PhD but who is also employed by that institution, for example as a lecturer, would be covered by Part IV in respect of some of the things that they do and by Part II in respect of other things. An individual who wanted to bring a case would then have to decide whether he had been discriminated against in one capacity or the other, and an institution defending the case would be able to bring arguments that the individual had chosen the wrong capacity.
The creation of doubt and room for misinterpretation in such cases would be unhelpful. Enforcement of Part II is by the Employment Tribunal while enforcement of Part IV is through the courts. Researchers need to be clear as to how they can take forward claims or risk getting to the court only to find that they should have gone to a tribunal or vice versa. That could be costly and confusing for individuals, and may even result in them losing a case because they ran out of time to bring it in the correct forum.
There is also an issue in relation to the position of an employee at an institution, for example a lecturer, who is undertaking an academic course at the institution where he or she works. We need to consider whether such a person should fall under Part II or Part IV or both. We propose, therefore, to reconsider the wording and return to this issue on Report. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, will feel able to withdraw her amendment
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister. Can I take it, therefore, that the Minister will be bringing forward some sort of amendment on Report?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, indeed.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Codes of practice]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 182
Page 31, line 2, leave out ("codes of practice") and insert ("a code of practice for England and Wales and a separate code of practice for Scotland").
The noble Earl said: The amendment is aimed at the serious issue of communicating the purpose of this Bill to the public and students, pupils and parents. For very sound historical reasons the educational regimes in England, Wales and Scotland have always been different. That should be understood as an inevitability within a Union state where the institutions of the constituent parts are retained and developed. The consequence is that the context, the structure, the language, the legislation and the terminology used are all different.
I believe that the code of practice should be an effective communicator, understandable by all readers. I strongly urge the publication of separate national codes of practice. I hope that there will be no attempt to produce a composite code in which there may well be three sets of context and terminology. Such an Anglo-Welsh-Scottish code document would be confusing, self-defeating as a means of communication and really only of use to someone studying diversity within the United Kingdom. I acknowledge that this matter is reserved to Westminster. I am also sure that there is no requirement based on that reservation to necessitate a single composite code document. Such a document would have a depressing, as well as a confusing, effect in Scotland.
The aim of Amendment No. 184 is to include the voice of the child in the process of selecting the best way ahead. The amendment would ensure that the codes of practice promote the involvement of disabled young people, and specifically children, in the decisions that affect them. It is unfortunate that we have to acknowledge that disabled children have been largely ignored in the process of deciding what provision should be made for them. However, now there is an international obligation to give due to regard to a child's view in matters that affect the child, which is Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Clause 25(1)(a) aims to give practical guidance. Research has shown that many disabled children have difficulty in getting their views heard and, what is more, identifies that that is often a problem to do with adult attitudes to communication. This was identified by the Joseph Rowntree Trust research, by Ward, in 1997.
This issue of ensuring that the disabled person has the right and opportunity to be heard should be central to the Bill and, of course, the child's voice is required in Section 15(4) of the Standards in Scotland "s Schools etc Act 2000. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: I shall speak very briefly to Amendment No. 185, which is grouped with the amendments of my noble friend. This is a probing amendment that aims to ensure that, when the codes of practice are drawn up, the Government will listen to those people about whom they are being drawn up and to those who are going to use them. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that what is suggested in the amendment will occur, because it seems to be eminently sensible.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I listened very carefully to the noble Earl's identification of the distinct educational tradition of Scotland to which we all pay the greatest of respect, and I understand the basis of his argument in its context. He will recognise from the way in which the Bill is drafted that other powerful considerations need to apply for the present framework that we propose.
We intend to have two codes which cover Britain as a whole: one covers schools and one covers post-16 duties. I hear what the noble Earl has said that this, therefore, would provide a Great Britain perspective when it would apply to an education tradition very different in Scotland from that which obtains in England and Wales. Of course, we are talking here about special aspects of the education system, namely in relation to non-discrimination against the disabled and the enhancement of the rights of the disabled, and we are following the pattern which is provided nationwide in relationship to race and sex discrimination legislation also. We must beg to differ on where the priority lies. However, I merely reassure the noble Earl that no disrespect is intended towards the Scottish education system or its distinct separateness, many features of which we greatly admire. A disabled child in Scotland should not have different rights from one in England and Wales. The thrust of our proposal is to ensure similarity.
Amendment No. 184 replicates the provision in the Bill to give the DRC the power to issue codes of practice with a view to encouraging good practice in the way that disabled people are treated in education. Involving disabled people in decisions that affect them is clearly one aspect of good practice. Many disabled children and young people should benefit from good practice in education. It is inconceivable that our provision for good practice could exclude the rights of the child that the noble Earl advanced so eloquently.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, sought reassurances on his amendment. The DRC is under a statutory duty when preparing codes to carry out such consultations as it feels appropriate, including publishing for public consultation proposals that relate to the code. It is inconceivable that the DRC could carry out a consultation process without including the participation of disabled people, the organisations that represent them and those to whom the practical guidance is designed to apply. I hope the noble Lord will accept that assurance
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his replies. I was not suggesting that we
CWH 274
should have different content in the codes. I merely wanted to get the terminology right. For example, there has been a lot of talk today about LEAs. That term means nothing in Scotland, where it is the local authority or the education committee—
Lord Davies of Oldham: Perhaps I should have made it explicit that there is no question of the codes being developed without consultation with experts from Scotland on the particular needs of the Scottish dimension in order to cope with the problems of nomenclature that the noble Earl has identified.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am very pleased about that. However, it is important that there should be separate chapters, even if there is only one document. That would obviate the need to have words in brackets at the bottom of every paragraph to explain how the situation will be dealt with in Scotland. That would merely make for confusing reading. I am not necessarily suggesting the production of separate documents, but the Scottish issue definitely needs to be addressed on an equal basis, with its own chapters.
I could begin to accept the Minister's suggestion that my Amendment No. 184 was not necessary and that it was implicit. I will read Hansard to gain a better understanding of that. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 183 to 185 not moved]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
member>Clause 37 [Relationship with other Parts of the 1995 Act]:
Baroness Darcy de Knayth Baroness Darcy de Knayth moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 32, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (3) of section 19, at end insert—
"(i) the provision of work experience placements to students.-.-).
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would ensure that disabled students could get work experience by placing a duty on the work experience provider as well as on the educational establishment. It is an issue about which I feel passionate. Work experience is at present a compulsory part of many FE, HE and vocational courses, mainly teaching, nursing and social work. If you do not complete work experience, it may be impossible to pass the course or graduate. The law will require institutions to make reasonable adjustments to work placements for disabled students, but institutions cannot control what happens to a student once they are on another organisation's premises.
Work experience which takes the form of employment will be covered under the DDA but not that which is undertaken on a more informal basis. That is why the amendment is necessary.
The amendment is particularly important because the Dearing Report recommended that all courses should include work experience. We are moving

CWH 275
towards this with the setting up of the national centre for work experience whose sole job is to promote work experience in HE to universities, employers and students. David Blunkett has spoken on the importance of work experience. Research has shown that it is very important for all students, and it is probably particularly important for disabled students who can assess whether their preferred career is possible for them. They can learn about the job in a practical setting and consider and plan for necessary adjustments and support.
Placement providers are often unwilling to make adjustments for what is often a short time, or they lack understanding. SKILL, of which I am President, has given me an example of a student with a mild hearing impairment and epilepsy. He had had no seizure for four years and embarked on a post-graduate Certificate of Education. His first two teaching placements were successfully completed but in his final placement, the class teacher refused to leave him alone in his unsupervised sessions in the classroom on the ground that "his disabilities made it unsafe for him to be in charge of the class". He failed the course, not having completed the required number of unsupervised teaching hours. Happily, the institution of higher education where he was studying allowed him to repeat the placement the following year, but he is neither eligible for student support nor welfare benefit.
The recognition of the value of work experience is greatly welcome but unless we ensure that disabled students are looked after, we could be opening up a new area of exclusion. I try to avoid words like "disaster" or "tragedy", but it is something which should be avoided at all costs.
I said that I feel passionate about this. I hope that the issue is close to the hearts of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and that the response will be positive. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I support the amendment of the noble Baroness As she explained, work experience is an increasing part of student experience and it is very important that it is covered by the provisions of the Bill.
Baroness David: I, too, support the amendment. It is an important matter which we must have cleared up.
Baroness Blackstone: I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, has said: that work experience is increasingly important in higher education, and indeed, in further education. The Bill covers work experience, but does so indirectly. Perhaps I may explain.
If a student on work experience is in paid employment, then he is already covered by Part II of the DDA as an employee. But whether or not the student on work experience is paid, the institution providing the course is likely still to be providing services caught by the Bill in relation to the work placement, for example, by helping the student to organise the placement or because it set the rules that
CWH 276
a placement has to be part of a course. Those services will be caught by the very wide definition of services under the Bill, and education providers need to comply with their duties in how they carry out those services. The institution might have to consider helping to find a reasonable alternative placement, or altering a course to remove the requirement for a work placement.
We believe that is preferable to the approach set out in the amendment. A duty on employers in relation to work experience students whom they do not employ would introduce a new layer of complexity that some employers would find burdensome. That might discourage some of them from offering placements and reduce the supply of placements to all students, including those with disabilities. This approach places the responsibility on the institution to work with employers and students to ensure satisfactory experiences for disabled students.
In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken so briefly but in such strong support, and I thank the Minister for her reply. I am disappointed in it, but I want to go away and read it. As I understand it, the institution provider has an obligation, but the institution is powerless, once the student gets to the workplace, to ensure that it is carried out. I gave the Committee an example of the student whose class teacher did not have confidence in him and wrecked his career.
I will go back and consult SKILL. I hope that the Minister will be willing to talk to me and perhaps a member of SKILL before Report. I will also read carefully what she has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendments Nos. 187 to 189.
Page 33, line 2, leave out ("Chapter II of").
Page 33, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (1) of section 57 (aiding unlawful acts), for "act made unlawful by this Act" substitute "unlawful act".
( ) After subsection (5) of that section, insert—
"(6) "Unlawful act" means an act made unlawful by any provision of this Act other than a provision contained in Chapter I of Part IV."").
Page 33, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) In that section, after subsection (3), insert—
"(3A) For the purposes of Chapter I of Part IV—

(a) references in subsection (2) to B include references to—

(i) a person who is, for the purposes of that Chapter, B's parent; and

(ii) a sibling of B; and

(b) references in that subsection to this Act are, as respects a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii) of paragraph (a), restricted to that Chapter."").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Duty of Teacher Training Agency]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 190
Page 33, line 40, at end insert ("and in particular shall have regard to the needs of teachers in initial teacher training to understand and be prepared for the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and of Part IV of the Education Act 1996").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is deceptively simple on the face of it, but teacher training will be key to ensuring that education is inclusive and correct for all those who want it within the system.
The main problem with teacher training—and indeed with the entire education system when it comes to special educational needs and dealing with disabilities—is that the training tends to be after graduation and is work experience-based. Teachers do not receive SEN training until they are already qualified.
That is patently absurd on two grounds. The first is that we are now encouraging far greater inclusion. A teacher would expect to deal with students who have special educational needs or disabilities as a normal part of their professional experience. Providing initial training will mean that they are able to deal with it from the word go. That is surely sensible.
The other problem is that if every member of staff at least has some awareness and some ability to cope with the situation in the classroom, they will get away from the horrible paperchase that I referred to earlier, when they find out that someone has a disability and then wonder what to do. If the teacher knows early on, information on what not to do and where to go for assistance and specialist help can be worked into their entire training process. At least we will save ourselves many problems in the long term. The hidden disabilities are probably the best example of that.
The amendment makes total sense. Without it we will create only a half-full glass. People will still have to chase round and try to spot what is going on and get the right help. We will overload the specialist staff when the less acute problems might be dealt with by merely having some awareness within the classroom. I appreciate that this is calling for quite a radical change in the structure but I suggest that in the long term, this amendment, or something very like it, is the only practical answer. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to support what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said. Early identification is one of the key issues in this matter and the earlier difficulties can be picked up, the earlier intervention can take place. If it does not minimise it, certainly at one extreme it may even eliminate the need for special provision later on. Those of us who are parents all know how adept children are at masking what might be a sight impairment, a hearing impairment or dyslexia. They have all sorts of ways of compensating for what may later become a rather serious disability. It will be much better if, through their training, teachers become more aware of what to look for, how to test and how to pose the right questions. They can then alert the particular professionals who can come in
CWH 278
to provide the intervention which is needed. The sooner that happens, the better it will be. This is a very fruitful area for tackling some of the very real problems of special needs in our schools.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My noble friend Lord Rix, who has had to leave, has put his name to the amendment and feels very strongly about it.
Baroness Blackstone: The Government are very sympathetic with what lies behind the amendment because we recognise the importance of teachers being properly prepared to work with a full range of pupils. If they are not, so much that the Bill is intending to do will not be achieved. I also endorse entirely what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just said about the importance of early identification, because a great deal can be done if you can pick up problems that a child has early on and you can do so much to help that child deal with those problems so that he succeeds later.
Currently, student teachers wishing to attain qualified teacher status must be able to show that they are familiar with the requirements of the SEN code of practice; that they can identify pupils with SEN; and are clear where to go in order to secure appropriate help and support. Those requirements are reinforced through induction arrangements.
However, we are currently reviewing the initial teacher training requirements in England. The Teacher Training Agency has recently provided Ministers with initial advice on the review of Circular 4/98. That advice includes considering whether it is necessary to strengthen and update current requirements to reflect better recent legislation and special educational needs. I hope that will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
The TTA will submit a draft revised circular to Ministers in June 2001. The draft revised circular will then go out for formal consultation in the summer and there will, as there should be an opportunity for interested parties, including those in the field of special educational needs and disability, to give their views. The revised circular will be published in February 2002 to come into effect in September of that year.
I hope that, in light of these assurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington: That was an encouraging answer until one takes into account that teachers are already supposed to be trained in relation to those matters, and they quite obviously are not. I think a little healthy scepticism is required here. However, I accept the fact that that was a very helpfully meant reply but it is something that we shall continue to look at, because, despite efforts to the contrary, we have not got it right so far. With those provisos, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 191 not moved.]
Clause 40 [Expenses of Secretary of State]:
[Amendments Nos. 192 to 194 not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Short title, interpretation, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 195 to 197:
Page 34, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4A), this Act (apart from this section) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order.").
Page 34, line 28, leave out ("sections") and insert ("provisions").
Page 34, line 34, at end insert ("(and section 41(1) so far as relating to those provisions)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 34, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) The following sections of this Act come into force on 1st September 2002—

(a) section 13, and

(b) section 14.").

The noble Baroness said: The Special Educational Consortium makes a powerful case for bringing forward the planning duties in Clauses 13 and 14 to 1st September 2002. I have no doubt that if the consortium listened to the Minister earlier it might have been encouraged that a number of commencement dates are being brought forward in the Bill.
The planning duties recognise that schools and LEAs are currently in a wide range of different positions in respect of the degree of access afforded to pupils with a disability. The duties are designed to improve access for children with a disability, recognising the different starting points. There is therefore no specific baseline requirement and little that needs to be done by schools or LEAs before these duties come into force.
The DfEE would need to draw up regulations and guidance on the plans and on the strategies. This could reasonably be achieved in the time available. There needs to be time to advise schools and LEAs of their duties but these plans have not come out of the blue, as the Ministers have told us. The Government consulted on their proposals in March 2000 and there remain a good 18 months before the implementation date suggested in the amendment.
An implementation date of 1st September 2002 would not mean that all schools and LEAs would have to have a plan or strategy by then, but that from that date schools and LEAs would need to start developing their plans and strategies. It is difficult to imagine what the arguments against the proposal can be. When I was first approached about the amendment, I was sceptical about bringing it forward a year because I thought that the local authorities would need more time. I realise
CWH 280
now that it is a starting point to begin developing their plans and strategies and I believe it is eminently achievable. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: I briefly rise to say that in putting Amendment No. 198 there is no reason why the commencement date for the planning duties should not be brought forward a year to start in 2002.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps I may speak to my Amendment No. 202A. I seek to clarify for everyone's benefit that Part I and Clauses 13 and 14 do not extend to Scotland. I support that with four arguments. The first is a cheap one. I note that the Isles of Scilly merit the whole of Clause 38. If the Isles of Scilly merit a clause, Scotland should merit a subsection.
On a more serious basis, in the new context of legislation for Scotland, one of the first things I do on picking up a Bill is to turn to the last clause to find out whether it extends to Scotland, so I believe that this will be helpful.
To turn it round, what advantage is there in not having such a subsection? I cannot think of any. I suspect that I am wrong in my wording, in which case I am content to be told the correct answer, on a suitable promise. I refute any charge that such a subsection would alter the Bill or pose any threat to its successful introduction anywhere in Great Britain. Finally, it clarifies the way that the Scottish Parliament must deal with the issues contained in Clauses 13 and 14.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I appreciate the constructive way in which the amendment is being moved. It may be somewhat churlish to seem negative about what appear to be two straightforward amendments. However, they are not. To write the planning duty on to the face of the Bill would leave no flexibility whatsoever. I realise that that is the intent. It is certainly the intent of the Government that the planning duty should come into force in September 2002. However, to place that on the face of the Bill seems an unacceptable demand. That is particularly so as the amendment is defective. It will be recognised that it is not for this Bill to implement the starting date of the planning duty when the National Assembly for Wales also has responsibilities for determining the commencement in Wales. It is the intention of the Assembly to commence at the same time and we hope that that will prove the case. We accept the evidence put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, which indicates that people will be prepared and able to respond to this legislation once it becomes law. However, for reasons I have suggested, we are not prepared to put the provision on the face of the Bill although that is clearly the intent. I would not have referred, as I did, to other aspects of intent consequent upon this with regard to years 2003 and subsequently had I not been firmly of the conviction, and fully confident, that we shall see implementation of the planning duty in September 2002.

CWH 281
The other amendment also has defects. I make the most obvious point: that Clauses 13 and 14 impose duties only on bodies which exist in England and Wales, hence the additional reference to SENDA. It would, therefore, seem odd to introduce a specific amendment which identifies what is already abundantly clear in the Bill. I understand the intent behind the noble Earl's amendment but nothing could be clearer about where Clauses 13 and 14 apply. In a very real sense, therefore, his amendment is unnecessary.
Baroness Blatch: Did I hear correctly that the noble Lord's objection to my amendment was as regards placing the provision on the face of the Bill? I accept that totally. The amendment is put forward in order to elicit this debate from the Minister. Did the Minister say nevertheless that it would be the intention to implement the planning duty in 2002?
Lord Davies of Oldham: That is indeed what I said and exactly what I meant.
Baroness Blatch: Then I achieved my desired objective and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 199 to 202:
Page 34, line 38, at end insert—
("(4A) The following provisions come into force as respects Wales on such day as the National Assembly for Wales may appoint by order—

(a) sections 1 to 3;

(b) sections 7 and 8;

(c) section 9 (so far as not brought into force by subsection (3)):

(d) sections 13 and 14;

(e) section 21, so far as it gives the National Assembly for Wales power to give directions under section 28M(1) or (1B) of the 1995 Act or makes provision in relation to such a direction;

(f) subsections (1) and (6) of section 41 (but only in so far as they relate to the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (g) to (i));

(g) in Part I of Schedule 7—

(i) paragraphs 1, 5, 13 and 14; and

paragraphs 6 to 12 and 16 (so far as not brought into force by subsection (3));

(h) in Part 11 of that Schedule, paragraphs 17 to 19; and

(i) in Schedule 8, the entries relating to—

(i) the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and

(ii) section 325(1) of, and Schedule 27 to, the Education Act 1996.").

Page 34, line 39, leave out subsection (5).
CWH 282
Page 35, line 3, leave out ("subsection (5)") insert ("this section—

(a) must be made by statutory instrument; and

(b)")

Page 35, line 4, at end insert—
("(7A) Subsection (7B) applies to an order bringing any provision made by—

(a) section 27, or

(b) paragraph 2 or 6 of Schedule 4, into force.

(7B) The order may, in particular, include provision for the duty imposed by section 28T(1) of the 1995 Act to have effect with such modifications as may be specified in the order for a period which ends—

(a) on a date so specified; or

(b) on the making by the Secretary of State of an order made by statutory instrument bringing the period to an end.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 202A not moved.]
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Responsible bodies for schools]:
[Amendments Nos. 203 to 205 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendment of Schedule 3 to the 1995 Act]:
[Amendments Nos. 206 to 213 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Responsible Bodies for Educational Institutions]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 214:
Schedule 3, page 39, line 19, leave out ("section") and insert ("sector").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Modifications of Chapter II of Part IV of the 1995 Act]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 215 and 216:
Schedule 4, page 40, line 41, leave out ("terms on") and insert ("services").
Schedule 4, page 40, line 42, after ("provide-) insert—
("( ) "Services", in relation to a course, means").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 217 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 218 and 219:
Schedule 4, page 42, line 16, leave out ("terms on") and insert ("services").
Schedule 4, page 42, line 16, after second ("provide") insert—
("( ) "Services", in relation to a course, means").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 5 and 6 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
[Amendment No. 220 not moved.]
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): That concludes the Committee's proceedings on the Bill.
The Committee adjourned at seven minutes before eight o'clock.

  Protocol on the Position of the UK and Ireland
  Protocol on the Position of the UK and Ireland
  National Asylum Support Service
  National Asylum Support Service
  Asylum Seekers Detained in Prison: Language Facilities
  Asylum Seekers Detained in Prison: Language Facilities
  Air Weapons: Permit Requirement
  Air Weapons: Permit Requirement
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Casework Programme
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Casework Programme
  Clandestine Entrants: Rail Freight Regulations
  Clandestine Entrants: Rail Freight Regulations
  CCFs
  CCFs
  Health Food Products: EU Labelling Proposals
  Health Food Products: EU Labelling Proposals
  Milk Imports from France
  Milk Imports from France
  GM Farm-scale Evaluations
  GM Farm-scale Evaluations